DEMOCRACY FAIL-SAFE: THE POWER OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

If Trump wins the electoral vote, how do we save democracy?

The United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, outlines the framework of our government and enshrines the fundamental rights and responsibilities that guide our nation. Among its various provisions, Amendment 14, Section 3 holds particular significance in maintaining the integrity of our democracy. This provision, part of the post-Civil War amendments, was designed to prevent those who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States from holding public office. Given its importance, it is crucial to understand how this section can and should be enforced by the Executive branch, headed by the President.

The Executive Branch’s Primary Function: Law Enforcement

The primary function of the Executive branch is to enforce all laws, including the Constitution. As the head of this branch, the President is entrusted with the duty to ensure that the laws of the United States are faithfully executed. This mandate is not selective; it encompasses all laws, from the most frequently invoked statutes to the foundational tenets of the Constitution itself.

Amendment 14, Section 3: A Safeguard for Democracy

Amendment 14, Section 3 of the Constitution states that no person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfort to its enemies shall hold any civil or military office under the United States or any state. This provision was enacted to protect the government from those seeking to undermine it from within. It serves as a critical safeguard, ensuring that individuals who have demonstrated a willingness to act against the nation’s interests cannot assume positions of power and influence.

The President’s Role in Enforcing Amendment 14, Section 3

The enforcement of Amendment 14, Section 3 falls squarely within the Executive branch's purview. The President, supported by the Department of Justice and other federal agencies, has the authority and the responsibility to interpret and apply this constitutional provision. Historically, the Executive branch has enforced various parts of the Constitution through executive orders, judicial appointments, and administrative actions, demonstrating its capability to uphold constitutional mandates.

Current Context and Enforcement Mechanisms

In today's existential threat of fascism and dictatorship, who is in a position to provide the failsafe for democracy? President Biden. No additional authorization or legislative action is required for the President to act. He can and must take direct measures to ensure that individuals who violate this provision are barred from holding public office. This may involve directing federal agencies to identify and disqualify individuals who have engaged in insurrection or rebellion, ensuring compliance with the constitutional mandate.

The Supreme Court Colorado Opinion Is Wrong

In the context of Colorado enforcing Amendment 14, Section 3, the Supreme Court did not recognize the power of the Executive Branch for obvious, although varied, reasons. The Supreme Court opinion should be ignored for reasons we addressed in our proposal to disqualify Trump. https://wspriggs2.blogspot.com/2024/05/in-further-defense-of-proposal-to-deny.html

Reminding the Public of the Executive’s Constitutional Role

Reminding the public of the Executive branch’s role in enforcing the Constitution is essential. This includes educating citizens about the President’s duty to uphold all constitutional provisions, not just those that are convenient or politically advantageous. By reinforcing this understanding, we strengthen the public’s expectation that the Executive will act according to its constitutional responsibilities, including enforcing Amendment 14, Section 3.

Conclusion

As the head of the Executive branch, President Biden has the authority and the obligation to enforce Amendment 14, Section 3 of the Constitution. This responsibility is a fundamental aspect of his role in ensuring that all laws, including the highest law of the land, are faithfully executed. By doing so, he upholds the integrity of our democratic system and protects the nation from internal threats. It is a crucial reminder that the Constitution is not a set of suggestions, but a binding framework that governs our country, and the President must ensure its enforcement.

 

THE WAR FOR DEMOCRACY: A CALL TO ACTION

 The War for Democracy: A Call to Action

America stands at a crossroads. The upcoming November election is not just about choosing the next president; it is about deciding the fate of our democracy. The stakes could not be higher. We face a stark choice: continue as a beacon of democratic values or allow the forces of anarchism, despotism, oligarchy, and dictatorship to dismantle our Constitution and turn our nation into an oligarchy.

This is no exaggeration. The intentions of those who seek to undermine our democracy have been made abundantly clear. The so-called "Trump machine" has shown its hand, and the choice before us is as straightforward as it is urgent. Our form of government, the essence of our nation, is the issue on the ballot this November.

