The Lesson of Robespierre – by Charlie Martin

Posted on by Sarah A. Hoyt

The Lesson of Robespierre – by Charlie Martin

It can be sourly amusing reading what liberals say. Lawrence Tribe is a perpetual source of amusement — this guy is a law professor? Seriously? — but it can be really sort of depressing reading what some conservatives say.
Too often, conservatives don’t think out what they’re saying, and so use fancy words without thinking out what they mean.
Now, one of my pet peeves is “treason”. It’s a tough one for a lot of people because it’s very specifically limited by the Constitution, for reasons James Madison laid out in Federalist Paper number 43:

“But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

I’ll resist petting this peeve at length because I already have last month and I don’t want it to get spoiled. There’s little worse than a spoiled peeve.
The Federalist Papers — and for that matter the Anti-Federalist papers — were doing was arguing what the limits on government power should be, and the Constitution was written not so much to say what the government can do, but what the government may not do.
With treason specifically, Madison was saying was that treason should be very limited because there were too many examples in English history of the Crown using “treason” for damn near anything, including a very conclusive form of divorce.
But that was hardly the only abuse of government power to which the Constitution, and even more so the Bill of Rights, was addressed. in fact the first eight amendments in the bill of Rights addressed specific ways that the Crown had abused its subjects.
One of those, sure enough, was arbitrary arrest and imprisonment. “Arrest them” comes up every so often whenever there’s someone daring to defy someone in power, but it seems to have gotten really popular recently because some Federal judges have been issuing some, shall we say questionable orders. (For an example of the most egregious of them, see this thread.)
And a whole lot of people have posted “arrest him.” But when I ask “on what charge?” they either come up with some vague thing about denying a presidential prerogative, or — my favorite, for some special interpretations of the word “favorite” is “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.”
That phrase has been bandied about quite a lot. Some people link it to Abraham Lincoln suspending habeas corpus during the Civil War. I haven’t found any real specific quote, and I wonder if he would have bothered, since the Constitution provides explicitly that habeas corpus can be suspended. Article 1 Section 9 Clause 2:

“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

I’m pretty sure that the Civil War was a rebellion. Someone who is a better Civil War historian than I will undoubtedly be happy to correct me.
But the earliest reference to it that Grok and I found was

[W]hen Justice Robert H. Jackson used a variation of this expression in his dissenting opinion in the case of Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949). Justice Jackson wrote, “There is the danger that, if the Court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”

Something that may not be obvious there is that this was a dissenting opinion — not even a majority of the judges agreed.
This is closely related to Madison’s argument about treason: overly-expansive powers of arrest have been used throughout history against opponents of whatever party is currently in power.
There’s an example of this that occurs to me often: the history of Maximillian Robespierre, who seemed like a true friend of liberty at the start of the revolution, but dealing with kings and counter-revolutionaries saw Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette, and thousands of others, executed on the guillotine.
There’s a lesson here. The Lesson of Robespierre is simple: it they can do it for you, they can do it to you.
So now we see calls to arrest and presumably imprison people who act against what the Trump Administration is trying to do.
No matter how desirable things Trump and Elon Musk are doing may be — and I think they are very desirable — if we’re going to start arresting people simply for dissent, especially district court judges and the like, it’s a dangerous game we shouldn’t start.
The Founders had good reasons for limiting treason, for enshrining habeas corpus, and for the Bill of Rights. They were entirely too aware of what the Crown had been able to do to their subjects.
Eventually there will be a Democrat administration again. We need to remember that. And yeah, the Constitution is not a suicide pact — but that’s not a reason to murder it.

131 thoughts on “The Lesson of Robespierre – by Charlie Martin”

  1. Arrest for refusing orders? Not so much. That’s just a firing offense, at most.

    Arrest for committing fraud in the tens of millions of dollars range while doing something they were specifically told not to do?

    Absolutely.

    Arrest for taking a cut of graft out of government expenditures?

    Definitely.

    Arrest (or at least punishment) for illegally using the power of the courts?

    Certainly should be in the mix.

    There should be some cases where “treason” qualifies as a charge. “Aid and comfort to our enemies” is obvious in some of these cases (like finding millions of dollars of USAID packages that were specifically delivered to terrorist groups).

    Like

    1. There should be some cases where “treason” qualifies as a charge. “Aid and comfort to our enemies” is obvious in some of these cases (like finding millions of dollars of USAID packages that were specifically delivered to terrorist groups).

      Aid, comfort, and enemies all have much more restrictive definitions than the general use.
      And ‘specifically delivered to terrorist groups’ would have to pass the bar of an officially designated foreign terror organization being legally designated as the recipient.

      Delivered to individuals who are members of a terror group, recognized or otherwise, is not enough to pass that bar.

      The UN and allied “aid” groups are notorious for designating warlord thugs as the official distributer for areas. The stuff then gets sold.
      This has been known for 30 some years.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. There are subgroups of the terror organizations that were created specifically as cutouts for this – and USAID knew.

