Category Archives: Constitution

I Guess I’m A Domestic Terrorist…

Charlie Sykes says if we’re not alarmed, it’s because we aren’t paying attention.

Granted, paying attention to this corrupt and incompetent administration means constant alarm–my own ranges from moderate concern to abject terror–but Sykes was singling out a recent memo issued by the bimbo who is currently cosplaying as US Attorney General, Pam Bondi.

The memo orders the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.”

And who are these “domestic terrorists”? Apparently, anyone engaged in an activity that “paints legitimate government authority and traditional, conservative viewpoints as ‘fascist.”  Bondi proposes to punish such offenses “to the maximum extent permitted by law.” (If she was a minimally-competent lawyer, she’d recognize that the First Amendment prohibits punishing “activities” that are really just beliefs…)

The memo orders the creation of a massive dragnet that focuses on “Antifa.” As sentient Americans know–but the credulous MAGA base evidently does not–Antifa is simply a word meaning “anti-fascist.” (You. know, like the American soldiers who fought in WWII.) There is no “Antifa” organization, nothing comparable to the communist cells that so terrified patriotic citizens back in the Cold War/McCarthyite days. But Bondi’s use of the term accurately signals her obvious goal, which is focused on ideology, not on terrorism as we have historically defined that word.

As Sykes explains (emphases his):

Although the directive mentions the statutory definition requiring acts dangerous to human life, it directs federal law enforcement to investigate individuals whose “animating principle is adherence” to several viewpoints.

And the“extreme viewpoints” and ideological frameworks the Attorney General instructs federal law enforcement to prioritize include? (These are direct quotes)

• Opposition to law and immigration enforcement…

• Extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders…

• Adherence to radical gender ideology…

• Anti-Americanism…

• Anti-capitalism…

• Anti-Christianity…

• Support for the overthrow of the United States Government…

• Hostility towards traditional views on family, religion, and morality,,,

Sykes accurately describes this as “clowns-with-flamethrowers territory.” and notes that Bondi appears to be quite serious– that she’s providing “heavy hitters  with legal hammers, writing that “The JTTFs [Joint Terrorism Task Forces] shall prioritize the investigation of such conduct.”

Needless to say, an attack that characterizes “antifa” as the cause of domestic terrorism ignores reality and the mountains of data confirming that far-right attacks –especially those from white supremacists–vastly outnumber all other forms of domestic violence. (That documented and fact-based conclusion has now been deleted from the department’s website.)

I am fascinated by Bondi’s list, which certainly establishes that–at least in her opinion–I’m a “domestic terrorist.” I may not own a gun or other weapon (I certainly don’t!) and I may run from anything remotely like a physical confrontation (yes, I’m a big coward), but I am firmly opposed to the current administration’s “immigration enforcement” tactics. I definitely adhere to what MAGA considers “radical gender ideology” (I support same-sex marriage and the right of trans people–including young people–to access appropriate medical interventions). I have a sneaking suspicion that Bondi would consider my strong objections to Trump’s war crimes and pathetic pro-Putin betrayal of Ukraine to be “anti-Americanism.”

I’m equally sure that my disdain for White Christian nationalism and my practice of putting quotation marks around “Christian” to recognize those using the label inappropriately would be sufficient for Bondi to consider me “anti-Christian.”

And I am absolutely hostile to the “traditional views” that have kept women in the kitchen and out of the workforce, LGBTQ+ people in the closet, and dark-skinned folks in servitude. You might call any of these hostilities my “animating principles.”

When I look back at the comments that are routinely posted in response to my daily rants on this site, I have to conclude that most of my readers are “domestic terrorists” too. In fact, if survey research is to be believed, a majority of Americans run afoul of several of the vague descriptions on Bondi’s ridiculous culture-war list.

For that matter, Trump, Bondi and this entire clown car of an administration are the ones guilty of “Anti-Americanism.” Bondi’s list is just additional evidence of that fact.

Comments

Legal Nostalgia

A former student recently needed a copy of the syllabus I’d used in her graduate Law and Policy class back in 2010. When I reviewed it, I was struck by the changes effected by Trump, MAGA, and our current, corrupt Supreme Court majority. I became positively nostalgic for the legal environment of my time in the classrooom–nostalgic for the “black-letter law” and for precedents that were considered settled by my cohort of lawyers and law professors.