The threat we face is not hypothetical; it is accurate and present. Insurrectionists, terrorists, fascists, and despots are mobilizing to tear apart the fabric of our democracy. They seek to overturn the principles that generations of Americans have fought and died to defend. We honor those who made the ultimate sacrifice, and we must now rise to protect the values they uphold.

I am one of those who have offered my life for the cause of democracy. As a veteran and a federal official, I took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. This oath is a lifetime commitment shared by all who have served in our military and government.

The truth is that Donald Trump is ineligible to be President. His actions have shown a disregard for the rule of law and democratic norms. It is imperative that President Biden, who has the power and responsibility to protect our democracy, take decisive action to ensure that Trump does not get near the White House again.

President Biden must use every tool to safeguard our democratic institutions and honor the sacrifices of the brave men and women who sustained us. This is a moment of truth for our nation; we cannot afford to be complacent.

We are at war for our country's soul. This is a call to action for every American who believes in democracy. We must unite against those who seek to destroy what we have built. 

What You Can Do:

1. Vote: The most powerful tool we have to defend our democracy is our vote—every single vote counts. Make sure you are registered and plan to vote in November. Encourage your friends, family, and community to do the same.
2. Support the Proposal: If Trump wins the electoral vote, President Biden must declare him ineligible to be President. My article, In Further Defense of the Proposal to Deny Trump the Presidency, outlines this proposal in detail. We must rally behind this proposal and ensure it is implemented to protect our nation.

Our future depends on it. Stand up, speak out, and take action. Together, we can unwaveringly defend our Constitution, democracy, and way of life.

Our democracy is on the line. Please support our proposal or propose a different solution.

Our proposal https://wspriggs2.blogspot.com/2024/05/in-further-defense-of-proposal-to-deny.html

 

William J. Spriggs

 

WHY A LOW LIFE CAN BE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

Not how, why? Thom Hartman has a lengthy description of Trump as the lowest of the lowest human beings on the planet. Why, then, do half of Americans vote for him? 

Nearly all white people who were reared Republican will vote for the person with the R by their name, no matter what. Any Republican candidate is better than any democrat candidate. Especially as one grows older.

Many young people are fighting mad. They want theirs, and they want yours. Trump is their kind of radical. Burn it down if you have to. Just do it so we can make more money. What is it? Take yours. I've got mine, and Trump will protect mine and help me get yours.

The educational system has failed the majority for 60 years (or more). There has been a race to the lowest level of learning. Civics, citizenship, government, and contemporary and Civil War history are not taught consistently.

Instead of books being read, they are burned. In an era of knowledge explosion, religion teaches the need to read only one book, but no reading is required. The dumbing down of America is complete. American devolution has returned us to slavery. We have become an oligarchy, soon to fall to Theocracy.

Finally, the most insidious group of all, the evangelicals. They are not Christians. How can a Christian abandon morality and side with an amoral, convicted criminal? They are true cult followers being led to the slaughter. Many of them are stupid, the latest incurable pandemic.

 

The Brown Shirts and the Red Ties: A Comparative Analysis and a Stark Warning

The Brown Shirts and the Red Ties: A Comparative Analysis and a Stark Warning

In the annals of history, the rise of authoritarian leaders often comes with a devoted following that plays a critical role in their ascent to power. Two such leaders, Adolf Hitler, and Donald Trump, though separated by nearly a century and vastly different historical contexts, have been supported by distinctive groups worth examining. Hitler had his brown-shirted Sturmabteilung (SA), while Trump has his supporters, often visually unified by their red "Make America Great Again" hats and ties. This article delves into the similarities and differences between these two groups, providing a nuanced analysis of their origins, ideologies, and impacts. It also serves as a stark warning about the intentions announced by some within the MAGA movement to transform American democracy into a dictatorship.