        The official story is “we don’t do this,” but then they hand hundreds of millions of dollars to organizations that are known fronts for those terror groups.

        In Afghanistan, USAID actually refused to work with the official US government watchdog group tracking funding to terror organizations because it was so blatant, and they knew they’d get caught.

        This is very old news.

        It’s all part of the USAID “obfuscate all funding” practice.

        Like

        1. I am aware of the “clean” groups that are functionally subgroups of terror organizations.

          They did that because it is a functional work-around.

          Because they do not have official membership flow charts saying “Hi, I am the head of CharityLeech sub department of BigTerrorGroup!”

          The solution is, when they are rejecting legally required oversight, you go in and get smashy.

          Not later.

          Seriously, how many decades has Westboro been getting paid for doing this Dem playbook?!? They try to find a spot where there’s a possible in-route, and people won’t do their actual dang job, and use that failure to attack the folks who are supposed to be protected but were instead abandoned because a) nobody would do that! and b) of course it’s fine to Do It Yourself when they are jerks! (Turns out that no, assault isn’t OK even if they “deserved it.” You have to actually follow the written rules.)

          Like

          1. As I said – they KNEW. They absofuckinglutely KNEW.

            You can put your head in a hole in the ground and deny it, but it’s not a damned “workaround.”

            It’s. A. Lie.

            Like

            1. And?

              So you’re yelling and screaming.

              So what?

              I’m supposed to indulge you like generations earlier than I indulged the shrieking libs, tearing down what’s been built up?

              You know, exactly like the folks you’re pissed at did?

              There are solutions.

              They don’t go back in time and change things. They do build on what the asses were clawing at, shoring it up, and if people can be freaking bothered to do the basic maintenance, the legal structure maintains.

              I am sick and tired of this “oh, oh no! The system didn’t magically make what I want to happen occur, without any work from me! We should tear it down even more! Because that is sure to work!”

              Like

              1. Sorry, but “we had to do a wrong thing because it got results” only works when the wrong thing gets GOOD results.

                We won’t get better results until we start hammering the people who went in and did the wrong thing with full knowledge of what they were doing, and kept doing, for decades.

                You’re just excusing them.

                They didn’t “build up” a single thing. They tore down a massive amount of good things and failed.

                Utterly.

                And you’re excusing them.

                So yeah, get used to being shouted at.

                Like

                1. Sorry, but “we had to do a wrong thing because it got results” only works when the wrong thing gets GOOD results.

                  Great, welcome to my side.

                  Don’t know why you suddenly switched after demanding exactly the opposite, but cool beans.

                  You’re just excusing them.

                  No, I’m refusing to enable you in doing bad things when we are finally getting results from doing it the right way.

                  Like

          2. Incorporating money laundering into their schemes does not make them less guilty. They knew what they were doing was wrong; that’s why they went to such lengths to hide it.

            Like

              1. I still can’t figure out what point you’re trying to make there.

                As far as I’m concerned, engaging in money laundering is an additional crime they committed. As well as proof that they knew what they were doing was wrong.

                Although, as Sarah is fond of saying, “Why not both?” They did break the law openly in some instances, and hid their crimes behind false fronts in others.

                Like

      1. Hence, why Congress is so abysmally incompetent when it comes to declaring war, and why the Executive Branch has infringed on their Constitutional authority when it comes to use of force. Ne declared war? Can’t charge ANYONE with treason. Everyone can get away with everything under the sun.

        Like

        1. well, I suggest that you take it up with James Madison. A Ouija board might help. But you’re right it is very hard to get a conviction for treason in the United States and if you look at the quote from Madison, you’ll see why.

          Like

    3. Most of this can be resolved without resorting to charges of “Treason” and waving of pitchforks.

      There are plenty of laws on the books that allow one to go after those supporting terror groups and stealing money. There is also RICO and probably in many cases tax fraud. More than enough to cover the shenanigans.

      So you can lock someone up for life and seize their property, etc…, that truly deserves it legally, without screaming for helicoptor rides and lampposts.

      Best to grind them down, claw the money back and let them and theirs suffer without spilling blood. Best thing you can do to this class of people is make them powerless criminals and their family poor.

      We need justice, not a large scale hot civil war. Let’s hope we get the former, not the latter.

      Like

      2. THIS. This right here.

        Instead of hammering a treason charge to fit the act and evidence, use laws that fit off the rack.

        IANAL, but RICO might just work.

        Like

      3. Most of this can be resolved without resorting to charges of “Treason” and waving of pitchforks.

        Yep.

        DOGE is doing what folks have been saying should be done for ages– and getting amazing results.

        Odd, that.

        Liked by 1 person

    4. There are a laundry list of possible charges. From obstruction of Justice, to interfering with the investigation of a crime, to accessory to embezzlement, etc.

      The Constitution does not privilege judges against arrest. Nor should it.

