Prevent Abuse by the Senate Majority Leader

September 27, 2019 at 8:13 pm | Posted in Abuse of Office, Conceited, Dysfunctional Politics, Enemies of Freedom, Fairness | Leave a comment
Tags: , ,

Mitch McConnell at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. Photo by Gage Skidmore.

Mitch McConnell at the 2014 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. Photo by Gage Skidmore.  (For more imformation see Post 141 in theploblog’s index of posts.)


Mitch McConnell abuses his position as the Majority Leader of the Senate.

Mitch McConnell has declared himself to be the Senate’s Grim Reaper, a position not forseen in the Constitution.

He has declared that the Senate shall not even consider any bill that the President wouldn’t sign, thereby rendering empty the Constitution’s provision for Congress to overturn a Presidential veto – a central ingredient of the Constitution’s mandating of checks and balances, including Comgressional oversight of the Executive.

McConnell has unilaterally declared that no nomination by a President will be considered during that President’s last year, if that President was from the opposing party. He sneered that no such restriction would apply to a similar nomination by a President belonging to McConnell’s own party.

McConnell has obstructed efforts to protect the integrity of American elections.

McConnell has obstructed efforts to prevent sensible limitations on access to weapons that enable mass killings, despite the large majority of Americans that now favor such limitations.

The Senate Majority leader has too much power.

The writers of the Constitution never foresaw the possibility of this type of abuse of power by a Senator, and certainly wouldn’t have wanted it to occur.

Either the rules of the Senate must be changed to prevent this sort of abuse, or the Constitution must be amended to do so.

The rule should be that within 10 days of receiving a bill passed by the House or a nomination from the President, the whole availible body of the Senate shall vote on whether to have debates and a vote to approve or to disapprove the bill from the House, or the nomination by the President. This first vote does not require the Senators to have studied the prospective bill or candidate: they need only to have a rough sense of what the bill is about, or a rough sense of the nominee’s background. If at least 40% of the Senate votes to debate and then vote upon the House bill or on the Presidential nomination, the debate and the legally-binding vote shall occur in a timely fashion. Those who voted for the debate and the binding vote shall schedule the date for the binding vote, allowing adequate time for Senators to scrutinize the bill or to interview the candidate. The Majority Leader of the Senate shall have no special role in setting that date, and may participate in setting that date only if having voted for the debate and binding vote to occur.

Most of the procedures in a legislative body should be independent of which party currently dominates the membership of that body. Of course the outcomes of many of votes will be determined by the majority. But not all outcomes will ne determined that way: legislators have the right to not always vote the party line. McConnell’s rule takes away some of that freedom of conscience, and assumes that all voting will be by unchanging blocks.

Mitch McConnell has chosen to become one of the major villains in American history.


Was Donald Trump Born in the US?

June 25, 2015 at 12:31 pm | Posted in Conceited, Disinformation, Enemies of Freedom, Enemies of Planet Earth, Global warming, Presidential election | 5 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Trump Sr. at Citizens United Freedom Summit in Greenville South Carolina May 2015, photo by Michael Vadon.

Trump Sr. at Citizens United Freedom Summit in Greenville South Carolina May 2015, photo by Michael Vadon.

Donald Trump recently announced that he is running to become the next President.

This is the same Donald Trump who refused to accept the abundant evidence that Barack Obama was born in the US, and that Obama’s Presidency was therefore legitimate according to paragraph 5 of Section 1 of Article II of the Constitution of the United states of America.

This is the same Donald Trump who insisted that President Obama publish a validated copy of his birth certificate.

Billboard challenging the validity of Barack Obama's birth certificate. The billboard is located in South Gate, and photo was taken on November 12, 2010.

Billboard challenging the validity of Barack Obama’s birth certificate. The billboard is located in South Gate, and photo was taken on November 12, 2010.

Barack Obama's long form birth certificate, from the State of Hawaii Department of Health

Barack Obama’s long form birth certificate, from the State of Hawaii Department of Health.