Origins and Recruitment

The Brown Shirts: The SA, also known as the Brown Shirts was formed in the early 1920s as a paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Comprising mainly of World War I veterans, unemployed men, and disillusioned youth, the SA sought to provide a sense of purpose and camaraderie amidst post-World War I Germany's economic and social turmoil. Their brown uniforms were chosen for their affordability and availability from surplus military supplies.

The Red Ties: Trump's followers, often identified by their red MAGA hats, stem from a broad coalition of conservative, rural, and working-class Americans who felt marginalized by the political establishment. Unlike the SA, Trump's base is not a formal organization but a grassroots movement energized by Trump's rhetoric and promises to "drain the swamp" and restore American greatness. While not an official uniform, the red tie became a symbolic accessory often associated with Trump's brand. Recently, however, elements within this movement have escalated their rhetoric, openly advocating for a shift from democracy to a more authoritarian regime.

Ideological Underpinnings

The Brown Shirts: The SA espoused the radical nationalist and anti-Semitic ideology of the Nazi Party. They were instrumental in spreading Nazi propaganda, intimidating political opponents, and fostering a culture of fear and violence. The Brown Shirts viewed themselves as soldiers fighting for a racially pure and powerful Germany, and their actions were marked by brutality and a willingness to use force to achieve their goals.

The Red Ties: Trump's supporters are united by a populist ideology emphasizing nationalism, economic protectionism, and a rejection of political correctness. While not inherently violent, some segments have engaged in aggressive rhetoric and actions, particularly during rallies and protests. The movement is characterized by a deep distrust of mainstream media, government institutions, and perceived elites, echoing a sentiment of reclaiming power for the "forgotten" Americans. Disturbingly, recent declarations by some within this group have signaled an intention to dismantle democratic norms and install an authoritarian government, raising alarms about the future of American democracy.

Methods and Impact

The Brown Shirts: The SA played a crucial role in Hitler's rise to power by destabilizing the Weimar Republic and silencing opposition through violence and intimidation. Their street battles with communists and other adversaries created an atmosphere of chaos that the Nazis capitalized on to justify their authoritarian measures. However, their power was curtailed in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, when Hitler purged the SA leadership to consolidate his control over the Nazi regime.

The Red Ties: Trump's followers have been significant in American politics, particularly during the 2016 and 2020 elections. Their rallies and social media presence have amplified Trump's message and pressured Republican lawmakers to align with his agenda. The movement's impact was most dramatically illustrated by the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, when a faction of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building, challenging the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. This event highlighted the potential for political rhetoric to incite unrest and the deep divisions within American society. More recently, the explicit calls from some MAGA followers to overturn democratic institutions in favor of dictatorship represent a dire threat to the principles upon which the United States was founded.

Conclusion

While the historical and political contexts of Hitler's Brown Shirts and Trump's Red Ties differ significantly, both groups share commonalities in their fervent support for their respective leaders and their roles in shaping political landscapes. The Brown Shirts were a disciplined, militaristic force that facilitated Hitler's totalitarian regime through violence and intimidation. In contrast, Trump's followers represent a populist movement driven by disenfranchisement and a desire to upend the status quo.

Understanding these parallels and distinctions is crucial for comprehending the dynamics of political movements and the factors that can lead to the rise of authoritarianism. The recent developments within the MAGA movement, including calls for dictatorship, should serve as a grave warning. While history does not repeat itself exactly, it often rhymes, and the lessons gleaned from these comparisons can help us navigate and respond to contemporary political challenges. Preserving democracy requires vigilance, awareness, and a commitment to upholding the values of freedom and justice.

 

BROWN SHIRTS AND RED TIES

 The Brown Shirts and the Red Ties

In the annals of history, the rise of authoritarian leaders often comes with a devoted following that plays a critical role in their ascent to power. Two such leaders, Adolf Hitler and Donald Trump, though separated by nearly a century and vastly different historical contexts, have been supported by distinctive groups that are worth examining. Hitler had his brown-shirted Sturmabteilung (SA), while Trump has his supporters, often visually unified by their red "Make America Great Again" hats and ties. This article delves into the similarities and differences between these two groups, providing a nuanced analysis of their origins, ideologies, and impacts.