      Like

  2. Mr. Martin, 18 US Code Chapter 115 expands the Constitutional sentences in a meaningful way. Best to not ignore that.

    The law was put there to protect us. And it is not overreacting to call for those who violate the laws to be charged under them. On the contrary, it is suicidal for our Nation to allow rebels to foment violence and be given nothing more serious than a disapproving glance.

    Like

    1. They’re using the same old Democrat playbook “We’ll do what we want, and dare you to stop us. And since we’re using your precious system, you can either let us or break it. “

      Like

            1. Again, the Constitution is a restraining order on government. Like any restraining order, it’s a pretty piece of parchment that is only effective in reality when ALL parties follow it. When one side refuses to, what then?

              Like

                  1. Because the American Revolution was largely about restoring the populations’ rights as Englishmen. It was the *result* of king and Parliament not following Moore’s advice. It was very much not “the law be damned, I will do as I desire”

                    Liked by 1 person

                    1. It was very much not “the law be damned, I will do as I desire”

                      Are you actually going to make the argument that wasn’t EXACTLY what Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and their minions weren’t doing exactly that??? REALLY?

                      Like

                    2. The hell are you talking about?

                      The whole Obama/Biden approach was “screw what the law actually says”. Washington and co basically said “Uhh… wtf are you doing? This violates our long established rights and laws”

                      Like

        2. The Constitution does not privilege judges from arrest. This was a conscious choice by the founders.

          I want to see these judges indicted and perpwalked. There are plenty of colorable offenses to charge them with. Starting with the fact they’re abusing their power to interfere with an active criminal investigation.

          This foolishness will escalate until there are consequences for it.
          If a barely-plausible misdemeanor with an expired statute of limitations can be expanded into 76 felony charges against Trump, then we are justified in absolutely hammering them with their own new rules.
          And we should.

          Like

      2. Trump’s team could probably pull it off with such a narrow focus that even Roberts would approve; but somehow I think they have something deeper and more sinister (from a Democrat perspective) in the works.

        It may not be rocket science; but I don’t think the goofy judges have a clue as to what they’ve unleashed on themselves.

        The term “Whack a Mole” comes to mind, but I don’t believe Trump, Musk, Bondi, Noem, Patel, or any of the others will be taking prisoners.

        I keep thinking I am hearing the De Guello being played somewhere.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. I agree that we must be very careful. We, rightly, objected when the dem’s law fare skirted right to the edges and beyond and we simply cannot do that too. look, I’d like to see some of these f-ckers hang too, but prudence requires we not do so. Sad, but that’s what it is.

    Like

      1. I knew that I’d get something like this. I’ve written this here before, perhaps to you, and I’ll write it again. Would prefer not to get into a sustained pissing contest so this is all I’m going to say.

        I was forced from my home in Ballycastle, Co. Antrim in the middle of the night when I was five because of civil war caused by the suspension of the law and internment. We were “for lifting” as the saying went. I suspect you lack personal experience with what insurrection actually entails. It sucks and, by doing so, we become them. I don’t want to live in the state they want, either directly through their action or indirectly through our reaction brining it about.

        Prudence is the difference between the conservative and the leftist and prudence requires that we go through the process. if for no other reason than, to quote Jacques Ellul: “when the mob gets out of hand and revolts today, the final result is always the creation of an even more powerful state.”

        In any case, I suspect that the process is working out exactly as planned. Elon Musk’s special magic is process. What is required is patience and prudence. It’s emotionally unsatisfactory, and I would like to see some of the f-ckers hang, possibly more than many because I know some of these people. It’s simply unwise. I suppose I’m just a gentleman, sorry.

        Liked by 1 person

        2. I will also point out, much like Mowglie’s razing of the village, ending them is temporary. But driving them out to wander in the wastes stripped of their pride and trappings endures until their end of days.

          Like

    2. I have commented that the only ‘campaign promise’ that I remember Trump breaking the first time around was the one to “Lock Her Up!” which was really more of a rabble rousing cry, but it WAS out there. And I have heard Trump’s explanation of why he did NOT pursue that, and it is congruent with the point being made by the article. It was going somewhere that might have been quite satisfying, but would set a precedent of escalation that we already have quite enough of. Yes, we all know that for THEM, it is ALWAYS OK when THEY do it, but treasonous and dangerous if any of ‘US’ do it. While their claims of how bad it is when we do it may be quite exaggerated, the RESULT of us doing it just because they do it so often would STILL not be a good thing! On the flip side, if they keep trying to see just HOW close they can push towards actual Civil War without taking it “too far”, one of their special groups is bound to accidently fall over that line eventually. And then all of what Sarah keeps warning us to be prepared for will be at hand.

      Like

        1. They sowed the wind, and now are being treated to the fruits of that labor by an opponent that is far more intelligent and capable than they are. May they partake of it fully and completely.

          Like

    4. Prudence requires we listen to Machiavelli, and crush this rebellion in its infancy.
      Nothing good will come from letting it fester.

