Comments
THE VIEW FROM HERE - There is no human society which does not organize itself on myths. When our Declaration declares, “. . . all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,” it states a myth which it believes to be axiomatic.
Our first government, The Articles of Confederation, had the public’s consent on only one point - it was grossly inadequate. Thus, all thirteen states agreed to a constitutional convention. When they finished, the framers had rejected a monarchy and rejected a democracy but instead had created a Republic.
Why a Republic?
They had learned the evils that flowed from concentrating too much power at the top, which meant a monarchy was unacceptable. For much the same reason, they rejected a democracy. In their view a democracy is too easily taken over by a charlatan and turned into a tyranny. Instead, they created a Republic because it gave the central government sufficient power to govern but also contained enough constraints on power centers to protect two principles stretching back to ancient Anglo-Saxon Law. In 893 C.E., Alfred the Great codified that the King was not above the law and each person was entitled to due process. In 1215, these principles became the basis of the Magna Carta. When King Charles preferred the concept of the Divine Right of Kings, he was beheaded on January 30, 1649.
The framers chose a republic because it constrained the power of the central government by a multiple checks and balances. The checks and balances were based on two things: (1) The division of the government into the Congress, the Presidency, and the courts, (2) The duties imposed on all officials. While every member of the government had to swear allegiance to the Constitution, their specific duties varied.
One duty is Art. 2, Clause 2 -- The Senate had the duty to advise and consent (or reject) as to certain Presidential nominees. While the President has the right to nominate whomever he desires, he lacks the power to make the actual appointment. The Senate has a duty to reject unqualified or otherwise objectionable nominations. Under Art 2 Clause 2, the President has no right whatsoever to have any nominee approved. Any Senator who claims that the President has such a right, has materially violated his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Federalist Paper 76 explained:
“It [Senate confirmation of nominee] would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President and would tend greatly to preventing the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. And, in addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.”
The Constitution balanced the right for the President to present to the Senate persons he preferred rather than allowing the Senate to select and appoint persons with whom he had legitimate disagreements. Thus, the advise and consent clause required both the President and the Senate to think long and hard about the nature and qualifications of the persons who would be in charge of day-to-day functions and who would give counsel to the President. It produced a stalemate where each side has to act reasonably.
As explained in two CityWatch articles, Sen. Majority Leader John Thune committed what should be called domestic treason when he prevented Senators from performing their constitutional duty to reject unqualified nominees. See Thune #1 and See Thune #2 Rather, than protecting Senators from Trump’s blackmail of retaliation if they voted against a roaring incompetent like JFK, Jr or Pet Hegseth, Thune told Senators that Trump had the right to have each nominee approved because he won the election. That was lie upon lie compounded by domestic treason! Never before in history had a President presented such extraordinarily objectionable nominees, but Thune demanded that each one be approved.
Domestic Treason on the Supreme Court
The Founding Fathers assumed that when the Senate approved members of the Supreme Court for life time membership that the justices would strictly abide by their oath to defend the US Constitution. That was a nice but naive sentiment. As Lord Acton pointed out, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” Chief Justice John Roberts totally abrogated and nullified the most ancient and core value dating back to before Alfred the Great, “no man including the king is above the law.” Chief Justice Roberts granted President Donald Trump immunity for violating criminal laws. Let’s remember, Chief Justice knew that Trump had been convicted on 34 counts of felonious conduct. President Trump has absolute immunity for criminal conduct if he merely alleges it is with respect to his core constitutional power. See Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. ___ (2024)
Confiscate Ballots and Arrest Political Opponents
Prior to Trump vs. the United States, the President could not deploy the US military inside the United States against US citizens. For months, Trump has been calling out the National Guard and threatening more cities with his calling out various National Guards to combat solely domestic activities by US citizens. When he claims that Chicago has too much crime and he will deploy troops to stop the crime, Trump is clearly letting the courts know that he may do what he wants without regard to any prior law or even the Constitution because he has absolute immunity. Trump will declare that immigration is a core constitutional duty, that safety is a core constitutional duty, and that voting is a core constitutional duty.
Jeffery Epstein must have taught Donald Trump well about grooming people to accept future abuse because that is exactly what Trump is doing. When Trump brags he can grab women by the pussy and they like it, don’t be surprised when he claims he can grab judges by the balls and they like it. He is grooming America to accept the Marines on our streets to seize all the voting machines so that Trump may declare that the GOP won huge victories in The House and in the Senate. Then, Trump will grab a Third Term
(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles-based attorney, author, and political commentator. A long-time contributor to CityWatchLA, he is known for his incisive critiques of City Hall and judicial corruption, as well as his analysis of political and constitutional issues. Abrams blends legal insight with historical and philosophical depth to challenge conventional narratives. A passionate defender of civic integrity and transparency, he aims to expose misuse of power and advocate for systemic reform in local government. You may email him at [email protected])