Origins and Recruitment

The Brown Shirts: The SA, also known as the Brown Shirts was formed in the early 1920s as a paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Comprising largely of World War I veterans, unemployed men, and disillusioned youth, the SA sought to provide a sense of purpose and camaraderie amidst post-World War I Germany's economic and social turmoil. Their brown uniforms were chosen for their affordability and availability from surplus military supplies.

The Red Ties: Trump's followers, often identified by their red MAGA hats, stem from a broad coalition of conservative, rural, and working-class Americans who felt marginalized by the political establishment. Unlike the SA, Trump's base is not a formal organization but a grassroots movement energized by Trump's rhetoric and promises to "drain the swamp" and restore American greatness. While not an official uniform, the red tie became a symbolic accessory often associated with Trump's brand.

Ideological Underpinnings

The Brown Shirts: The SA espoused the radical nationalist and anti-Semitic ideology of the Nazi Party. They were instrumental in spreading Nazi propaganda, intimidating political opponents, and fostering a culture of fear and violence. The Brown Shirts viewed themselves as soldiers fighting for a racially pure and powerful Germany, and their actions were marked by brutality and a willingness to use force to achieve their goals.

The Red Ties: Trump's supporters are united by a populist ideology emphasizing nationalism, economic protectionism, and a rejection of political correctness. While not inherently violent, some segments have engaged in aggressive rhetoric and actions, particularly during rallies and protests. The movement is characterized by a deep distrust of mainstream media, government institutions, and perceived elites, echoing a sentiment of reclaiming power for the "forgotten" Americans.

Methods and Impact

The Brown-Shirts: The SA played a crucial role in Hitler's rise to power by destabilizing the Weimar Republic and silencing opposition through violence and intimidation. Their street battles with communists and other adversaries created an atmosphere of chaos that the Nazis capitalized on to justify their authoritarian measures. However, their power was curtailed in the Night of the Long Knives in 1934, when Hitler purged the SA leadership to consolidate his control over the Nazi regime.

The Red Ties: Trump's followers have been significant in American politics, particularly during the 2016 and 2020 elections. Their rallies and social media presence have amplified Trump's message and pressured Republican lawmakers to align with his agenda. The movement's impact was most dramatically illustrated by the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, when a faction of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building, challenging the certification of the 2020 presidential election results. This event highlighted the potential for political rhetoric to incite unrest and the deep divisions within American society.

Conclusion

While the historical and political contexts of Hitler's Brown Shirts and Trump's Red Ties differ significantly, both groups share commonalities in their fervent support for their respective leaders and their roles in shaping political landscapes. The Brown Shirts were a disciplined, militaristic force that facilitated Hitler's totalitarian regime through violence and intimidation. In contrast, Trump's followers represent a populist movement driven by a sense of disenfranchisement and a desire to upend the status quo.

Understanding these parallels and distinctions is crucial for comprehending the dynamics of political movements and the factors that can lead to the rise of authoritarianism. While history does not repeat itself exactly, it often rhymes, and the lessons gleaned from these comparisons can help us navigate and respond to contemporary political challenges.

 

IN FURTHER DEFENSE OF PROPOSAL TO DENY TRUMP

One of you has scoffed at our proposal that President Biden declares Trump's ineligibility to be sworn in as President because he incited an insurrection against the United States and its Constitution.

The executive branch enforces Constitutional provisions all day long. Congress is not required to pass legislation permitting or directing the executive branch to do its Constitutional duty. 

The Supreme Court, fearful of the repercussions of Colorado excluding candidate Trump, held that Congress had to grant that authority. That is the holding of the case. Where did that come from? Not law, not stare decisis, but fear.

The Supreme Court agreed that Trump incited an insurrection against the United States and its Constitution. Now that the facts have been adjudicated, what should we do about it?