      Like

  4. The Reader believes that while ‘Treason’ may be an indictment too far, the judges flouting the Constitution and the bureaucrats stealing us blind need to be reigned in within the system. If not they may end up playing the part of King George III in the Declaration of Independence.

    Like

    1. The bureaucrats can theoretically be reined in by firing/ prosecuting them.

      The judges can block that, and the only way to rein THEM in is impeachment. There’s no foreseeable future where enough Democrat Senators will defect or replaced to get 67 votes.

      Like

      1. You missed the obvious.

        The judges are operating under laws set for them by Congress. Congress can legislate “stay in your lane”, for example, “judges below X level can only rule as to the parties, times, and places directly involved, and none other”. They could, in theory, legislate that only SCOTUS can order a President to do, or not do, something.

        The Judiciary below SCOTUS is a creature of Congress, not Constitution. Congress is quite within their ordinary authority to set some additional guard rails. And that doesn’t need a supermajority to effect. “Hell of a fight?” sure. But quite do-able.

        Like

        1. I was thinking about that the other day. There’s nothing but lack of will and a plan stopping Congress from remaking the judiciary and putting its embedded leftist power structure out of commission. Well, that and the specter of the filibuster and reelection prospects and…. The Constitutional mechanism is simple, but the political calculus is not. But who knows…it’s starting to look like the Republican majority in Congress will use budget reconciliation to deal a coup de grace to USAID and possibly sundry other agencies. If we’re now living in a world where Congress actually does its job, maybe it’s possible that they could reform the judiciary structure, too.

          Like

        2. 60 votes to block a filibuster is not > 51? My math may be rusty but “supermajority” is what that is.

          As for enacting a law removing jurisdiction? THAT will be an interesting one. “This law flies in the face of Marbury, by removing the courts as an arbiter of whether a law is Constitutional. We decline to overturn Marbury.”

          I really don’t foresee good things from that.

          Like

        1. Then you have just rendered “lifetime appointments” null and void. ANYONE, as we have seen in exhaustive detail, can conjure up 34 felonies out of thin air. “Hi, Judge. Be a shame if someone pulled a Leticia on you.” And there’s a blue jurisdiction in every state that can do it.

          Again, this isn’t a stretch.

          Like

  5. It’s very, very tempting sometimes, to focus on the traditional meaning of “outlaw”. One who forsakes and acts against the obligations of the law so badly, they therefore are denied the protections of the law.

    Like

    1. To be clear, I have in mind when I say this, those who blatantly flout the very Constitution they claim to be protecting – hacks-in-black, so many politicians, etc.

      Like

  6. Contemplating, contemplating…. yes, I agree. Let’s not convict them of treason. Fraud will do. I have no great desire to see judges or politicians hung by the neck until dead. I just want them in prison orange after a dutiful and just application of the law.

    I’m still dazzled that we didn’t have to go to the ammo box. I never thought we could vote our way out of the communist tyranny that was taking over our country. But we did. Yes, my heart cries out for justice to these awful, evil people, but I can be satisfied with prison. Not slaked, shall we say, but satisfied.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. To be fair, we aren’t out of the woods yet. But I think this past summer the Almighty looked upon us and said, “I still have tricks up my sleeve! In fact, watch this! Don, look to your side for a moment…”

      Which certainly improves the outlook. Bigly.

      Like

      1. This. I very much want to see a bunch of specific people swinging at the end of a rope or stood in front of a firing squad. I also recognize that this is not a *good* desire and the necessary ends can be achieved (and probably better served) without fulfilling it.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I too feel the visceral emotions and the need for serious punishment either medival or Roman style. But it makes us no better than the 20th century Communists.

          Instead break the whole lot of them financial including their entire families. No more 6 generations living off of great-great-grandpa’s ill gotten gains.

          That’s too harsh?

          The worst of these people have killed millions, impoverished billions, and stolen trillions or enable those things to happen. Just through the whole Covid nonsense alone, let alone the color revolutions and othere schemes.

          Let them mine coal. Let them hand sort recyclables. Let them clean up the cities they destroyed through manual labor.

          That would be semi-just.

          Like

  7. I would suspect the Trump administration expected the legal challenges in liberal court venues. This judge shopping has been a Democrat technique anytime there has been someone in charge that did not bend to their will. It will be interesting to see what they do, though going Andrew Jackson seems the most likely result.

    I believe these in general are trial (or more properly) District judges. There are 96 districts (originally one for each state but some states are bigger than others in caseload). The administration should immediately petition for certiorari. It should agree to make payments for any person or corporate entity residing in the District of the presiding judge as that is ONLY where his decision is valid. If it is a judge in on of the 12 Appeals courts (and it shouldn’t be yet nothing to appeal) then restrict to that courts domain.

    This requires the Democrats to lodge this complaint in each of the 96 districts. There will be a plethora of decisions both for and against. Thus even if the Supreme Court does not initially grant certiorari this mish-mosh of decisions will make them expedite it (the Chief Justice Hates messy). Right no one of the judges is for Rhode Island, I’m not sure how many grifting agencies there are there, but I’ll bet not many, everyone used to incorporate primarily in Deleware (although lots of corporations are bailing given the decisions in RE TESLA/ Musk).

