USA 2024 Elections Thread

[grarpamp]

Even Anti-Trumpers admit the wrongness and severe problems
of ever starting the ongoing Anti-Trump epic.


"Get Trump!" Damn The Constitution

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18827/get-trump-constitution

    Many of my friends on the left fear [Trumpism] as much as many on
the right feared Communism in the 1950s. And they may have a point.
But not enough of a point to destroy a century of progress in civil
liberties, free speech, due process, and the rule of law.

    Articles are now frequently appearing in the mainstream media
demanding compromises with important rights in the name of "Getting
Trump."

    My former colleague Laurence Tribe, who taught constitutional law
for half a century now seems willing to weaponize the Constitution to
serve his partisan end of "Getting Trump." Incredibly, he has
advocated prosecuting Trump for the "attempted murder" of former Vice
President Pence. To do so would require retroactively and
unconstitutionally expanding the law of attempts to fit Trump's
ill-advised actions and inactions with regard to Pence. But apparently
that doesn't matter to Tribe and his followers who care more about
achieving their "noble" ends than they do about the ignoble means they
are willing to employ.

    The ACLU, which has long objected to the overuse of search
warrants instead of subpoenas, is silent about the search of
Mar-a-Lago. As long as the goal is to get Trump, anything goes
including hypocrisy, inconstancy and unconstitutionality.

    I would give everyone "the benefit of law," but not only "for my
own safety's sake," but for the sake of future generations. Once the
Constitution and civil liberties are "cut down" it is difficult to
regrow them and the "winds that would blow them" might prevent us from
"standing upright" against new tyrannies from the extreme left and
right.

    This important right [to vote ] should not be taken away by
unconstitutional means, even if the result were to be the unlikely
re-election of Trump. That is the price of democracy.

There is a movement afoot to "Get Trump," at any cost.

The goal is to prevent him from running in 2024. Many in this movement
are willing to use any means to attain what they believe to be a
necessary and admirable goal.

"Democracy is at stake," they claim. They are prepared to sacrifice
constitutional rights, civil liberties, principles and the rule of law
to stop Trump.

This is a familiar argument to me. I fought against it in the 1950s,
when decent people who believed that Communism was a grave danger to
democracy were willing to trample on the Constitutional rights of
alleged communists and fellow travelers in order to prevent them from
destroying our democracy.

Although back then the fear was more exaggerated than it may be now,
there was genuine concern about the increasing influence of communism
throughout the world. The Soviet Union controlled all of Eastern
Europe and was making inroads in central Europe and Latin America.
Communists controlled China. Khrushchev boasted "We will bury you."
There was concern, albeit exaggerated, about the influence of
Communism in the American media, academia, and government
bureaucracies. McCarthyism was intended to rout out these Communists
and to prevent the spread of their anti-Democratic agenda.
McCarthyites, and even some moderates, were prepared to trash the
Constitution in order to achieve what they regarded as a noble
pro-democracy goal.

Today the fear is Trumpism. Many of my friends on the left fear it as
much as many on the right feared Communism in the 1950s. And they may
have a point. But not enough of a point to destroy a century of
progress in civil liberties, free speech, due process, and the rule of
law. Articles are now frequently appearing in the mainstream media
demanding compromises with important rights in the name of "Getting
Trump." Sam Harris essentially said he was willing to break democracy
to save democracy. His dangerous words speak for the actions of many
on the hard left. My former colleague Laurence Tribe, who taught
constitutional law for half a century now seems willing to weaponize
the Constitution to serve his partisan end of "Getting Trump."
Incredibly, he has advocated prosecuting Trump for the "attempted
murder" of former Vice President Pence. To do so would require
retroactively and unconstitutionally expanding the law of attempts to
fit Trump's ill-advised actions and inactions with regard to Pence.
But apparently that doesn't matter to Tribe and his followers who care
more about achieving their "noble" ends than they do about the ignoble
means they are willing to employ.

Leftists who railed against the breadth of the Espionage Act of 1917
now want to expand it to cover Trumps alleged misconduct. The ACLU,
which has long objected to the overuse of search warrants instead of
subpoenas, is silent about the search of Mar-a-Lago. As long as the
goal is to get Trump, anything goes including hypocrisy, inconstancy
and unconstitutionality.

A scene from the film "A Man for All Seasons" well illustrates the
current debate:

    William Roper: "So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!"

    Sir Thomas More: "Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through
the law to get after the Devil?"

    William Roper: "Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!"

    Sir Thomas More: "Oh? And when the last law was down, and the
Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all
being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to
coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're
just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in
the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of
law, for my own safety's sake!"

Today on the left, there are more Ropers than Mores. Today's devil is
Trump, and today's Ropers are willing to "cut a great road through the
law to get after [today's] devil." Like More, I would give everyone
"the benefit of law," but not only "for my own safety's sake," but for
the sake of future generations. Once the Constitution and civil
liberties are "cut down" it is difficult to regrow them and the "winds
that would blow them" might prevent us from "standing upright" against
new tyrannies from the extreme left and right.