Vote. But who will be President if Biden wins the popular vote and Trump the electoral vote? Trump, for the outdated notion that the popular vote should not be trusted. But he has been adjudicated an insurrection inciter. What of the Constitution's provision that he cannot be President?

The executive branch enforces the law. President Biden can legally declare Trump ineligible and prevent him from assuming office.

With what repercussions? MAGA violence. This is a challenge to proper planning but no worse than the violence Trump will incite if he also loses the electoral vote. Legal challenges. When the Supreme Court, again, out of fear, eschews sound legal reasoning and holds Biden acted illegally (your guess of how tormented that reasoning will be), Biden can ignore the ruling. Yes, just ignore it.

The political fallout is irrelevant. The question is Country or party, democracy or dictatorship. The Trump, MAGA, and Heritage Foundation conspiracy has projected its punch. The majority wants to keep the Constitution even as it tires fitfully to apply it to modern times. We Americans are on an upward trajectory and will not fall back. We will continue to make America even greater.

From our prior article:

Assumption: Trump wins the Electoral vote.

Does Biden have the authority to make Trump ineligible to hold office as president? The Constitution says so. That is the law. Who enforces the law? The Executive branch of government. Who is in charge of that? Biden. What about the Supreme Court? Did they not say Congress has to act to enforce the Constitution? Yes, but they were making a political decision and are worthy of being ignored as political partisans, and Biden certainly has the power to ignore them, if not the guts. Does Biden subvert the rule of law? No, not at all. The Executive branch enforces the law, which is what he does. Also, extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures to support the Constitution and save democracy. The oath of office is explicit and implicit in the Constitution, which is the obligation to keep democracy sacrosanct. So why doesn't Biden do what you say? Intestinal fortitude, my friends, intestinal fortitude.

This is simple and straightforward. The Constitution is clear, and the facts are indisputable. We all saw and heard Trump's violations of the Constitution. 

When the Supreme Court decided Colorado could not disqualify Trump, it adjudicated Trump a President who incited an insurrection against the United States. Trump is guilty, as a matter of fact. Now, what to do about it.

Biden and the Executive branch enforce the law. The preservation of democracy demands that Biden ignore the Supreme Court precedent. That opinion was vitiated by the grossest abuse of judicial restraint. 

The only issues here are not integrity, propriety, adherence to the rule of law, or the efficacy of the electoral process. Democracy is at stake (see Trump's public statements and Project2025). The survival of our way of life depends on Biden's actions.

The only issue is whether Biden has the strength of character to act. He does. Will he?

The Supreme Court said Congress had to pass legislation. Not so. Not regarding every other Constitutional provision. The executive branch enforces the law. The Supreme Court writes wrong opinions often, and President Biden stands atop a powerful and equal branch of government. He can be our hero.  

Myopic is too kind. Think this through. Study the Heritage Foundation's history, purpose, positions, and promotions. Read Project2025. Understand Trump. I swore to defend the Constitution against all enemies, including domestic ones. Did you? Trump and the Heritage Foundation will rewrite the Constitution. They want an oligarchy to theocracy. The branches are separate and equal. We ignore bad laws in defense of liberty. Under the exigent circumstances, the political court needs to be ignored. A bold leader, a Lincoln, FDR, or JFK, would not hesitate to do what is right.

The Supreme Court made a law from whole cloth for political reasons to support Trump. The Executive Branch enforces the law. The Constitution is a law. In no other case must Congress act before the executive enforces the Constitution. The court again ignores stare decisis, the bedrock of the rule of law. That aside, the Executive Branch is free to ignore bad legal precedent from the Supreme Court. 

Prior Post: 

https://wspriggs2.blogspot.com/2024/04/what-to-do-if-trump-wins-revisited.html

WHAT TO DO IF TRUMP WINS REVISITED

No one has deigned to discuss our proposal to preserve democracy in the face of a Trump/Heritage Foundation victory. If it is because you do not think he can win, look at the battleground states where he is ahead and could win. If it is because we can live with a Trump victory, listen to him and read Project2025 and the plan to dismantle the federal government and turn the country into a theocracy. Think that can't happen? Nazi Germany happened.