    Meanwhile any entity that received money from USAID etc should be forced to provide detailed documentation to show the money was spent for the purpose specified.
    Alinsky rule 4 “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” and rule 6 “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

    Like

    1. Just adding the comments that DODGE requested to the Treasury payments will help with tracking. Likewise confirming that SSI recipients are still alive, and that other organizations and corporations still exist and provide services would do wonders.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. From the lawyers I follow on Twitter, this is almost certainly a rope-a-dope to get their authority to do this blanket crushed.

      Those same lawyers are also warning that the normal folks have seen this song and dance play out in such an egregiously one sided fashion for so many years that, if the Roberts Court pulls another Sebelius out of whatever orifice they pulled the first one out of, all bets are off.

      For me, I see this as less a ‘The Constitution is not a suicide pact’ because judges stepping in to take over the Executive functions like this looks like a clear violation of the separation of powers, and more a case of if the Constitution offers us no protection, then it will offer them none either. Once a contract is irrevocably broken by one party, the other party ceases to be obligated by it as well.

      I’d rather things not go that way, but I think we need to be very aware of how easily it could go that way.

      Addendum: the dentist for judges gone wild is impeachment, not jail. We do need to figure out how, or if, we can make that happen.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. One of the lawyers arguing that point is Kurt Schlichter. I’m not going to try to find a link, but he says that the Supreme Court has to do it without any obvious push by POTUS (damn, I love being able to use that without wincing or putting an F where a P should have been) to keep things steady. (Namely, remove the “Trump pushed Roberts! Coup!” excuse.)

        If KS is saying hold off, I’m willing to hold off.

        (Going to click on the follow popup button. If it doubles, blame WordPress. :) )

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Are you asking who did that, or you aaking what their reasoning was? The one who nominated him was George W Bush.

          As for why him, and whatW was thinking, given how W has been post presidency, probably because that’s the sort of court he wanted.

          Like

        2. IIRC, each Chief Justice is nominated by the President to replace the prior Chief Justice.

          This is likely due to Laws passed by Congress.

          As long as a given Chief Justice is alive, he remains Chief Justice and can’t be demoted to be “just another Supreme Court judge”.

          Like

        3. One possible consideration is that elevating an Associate Justice to Chief Justice would have required an added confirmation hearing. GWB had two vacancies to fill, and he did it with two nominations: Roberts for Chief, Alito for Associate. To promote from within would have necessitated three: Roberts for Associate, Alito for Associate, and (let us say) Scalia for Chief.

          (Scalia would have been an easier sell to the Senate than Thomas for the obvious reason of not reviving the Thomas confirmation horror. Astonishing as it is to contemplate from our not-so-distant vantage, Scalia’s confirmation to the Supreme Court was unanimous. Not even the roll-over RINOs have given a Democrat an unopposed pass since then.)

          But I do think harryvoyager is right: GWB’s choice for Chief Justice conformed to what he wanted the Supreme Court to be. Recall that he had Alito pressed on him after his own party bridled at the prospect of Harriet Miers on the court.

          Republica restituendae, et, Hamas delenda est.

          Liked by 1 person

    4. current rules require the plaintiffs post a bond for a TRO but no judges ever make them do that. The bond is supposed to be large enough to cover any damages suffered by the defendant if the Temporary RO is later found to be invalid. In these governnent cases that number can be quute large. Trump and Bondi should make that an issue. As in the TRO is not valid because the bond requirement isn’t satisfied by the plaintiffs.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. I’d also be curious to know WHO the plaintiff is. Are they even being harmed? Do they even have standing? This should be appealed expedited to first Circuit for the Rhode Island case. First Circuit is nearly as loony left as the notorious Ninth but the sooner we get two cases with opposite or non congruent decisions the sooner we can get Supreme court in on it. I think even Roberts (Chief Squish of the Supreme Court) will come down on the side of the power clearly being in the hands of Executive to do executive things.

        Like

  9. The other side got into the habit of running crying to Uncle Judge during the civil rights movement’s heyday. This tactic might have been the only way to blow up the legal logjam that Jim Crow had been allowed to become, but by now, it’s about the only tactic they know.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. What do you mean? The Democrats enacted the Jim Crow laws; they wouldn’t be running to their pet judges to get them struck down, but to prevent the Republicans from doing so. Everything up to the civil rights act of 1964 was the Republicans pushing against fanatical Democrat opposition.

      Martin Luther King Jr. tried to stay above politics and avoid entanglement with either party, but never forget it was the Democrats that threw him in jail.

      Like

      1. I always find it intrigueing when staunch D’s (and others, too, the conservative media parrots the sentiment as well) state that the D party was always the party of the common man, the party of peace, and small business, integrity, small government, and the constitution.