In that syllabus, I explained the course as follows:

___________

This course will examine the response of the American legal system, with its historic commitment to individual liberty and autonomy, to the growth of the administrative state and to an increasingly complex social environment characterized by pluralism and professional differentiation. We will discuss conflicting visions of American government and different approaches to public administration, and consider how those differences have affected the formation and implementation of public policy within our constitutional framework. Throughout, we will consider the constitutional and ethical responsibilities of public service—the origins of those responsibilities and their contemporary application.

While relatively few people will become public officials or public managers, all Americans are citizens, and most citizens will participate in the selection of public officials and will take positions on the policy issues of the day. Accordingly, this course is intended to introduce all students to the constituent documents that constrain public action and frame policy choices in the American system. These explorations will inevitably implicate political (although not necessarily partisan) beliefs about the proper role of the state, the health of civil society, and the operation of the market. To the extent possible, these theoretical and philosophical beliefs will be made explicit and their consequences for policy and public sector behavior examined. The goal is to help students understand why certain policy prescriptions and/or public actions attract or repel certain constituencies, and to recognize the ways in which these deeply held normative differences impact our ability to forge consensus around issues of public concern.

In the course of these inquiries, we will consider the implications of the accelerating pace of social change on issues of governance: globalization, especially as it affects considerations of legal jurisdiction; the increasing interdependence of nations, states, and local governmental units; the blurring of boundaries between government, for-profit and nonprofit organizations, and the effect of that blurring upon constitutional accountability; the role of technology; and the various challenges to law and public management posed by change and diversity, including the  impact and importance of competing value structures to the formation of law and policy.

By the end of the semester, students should be able to recognize legal and constitutional constraints on public service and policy formation, and to identify areas where public policy or administration crosses permissible boundaries. They should be able to recognize and articulate the impact of law and legal premises on culture and value formation, and to understand and describe the complex interrelation that results.

_________

During my years on the faculty teaching law and policy, it never occurred to me that I would live in an America where a President and virtually everyone in his administration would find the foregoing paragraphs incomprehensible–where individuals in positions of authority would reject–indeed, be unfamiliar with– the very concept of Constitutional restraints, let alone the existence and importance of civil society and/or competing arguments about the proper role of government.

I certainly wouldn’t have anticipated that so many of the ambitious politicians serving in the House and Senate–men and women presumably concerned for the national interest– would neuter themselves in slavish submission to a man whose ignorance of government and policy and whose intellectual and moral deficits were impossible to ignore even before the emergence of unmistakable dementia.

I would have rejected as fanciful the notion that a duly constituted United States Supreme Court would substitute partisan ideology and Christian nationalism for the rule of law, upending years of settled precedents and thoughtful, considered jurisprudence, not to mention the Separation of Powers that lies at the very heart of our constitutional architecture.

And yet here we are.

Forgive this somewhat whiney post, but coming across my old syllabus has made me nostalgic for the legal world I once inhabited. It wasn’t perfect, but it was infinitely preferable to our current reality, and we need to recover, reinstate, and improve it.

Comments

Federalism

In the United States, states have a long history of being considerably less than united. The Articles of Confederation were so focused on protecting the prerogatives of the individual colonies that they proved unworkable, and were replaced by a Constitution that made its own significant concessions to “states’ rights.”

As the country modernized and experienced increasing economic and social integration, the need for national standards became more obvious. Lawmakers recognized that federal agencies regulating things like health or clean air and water needed to issue regulations that would operate similarly in all the states. The Uniform Law Commission (also known as the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws), was created to draft legislation that would bring stability and conformity to state statutory law in areas where such uniformity is seen as desirable and practical. And there is an obvious need for federal law enforcement to enforce its criminal laws nationally.

But there is still room for considerable variation. Justice Brandeis memorably called the states in our federalist system “laboratories of democracy.”

Americans increasingly operate, live and do business in multiple states–a situation that led me to discount the importance of federalism for a long time. (Different laws in different states, after all, caused some very silly situations; before the Supreme Court found same-sex marriage to be a Constitutional right, people who were married in one state weren’t considered married in others.) I focused on the downside and failed to appreciate the upside.

The Trump administration has reminded me of federalism’s importance. Governors like Jay Pritzker in Illinois and Gavin Newsom in California, among others, have illustrated that importance, and a recent article from Vox called federalism a “hidden constraint” on Trump.

