Dear friends,
There are so many ways I could go with today’s title on this third anniversary of a debacle. On the subject of January 6, I recommend these two superb pieces:
Read Jamelle Bouie’s “If Trump Is Not an Insurrectionist, What Is He?” and Gerard N. Magliocca’s “What the Supreme Court Should Not Do in Trump’s Disqualification Case.”
Both pieces delve into the political consequences of keeping Trump off the ballot. For Bouie, there is little question that Trump is an insurrectionist and that the language of the Fourteenth Amendment disqualifies him.
Magliocca points out that
Unlike other constitutional provisions, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment draws a sharp line between law and politics.
He explains that the political remedy provided by the Fourteenth Amendment is that Congress can vote to grant Trump amnesty. He further explores why no one wants to discuss why it should be up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to decide Trump’s fate:
[I]t would require Mr. Trump’s friends and foes to face some uncomfortable truths. Republicans would have to admit that their leader committed a grave constitutional wrong and can serve in office again only if Congress lets him out of the penalty box. Democrats would have to admit that they want the former president to get a special privilege from the law and would need to vote for that gift.
Because such a vote would require a two-thirds vote in both houses, it almost certainly would not carry. [I no longer say that something ‘would never’ occur.]
Should it come to a vote, I expect Jamie Raskin to explain to his colleagues why it makes no sense to grant amnesty to someone who not only shows no remorse for his actions, but is almost certain to contest any election result that doesn’t favor him with every means at his disposal — both legal and illegal.
Magliocca states that it is the Supreme Court’s job is to tell us what the language of the amendment says, while making a strong case that it is not their proper role to give Trump a pass.
Disqualifying Trump is not a dangerous precedent. He is an extraordinary figure who has stepped far out of the bounds of normal political discourse and behavior. Extraordinary measures are called for to deal with such a figure.
Read this piece about the significance of Trump’s promise to pardon all of the January 6 insurrectionists if he is elected.
There is so much going on — locally, nationally, and internationally — that it’s hard to know where to look.
I’m going to select a few items that may not make it through the noise.
Jackson recognizes that the partisan mapmaking in his state is symptomatic of broader efforts to take power away from voters.
In his October announcement, he used pointed language:
"I've officially been drawn out of my congressional district by a small group of politicians," Jackson said. "It's blatant corruption, but I've got news for them: I'm running for attorney general, and I'm going to use that job to fight political corruption."
There’s a reason that young people — and lots of the rest of us — favor statewide referenda and other opportunities to bypass nefarious political scheming posing as representative government.
North Carolina is a purple state. It’s going to be a close election.
You can support Jeff Jackson’s run for Attorney General of North Carolina.
Here’s a hyperlocal example of inauthentic representative democracy: The president of the United Federation of Teachers in New York, initiated a lawsuit to stop congestion pricing.
The suit claims that congestion pricing “would inflict environmental and economic damage on already challenged neighborhoods.”
There are tons of good economic defenses of congestion pricing. This one emphasizes the reasonable expectation that people pay more for using roads when demand is higher:
The standard rap against congestion pricing is that it will harm the poor and working class. New York’s blue-ribbon panel dealt with that in part by proposing a 50 percent discount — open to people with household incomes under $50,000 — on the daytime auto toll after the first 10 trips made by a vehicle in a calendar month. That’s likely to be a small number of people, since the panel estimates that only 1 percent of people who drive to work in the congestion zone have incomes that low.
It is important to protect frontline communities which suffer the most from the noise and particulate pollution that result from traffic congestion. This is another reason why the MTA should consider free subway service during year one of congestion pricing.
The suit also states that the decision to go forward with congestion pricing was
“reached only after a rushed and hurried process that violated the comprehensive review requirements that a federal agency must take under federal law and which further results in a regressive and discriminatory pricing scheme.”
This spurious claim ignores the fact that a 4000-page environmental assessment was completed before the city, state, and federal governments approved the policy over a four-year period.
If you are a UFT member, please contact Mike Mulgrew to let him know your feelings about the lawsuit against congestion pricing initiated in your name.
For me, my identity as a union member is similar to nationality: it carries with it a responsibility to be a thoughtful and outspoken critic when the larger group strays from the democratic principles that were the basis of its formation.
with love,
L