        I have never seen that in my life. Starting with my grandparents, union organizers who saw no problem with cheating as long as the party won. They didn’t learn that in the 1970s. It was already a huge part of the party culture. War as well, snobbery and slavery (even if they might call it something else) and utter contempt for anyone who didn’t agree.

        And yet people keep saying the other. And they believe it. “The party changed,” they bleat. Maybe they just weren’t paying attention.

        The R party, on the other hand, according to these same people has always been the party of big business big government, big spending, and big corruption.

        Projection, I suppose.

        Like

  10. You forgot to mention Robespierre’s own date with Madame Guillotine once the Revolution started eating its own. France degenerated so far into anarchy and mob rule that the people welcomed Napoleon.

    Like

    2. I read an article some time back that talked about the French Reign of Terror and in the very next paragraph, said that Robespierre was “a kind and gentle soul.”

      F that noise. “By your fruits shall you know them,” or as I tell my kids, “Watch what they do, not what they say.”

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Whether the American Civil War was a true rebellion or not is somewhat arguable.

    The Confederate States were trying to break off from the Federal government, not overthrow it. And whether they had the legal right to do so is still an undecided question (many of the founding fathers indicated they thought the right of withdrawal/secession was a real thing), though the response of invasion and warfare has set the tone for how the Federal government will respond as a matter of realpolitik. Not exactly legal jurisprudence. There’s reason to believe that the US Constitution would never have been ratified if former colonies had been told they didn’t have the right to leave the union. After just having fought a war to leave the British Empire (without trying to overthrow it), I suspect they didn’t think it was in doubt.

    That the open hostilities were initiated by the South Carolinians just muddies the legal water. If South Carolina had the right to withdraw, should not the Federal troops at Fort Sumter left peaceably? And if they did not (and they did refuse to do so) then is that not an act of aggression and invasion?

    Obviously at this point in history, these are more academic questions than practical ones.

    Like

    1. The right of withdrawal/secession is implicit in the 1st Amendment. The process is essentially the same order of how a territory becomes a state. The big deal is getting enough of Congress to approve it.

      One wonders how things would have turned out if the South Carolina legislature had voted on secession, and their population had voted for it, and those results been sent to Congress petitioning to leave the Union (and actually being voted on by Congress.)

      Like

    2. If you look at precedent comments in SCotUS rulings [McCullough v. Maryland and others], the implication is that the people have the right to certain actions, but states do not unless it is at the behest of the people.

      I know, that sort of thing is not law, but it does give you an idea of the arguments and mindsets in play at the time.

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Yes and I find it absolutely revolting that you can buy a nazi flag on Amazon but not a confederate flag. Talk about your virtue signaling hypocrites…

      Like

    4. Before Our Beloved Hostess has to intervene, please remember that religious arguments are not wanted on ATH. (And the ACW falls in that category, at least too easily…)

      Liked by 1 person

    5. I read regularly on Alternatehistory.com

      This is one thing some tried. The problem is that there wasnt enough support for the rabel rousers to win in SC to send a petition of separation to the congress. They might have won, but they would not definitely win.

      Secondly, up until the 1840s/50s, the slave states owned the federal government and ran roughshod over the free states rights. (I am stating the peoples views at the time, gleaned from contemporary writings) Also they wanted to conquer the Carribean and Mexico and set up a slave power empire (Also true, go read history)

      So SC didnt really want to leave, they wanted to lock in control of the Feds. If that meant ALL the slave states left (since the nonslave states would secede).

      I will note that when they used handwavium to look at the question of petitioning for separation, the general conclusion was that it would have been granted… and an amendment would have been introduced to prevent it in the future.

      The Confederate constitution did prohibit separation.

      So yes it probalby would have worked, but the separtists really wanted a permanent upper class with themselves at the forefront running the country.

      Like

      1. How is that any different from today’s Democrat party? Aside from openly practicing slavery, that is? (Let’s not get into what they do when nobody’s looking)

        Like

  14. As TBBESP has also mentioned, don’t ask for a ruling body to have a power on your behalf that you wouldn’t want to have used against you.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. No hangings, no helicopter drops, no shooting, no violence.

    Judges – Reverse their rulings and make them stick. Make them impotent and irrelevant. Make them want to quit.

    Those who funneled money taking along the way – Take back the money. Charge them with fraud and embezzlement. Beggar them and their accomplishers, which is going to, too often, be their families. Try and incarcerate where appropriate. Make them irrelevant and an example.

    The ones going to be screaming the loudest? The AOC’s and squad. They were too late to the money grubbing table. What $$$ they’ve gotten hold of is too new, too visible. They have the most to lose.

    Regarding money sent for humanitarian reasons? Our government does not belong in the Feed the Hungry, Provide Medical Services, or other humanitarian aid, except where the military construction apparatus is needed (natural disasters). Americans are generous, they decide where to send their money directly. No need for money to be funneled through our government at any level. There are NGO’s that I’d never contribute to because the ration of dollars spent VS admin is too low. Organizations like “Tunnel to Tower” show how it is done (per their ads, so grain of salt, and all that).