So far, the biggest successes against President Donald Trump’s second-term assault on democracy have come not from Congress and the Supreme Court, but more unusual sources: lower-court judges, “No Kings” protests, a Disney+ subscriber boycott, and Trump’s own indiscipline and incompetence.

After the 2025 elections, we can add the states to the list. And in some ways, this avenue of resistance may prove to be the most consequential one.

The article noted that the United States’ federalist system is unusual among backsliding democracies– and that it creates some “major opportunities for institutional pushback” that aren’t possible elsewhere. It also notes the irony of where we are today, since for most of our history, states (especially in the South) “have been places where pockets of authoritarianism could exist in a nationally democratic society.”

Certain of the powers that are, in our system, remitted to the states — very much including control over the administration of elections — are mechanisms through which we can resist this administration’s authoritarian power grab. We can see this most vividly in Trump’s effort to rig the upcoming midterm elections by asking Red states to engage in improper mid-cycle gerrymanders.

Because election administration is almost entirely devolved to the states in the American system, Trump has very limited powers to actually try and rig elections from DC. Instead, gerrymandering at the state level — threatening and cajoling governors and state legislatures into drawing as many safe seats for Republicans as possible — is his best shot at actually stacking the deck in the GOP’s favor in 2026.

As we are seeing, that effort is currently failing. Not only have Blue states “counter-gerrymandered,” but legislators in Red states like Indiana have (at least so far) refused to go along, deferring to the huge majorities of their constituents who disapprove.

As the article points out, would-be autocrats follow a well-worn path that requires consolidating formal power in their own hands and neutering independent checks on their authority. It’s a lot harder to rig elections or prosecute your political opponents when you don’t control the necessary levels of power. True, strong federalism cannot guarantee democracy: (Our history has ample examples of authoritarianism flourishing at local levels) But that system creates “opportunities for contestation” when the national government is moving in an unAmerican direction.

It’s hard to imagine a more unAmerican–not to mention demented– administration than the one we currently have. In just the last week, our mad would-be King has accepted a bribe from Saudi Arabia, authorized extra-judicial killings of Venezuelan fishermen, called for the death of political opponents who had the temerity to remind our troops that they took an oath to defy manifestly illegal orders, and responded to a legitimate question from a reporter by calling her “piggy.”

Given the fact that we have a Congress of eunuchs and a corrupt majority on the Supreme Court, I have a new appreciation for the role of federalism in America’s system of checks and balances.

Comments

The Equal Protection Of The Laws

From day one, the Trump administration has made its disregard for the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and its deep-seated racism too clear to ignore. Just a few examples will suffice: the recently-announced intent to limit the number of refugees the country will accept to 7500, while giving priority to White South Africans; directing ICE to stop and harass people based on nothing but skin color; the constant and ferocious attacks on DEI; the ongoing efforts to disenfranchise Black voters…the list goes on. And on. 

The best response to MAGA protests that the racist label is unfair was in a recent headline from The Hill. It read “If MAGA doesn’t want to be labeled racist, it should stop elevating racists.”

Memo to President Trump’s backers: If you want people to stop calling you racist, stop saying and doing racist things. And stop excusing racist posts and rants by leading voices in the MAGA media.

When Nick Fuentes and Tucker Carlson recently ranked among the top five on Spotify’s list of top trending podcasts, it screamed out that racism and antisemitism are not a problem for their MAGA-world fan base.

None of this, of course, surprises those of us who have understood since 2016 where Trump’s support lies. MAGA’s racism has been too glaringly obvious to ignore. But more recently, it seems that MAGA’s animus goes beyond race, gender and religion; the administration is evidently determined to undermine the very concept of Equal Protection–the belief that all citizens are entitled to the equal application of the laws. (For that matter, Trump clearly wants the effective repeal of the entire 14th Amendment–beginning with birthright citizenship, but definitely not ending there.)

The Washington Post has reported on the administration’s most recent assault on the very concept of Equal Protection of the Laws. The administration now wants to deny people who hold different political beliefs a benefit to which they are legally entitled.

Employees of nonprofit organizations that work with undocumented immigrants, provide gender transition care for minors or engage in public protests will have a hard time getting their federal student loans forgiven under regulations advanced Thursday by the Education Department.