This is the same Donald Trump who wasted so much of his own time and attention, and that of the public, by being the last prominent ‘birther’ to refuse to accept the abundant solid evidence about the place of Obama’s birth. This is the same Donald Trump who ensured that time and energy and newsprint and bandwidth would continue to be wasted on what was generally acknowledged to be a refuted claim.

This is the same Donald Trump who selected himself to stand in the schoolhouse door, in what everyone knew would be a futile attempt to block Obama’s path.

Is this Donald Trump eligible to be President?

Is the energy and time – his own and the public’s – that Trump expended on this silly charade, an indication of how he would allocate his attention and the nation’s resources, if he became President?

He was smart enough to know that it was a charade, wasn’t he?

If he did, then his wasting of our time and energy was so egregious that it was unpatriotic.
If he didn’t, then he is unfit to be an executive of anything.

I cannot believe that he was stupid enough to fall for the birther wishful thinking.

Therefore he had chosen self-promotion over the welfare of the country.

That is unpatriotic enough to make us wonder, was Donald Trump born in the USA?

At Trump’s every campaign appearance, demand to see his birth certificate.

Demand that he publish a certified copy.

—————————————–Trump’s Approval of Putin

Michael Gerson recently reviewed lesser known aspects of Trump’s political history.

The review contained a bombshell: Donald Trump’s approval of Putin, the most destructive tyrant of Russia since Stalin. Gerson’s column says of Trump:

The defects of democracy, in this view, are remedied by the strongman. It is not a coincidence that Trump expresses admiration for Vladimir Putin. “He’s doing a great job,” says Trump, “in rebuilding the image of Russia and also rebuilding Russia, period.”

Official portrait of Vladimir Putin (2006). This file comes from the website of the President of the Russian Federation and is copyrighted.

Official portrait of Vladimir Putin (2006). This file comes from the website of the President of the Russian Federation and is copyrighted.

Putin: the person who derailed Russia’s transition to becoming a fair and open society, governed by the rule of law, instead of by the convenience of a mafia.

Putin: the mugger who robbed Crimea from Ukraine because Ukraine had overturned Putin’s protogee Viktor Yanukovych. Putin: who subsequently manufactured a surprisingly well equipped military separatist movement in eastern Ukraine that has triggered a new cold war.

Somehow Trump forgot to mention his admiration of Putin while announcing his candidacy.

After all, the voters deserve to know about each candidate’s role models.

Is someone who approves of Putin fit to be President?

At Trump’s every campaign appearance, ask him about his approval of Putin.

At every interview, ask Trump about his approval of Putin.

Donald Trump:


A birther, who wasted everyone’s time by pretending that a dead issue was still alive, solely to draw attention to himself.

An admirer of Vladimir Putin’s approach to governing.

This post can be summarized in three words: Trump Tramples Truth!

Your comments are welcome.
If you wish to comment on this post but do not see a box where you can submit a comment, that is because WordPress includes the mechanism for commenting only on the page for the individual posting, never on the page that shows all of the recent postings. So click here, scroll to the bottom of the post, and submit your comment.

Mr Belly Button and the Green Party re: Citizens United

August 19, 2012 at 8:08 pm | Posted in Conceited, Judicial Misjudgment | 3 Comments
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On January 20, 2012, I participated in a demonstration in a small park that faces the Supreme Court.  The demonstration decried the Court’s absurd decision in the Citizens United case.

Citizens United is the case that ignored the fact that corporations are purely legal entities, created solely to shield their executives and board members from personal legal liability for the corporation’s actions, and – secondarily – to obtain favorable tax treatment.  They are not political entities, and their political preferences are certainly not independent of the private political preferences of their executives and board, effectively magnifying the personal influence of those individuals on the outcome of the election.

The Court’s decision favored plutocracy and oligarchy over democracy.  It did so because that is what Chief Justice Roberts and his cronies, like Willard Mitt Romney and his cronies, really believe in.  True to its purpose, the decision spawned the sudden appearance of the super-PACs, with their hidden, very rich donors.

The Court’s decision also spawned efforts to enact a Constitutional amendment that would overturn the Court’s decision.  The demonstration I attended was in support of such efforts.  It was organized by a group that I had never heard of before: Move to Amend.