    Will not be pretty. Be prepared for 🍿shortages.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “There are NGO’s that I’d never contribute to because the ration of dollars spent VS admin is too low.”

      What, like USAID’s less than 10%?

      Liked by 1 person

  16. I enjoy this perspective. I believe my favorite maxim regarding government power is:

    “Don’t ever give take a power for your side that you wouldn’t want your worst enemy to exercise against you”.

    Conservative reform is hard because it has been allowed to erode against “the march of progress”, or the “arrow of history” etc. for over a hundred years now.

    In my own life I watch Obama note he had a pen and a phone and start ignoring congress’s laws with impunity for the most part. Meanwhile, every time Democrat’s got power they eroded one more traditional check after another by taking nuclear options. We don’t have much left, so I don’t want to see those defending correcting the course pull any more of the flooring up, we’re liable to fall into the basement as it is.

    So I’ve come to agree, this is frustrating to watch the law fare unroll, but, it’s important we don’t push much further through the checks and balances or when the Dem’s or their replacements get power we will lurch just that much faster in the other direction.

    What I’m loving seeing is how many angles of attack they are pursuing, it took week for the first counter attacks. I’m starting to see all sorts of articles claiming Trump is hiding things and FOIA is being blocked by Doge. But then I don’t see any articles showing that the published findings are incorrect, just maybe interpreted wrong. Like in Covid where they told us smart people couldn’t be trusted to interpret medical statistics because surely that lead to Dunning Kruger land vs a trained doctor, even when said people were VERY qualified to use stats in their every day life….

    So I pray we can be patient, Trump has a plan, and he is attacking from so many different directions that he should overwhelm the other side in the next six months. I mean, I honestly didn’t expect the blood letting he’s already achieved. I have a lot of trouble focusing at work with all of the news each day…

    (Oh and sorry about all of the F posts yesterday, I can’t get the site to work at all from my cell phone it seems, WordPress delenda est).

    Like

    1. Oh one other point really quick. We need to be careful with impeachment. There is no point impeaching if we don’t know we have consensus from 2/3 of the Senate, it just further harms the political climate and cheapens the check and balance it is supposed to provide. With that said, I hope they start really digging deep into the backgrounds of some judges and if graft and corruption are found, trumpeting it to the point the general population is calling for their blood, to the point where a Democrat calls for resignation and impeachment…

      Liked by 1 person

      1. OK, silly question. If Judge A has been found to have committed various felonies, is it not legal and proper to arrest and try him for those felonies?

        Like

        1. Yup. Happens. But much that falls to “political difference” isn’t criminal, even if one side or the other says “this stinks”.

          Like

      2. I begin to wonder if we have been too careful with impeachment. Didn’t save the link but apparently there is one judge who has been reversed on the same thing so many times that the higher court that they just append a running list of all the prior times of him being overturned to any new case that comes up rather than repeat the logic used.

        A little disconcerting really.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. I begin to wonder if we have been too careful with impeachment.

          Unless you can conjure up 67 Senate votes, impeachment amounts to “Ho hum, let me show up and be lectured by the windbags in Congress.”

          Impeachment was a bigger deal when it was rare.

          Like

  17. “The Federalist Papers — and for that matter the Anti-Federalist papers — were doing was arguing what the limits on government power should be, and the Constitution was written not so much to say what the government can do, but what the government may not do.”

    Well, sort of. The Papers were opinion articles written in the press of the day, advocating for or against the ratification of the Constitution. The Federalist Papers in particular were NY op-ed pieces arguing why the citizens of NY should vote “yes”. There is some connection between the Federalist Papers and the actual content and/or meaning of the Constitution, but not as much as you might think. And to hold up the FP as an authority on the meaning or intent of the Constitution, as is often done, is a serious misreading of their history.

    To pick a particularly egregious example, consider the totally bogus argument from punctuation made by James Madison in Federalist #41, pretending to defuse the claim that the proposed Constitution allows for unlimited taxation under Article 1, Section 8, first clause:

    “It has been urged and echoed, that the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,” amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power … But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon?”

    The notion that the first item in section 8 is a generic statement and the rest is a more detailed restatement of the first is quite bizarre to put it mildly, and I always wondered what compelled Madison to attempt such a snowjob.

    Like

    1. Since he first read them, the Reader has thought that the Federalist Papers were pro constitution propaganda first and explanation second.

      Like

  18. There is 18 USC 242 – violation of civil rights under color of law.

    It specifically names judges as liable to prosecution.

    Now, this can’t be applied to the interference with the duties of the Executive Branch. But I am reasonably sure that many, if not most, of these “progressive” judges have done things under the color of law that do fall under the definition of violation of civil rights. (Certainly, all of those involved in the J6 persecutions are eligible – and some of them are responsible for the deaths in and out of the Gulag. Which is punishable by death.)

    Like

    1. Be certain of the wisdom of choice of tools, for it will surely be in the opposition toolbox by Thursday. The pendulum swings back and forth, as the system is designed to avoid supermajorities.