Section three of the 14th Amendment provides:

No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and VicePresident, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. 

Who executes and enforces this mandate? Under our system of three co-equal branches of government, which branch executes and enforces the laws? Not Congress. Not the Judiciary, which, by the way, erroneously said Congress enforces Section three. No, President Biden can enforce the provision. We can discuss it. But keep in mind, we are talking in the context of a Trump victory and his plan to flout the Constitution and make this country a theocracy. The issue is how to stop him.

We propose that if Trump wins, President Biden declares him ineligible as one who engaged in insurrection and rebellion and gave aid and comfort to enemies of the Constitution. Biden deploys whatever is necessary to maintain law and order and undertakes any lawful means to protect the American people from domestic terrorists. If the Supreme Court eventually says Biden acted illegally, so what? That court has demeaned itself and has become, by the majority, a group of political hacks.

You say it's radical. Crazy. We are talking about democracy, where everyone has a vote, and the majority wins, like in kindergarten. We are talking about the freedoms we enjoy and our everyday lives. All of that goes up in smoke. Listen to him. Read about Project2025. Read Heritage Foundation Propaganda. 

Call it radical, but admit that changing to a dictatorship and theocracy is also radical. Extraordinary problems demand extraordinary solutions.

President Biden can do this for us. Just as Lincoln, FDR, Truman, and  JFK would have done it.

THE COMPLETE COLLAPSE OF MORALITY IN AMERICA

The Complete Collapse of Morality in America: A Blunt Indictment

In the heart of the land of the free and the home of the brave, we face an insidious crisis that threatens to dismantle the very fabric of our society: the collapse of morality. This decay isn't limited to one sector; it pervades every corner of American life, from our political institutions to our places of worship, even, and especially, the majority of the United States Supreme Court.

Leadership in America has failed us. Our political leaders, once seen as custodians of public virtue, have become synonymous with corruption and self-interest. Scandals and misconduct are commonplace, eroding public trust and setting a dangerous precedent. Instead of serving the people, these leaders often pursue their own agendas, forsaking the common good for personal gain.

Corporate leaders fare no better. The relentless pursuit of profit at the expense of ethical considerations has led to widespread exploitation and inequality. Companies, once expected to balance profit with social responsibility, now prioritize shareholder returns over everything else. This corporate greed deepens economic divides and reinforces the notion that success is measured solely by material wealth.

Yet, the most egregious failure lies with our religious leaders. Traditionally viewed as society's moral compass, many have succumbed to the temptations they preach against. Evangelical leaders, in particular, have become emblematic of this moral bankruptcy. Their unabashed materialism and the prosperity gospel they espouse have distorted the core teachings of their faith. Instead of guiding their flocks toward humility and compassion, they promote a message that equates faith with financial success, fostering a culture of greed and excess.

Religion meant to be a refuge of morality and humanity, has perversely become a promoter of hedonism and anti-humanism. The sanctity of spiritual guidance has been compromised, and in its place, a rush to self-indulgence and moral relativism has taken root. The institutions that should uplift our spirits and ground our ethics now contribute to our moral decline.

In this era of "I want mine, and I want yours," we have sacrificed our moral code on the altar of self-interest. No institution has escaped this scourge of amorality. Our leaders across all sectors have abandoned their responsibilities, leading us down a path of moral decay. This is a stark reminder that society cannot hope to thrive without a shared ethical foundation.

The road to redemption will be arduous. It requires a collective awakening and a recommitment to the values that once defined our nation. We must hold our leaders accountable, demand integrity, and rebuild our institutions on the principles of the golden rule and equal justice for all.

A postscript on the Supreme Court: Once our most esteemed and incorruptible compass for the ship of state, now in its majority, it represents the most significant degradation of our virtues and secularly evolved advanced sense of human ethics and moral conduct. The greatest perversion of right is the dishonor of using tenure to justify amorality. 

William James Spriggs