Those participating in the demonstration were diverse, and included many who, like me, had no connection to the organizers.  Some of the participants were from the Occupy movement.  It was the first time that I had personally encountered any.

The demonstration was in the morning, and during the demonstration the organizers issued an invitation to an open discussion that afternoon about what could be done next.  The discussion was held in a building adjacent to the Supreme Court.  I attended.

The meeting was led by one of the main organizers of the morning’s demonstration.  I will call him Mr. Belly Button, because he was impressed by the fact that every human had a belly button, and no corporation did.  He insisted on showing his to all assembled.

Mr. Belly Button announced that he would next show us Move To Amend‘s proposed amendment to the Constitution.  He said that he was eager for discussion and comments, but that they would not result in any changes of wording.  The wording was already fixed, unchangeable.

Move to Amend‘s proposed amendment is good.  But before the meeting I had come across another proposed amendment, S. J. Res 29, that was more general, and covered aspects of the problem that were not covered by Move to Amend‘s version.  The inability to influence the wording of Move to Amend‘s  proposed amendment made it pointless to raise this issue.  That was a loss for the whole effort to obtain an amendment that would fix the Citizens United decision, and related prior decisions by the Court.

(S.J. Res 29 was proposed by Senators Udall (New Mexico), Bennet (Colorado), Harkin (Iowa), Durbin (Illinois), Schumer (New York), Merkley (Oregon), Whitehouse (Rhode Island), Begich (Alaska), and Shaheen (New Hampshire).)

Because the wording of the proposed amendment was fixed, the focus of the discussion became what to do next.

One particularly self-esteeming gentleman from Atlanta said that eventually the whole Constitution should be rewritten, because those who wrote it were not representative, and included slave-holders.

That is important enough to require some comments.

The barons who imposed the Magna Carta on the King of England were not at all egalitarian.  They were not elected by the adult population that would be affected by their action.  So by the logic of the gentleman from Atlanta, England should now revise the Magna Carta.

To embark on rewriting the Constitution from scratch would ignore the law of unintended consequences, the twistiness and contingence of historical branching, all of which result from the complexity of human society.  Rewriting the Constitution in one fell swoop would be extraordinarily foolhardy.  But neither Mr Belly Button nor any other of the dominant voices at the meeting blanched or voiced any objection.  They even hinted at favoring an eventual complete rewriting of the Constitution.

Any system of government that works fairly well should be changed only incrementally, testing the results of each small step before going on to the next change.  The evolution should resemble biological evolution during an interval that contains no planetary-scale geological or astronomical catastrophes.

That applies also to Paul Ryan’s goal of sweepingly reorganizing and rescoping the government, which underlies and goes far beyond his proposed budget.

It is worth noting some aspects of those in attendance.

Move to Amend appeared to me to be a fixed group of individuals who moved opportunistically from issue to issue.  I got the impression they waited for the emergence of the next new issue that they could ride, and changed the name of their group accordingly.  Most or all of the organizers seemed to be leading activists in the US Green Party.

As far as I could glimpse their underlying agenda, it seemed pretentious and grandiose.  Fortunately, because the group regarded pragmatism as synonymous with impurity, their agenda is unlikely to ever be implemented, or even to contribute to policies implemented by others.

As noted earlier, the audience was much more diverse than the organizers.  Many were practical and non-doctrinaire.  In particular, I was very favorably impressed by those from the Occupy movement.  They had thought long and hard about the issues.  That was understandable, in view of the personal sacrifices they were making.  Unlike the organizers, those from the Occupy movement were very focused on the effectiveness of proposed actions and policies.

Another organization, Public Citizen (URL1, URL2) is partnering with Move to Amend to promote Move to Amend‘s proposed amendment to the Constitution.  Public Citizen is presently trying to encourage people to push for the amendment right now.  That is a big mistake.  This is the wrong time, even though the deformation to the electopral process that has been wrought by the Citizens United decision is presently in full view.  The politically aware portion of the citizenry are and will be focused exclusively on the election until it is over.  For the moment, talking about Citizens United is a waste of time, money and energy, and will detract from the attention that activists are willing to give to the issue after the election.

Blog at
Entries and comments feeds.