      Like

      1. All of these things are in the toolbox of both sides. Tools are meant to be used – for their appropriate purpose.

        I also note that many of the tools have already been pulled out by the opposition – not doing the same is idiocy.

        (Additionally, many of those tools were used by people that had no right to do so. The corrupt prosecutors and judges effectively suspended habeas corpus for the J6 defendants – for which they had no authority under ANY law.)

        Like

        1. No.

          If the enemy beclowns himself, one doesn’t join him.

          That the enemy uses a tool does not make it prudent or proper or desireable to do so.

          One should especially refrain from tit-for-tat of stupid, pointless, nihilistic asshattery. It’s bait for fools.

          Like

          1. Take care in your thinking here.

            The filibuster was a reasonable mechanism in the Senate – if a nominee cannot be accepted by at least sixty Senators, should they be confirmed?

            Well, the Democrats pulled out one of their tools – their control of the Rules Committee – to end that, confirming the most Leftist “justices” to the Supreme Court.

            Do you argue that Republicans should have eschewed the same tool? Permitting the Democrats to block Trump 45’s nominations?

            Roe v. Wade would still be the “law of the land.” Blatant racism in our institutions would still run rampant. Chevron deference would still be in full force, empowering the bureaucratic state over any other considerations.

            Is this what you want? Would we still have a republic?

            Liked by 1 person

  19. Alice More: Arrest him!

    More: Why, what has he done?

    Margaret More: He’s bad!

    More: There is no law against that.

    Will Roper: There is! God’s law!

    More: Then God can arrest him.

    Alice: While you talk, he’s gone!

    More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

    Roper: So now you’d give the Devil benefit of law!

    More: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

    Roper: I’d cut down every law in England to do that!

    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’s 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.

    Like

  20. It’s true that eventually there will be a Democratic administration. But they already know all the bad tricks — they have been showing them off for a century or so, particularly in the past 4 years but going back at least as far as Wilson.

    Like

  21. BTW and sort of variation on a topic theme, Naomi Wolf (who has been relatively sane while I’ve been reading her) has gone batguano paranoid over Musk. She is the lone voice, crying in the wilderness, against the “coup,” being carried out by Musk (to be fair, she seems to think Trump is a victim rather than a perpetrator) to collect all our data and use it for his own nefarious purposes.

    *Sigh.*

    Like

    1. I can’t roll my eyes hard enough to express how frickin’ stupid this talking point is or how ignorant Mz. Wolf is about the real world to repeat the current Leftist mantras.

      Elon doesn’t need or want “our data”. There are thousands of organizations that have “our data” and it’s easy to obtain from a variety of sources for a token fee on nothing but a little database work.

      Go pull a credit report. Go research the internet. Almost all financial and individual preferences on everyone are available if you dig. Santa F. Claus knows nothing compared to the corporations.

      I can identfy people just like Mz. Wolf by getting a list of current Democratic primary voters from my state. (Many may be dead or fake…)

      Like

    2. Consider where she’s coming from…she KNOWS what a “progressive” would do with access to all that data because she knows them and used to be one of them. (I hate to even imagine what the prog/left would be doing right now if they had anyone who was as motivated and competent as Musk.)

      And she probably reflexively believes that government — aka the bureaucracy as presently constituted — is a mostly good thing that needs a coat of new paint at most. She has left the leftist camp and started hanging around our campfire (a good thing), but she really doesn’t understand our side yet and maybe never will.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Trump announced today that the US would be setting up peace negotiations between Ukraine and Russia very shortly. The UK promptly released a statement more or less demanding that Europe get a seat at the table.

    My response – “The war has been going on for three years. If Europe wanted a seat at the peace talks table, they should have set up the talks long ago.”

    Like

  24. I would point out that the Constitutional provision for suspending Habeas Corpus is in Article 1, Section 9, regarding the powers of Congress, implying it requires an act of Congress, making Lincoln’s ex parte suspension unconstitutional.

    Like

  25. I just heard about a Babylon Bee headline:

    Judge appointed by Sauron rules that Frodo must return the One Ring to its owner of record

    The ruling reads in part: “This precious heirloom has been missing for many years, ever since a marauder illegally crossed the border into Mordor and not only stole the One Ring but also maimed its rightful owner by cutting off a finger, an injury which caused great suffering and took ages to heal. The latest recipient of the stolen property is hereby commanded to return it without delay to Sauron, currently residing in the penthouse suite of the Dark Tower in Mordor.”

    Liked by 1 person

  26. To hammer home the lesson of Robespierre, there is the example of Robespierre himself. The Terror guillotined people for him, then did it to him. He died by his own favourite method of execution.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Treason is a good charge to level against someone so you can arrest them, throw them in prison, seize all their assets, and investigate them for ten or 20 years. Then finally clear them and let them sue to get their stuff back or something. Treat the enemy (and make no mistake the left is our enemy) like they treat you.

    Like

Comments are closed.