The 185-page rule revises eligibility requirements for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which cancels the education debt of government and nonprofit employees after 10 years of service and 120 monthly loan payments. It will allow the education secretary to disqualify employers — not individuals — who engage in activities the department deems to have a “substantial illegal purpose” on or after July 1 — when the rule takes effect

Current law makes those holding student loans eligible for a federal program offering loan forgiveness if they focus on areas that serve the public good. The law has defined those categories as including careers in education, public health or public interest law. The proposed rule would dramatically change a program that has offered debt relief “to more than 1 million student loan borrowers across more than 20 sectors of the economy.”

The proposed rule was prompted by a Trump Executive Order that designated disfavored nonprofits that should no longer be eligible for government benefits. 

A partial list of those the administration wants to deem ineligible is telling:

Aiding and abetting violations of federal immigration laws.
Supporting terrorism or engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing federal government policy.
Engaging in the chemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children in violation of federal or state law.
Engaging in a pattern of aiding and abetting illegal discrimination.

The subjectivity is obvious–and the point. We’ve seen how ICE defines the obstruction of government “policy.” We’ve seen what the administration considers “aiding and abetting” (i.e. offering opinions that are protected free speech). The administration defines medical treatment of transgender children to be “mutilation.”

And of course, the administration takes the position that any effort to level the playing field for minorities amounts to “illegal discrimination” against White Christians.

You can almost hear the mob boss. “Want your student loan forgiven, so you can afford a house or a new car? It would be a shame if all those payments you’ve already made didn’t count…maybe you should change jobs.” 

I doubt that Trump can spell, pronounce or define “arbitrary and capricious” but those terms describe what would result from his efforts to ignore the clear meaning of the 14th Amendment–and for that matter, the rest of the Bill of Rights.  Citizens would no longer have an automatic right to equal treatment–their access to government programs would depend upon the degree to which they are willing to bend the knee.

Like it works in a monarchy…..
 

Comments

That Constitutional Ethic

Thursday, I traveled to Hancock County, to speak at what their community foundation calls a “Collaboration Station.” My assignment was to address–or perhaps commiserate with– local elected and appointed officials who are serving at a time of intense political polarization and hostility–to offer them guidance suggested by relevant academic research.

We covered a lot of ground that isn’t necessary to include in this post, but I think the concluding portion of my presentation is relevant to the discussions that occur here–as well as consistent with the overarching message of the recent No Kings rally–so here’s that portion of my talk.

_________________

Back in 2011, I co-authored a textbook for use in classes on public administration. That textbook was titled American Public Service: Constitutional and Ethical Foundations, and in it, my co-author and I described what we dubbed “The Constitutional Ethic.” We argued that public officials cannot make intelligent policy decisions unless they have a basic understanding of America’s constitutional framework, because government legitimacy and the rule of law require that a government’s operations be consistent with its country’s legal framework.

It was the thesis of our textbook that the U.S. Constitution dictates a very particular approach to public service—that the legal philosophy animating the Constitution and Bill of Rights establishes certain ethical norms. That philosophy starts with the Founders’ belief in limited government. I want to emphasize that—political rhetoric to the contrary–limited government is not the same thing as small government; in our system, government’s authority is supposed to be limited to areas that in our system are deemed properly governmental.

As we wrote in the introduction to that textbook, a public servant’s ability to do a job well depends upon how well that official understands what the relevant rules are, why we have these particular rules rather than others, and why we choose to solve some problems collectively through government action while leaving other problems to individuals and voluntary associations.

Public officials certainly don’t need to be constitutional scholars, but it is necessary that they understand the general principles and values on which this nation built its governing structures, because—as I said before and as I want to emphasize– ethical public service requires performance consistent with those foundational principles and values.

Let me be clear about what that means. Fidelity to our constituent documents requires a basic understanding of the constitutional framework. Public servants in the United States are responsible for discharging their various duties in a manner that is consistent with that framework, consistent with what I sometimes call “the American Idea,” the philosophy that animates our governing and legal structures. That requirement is obviously more or less relevant depending upon your job description—less to a surveyor or engineer, more to law enforcement personnel. But it applies to some extent to all public officials.

I am certainly not the only person to suggest that citizens’ current inability to engage in productive civic conversation is largely an outgrowth of declining trust in our social and political institutions—primarily, although certainly not exclusively, our government. Restoring that trust is critically important if we are going to make our representative democracy work—but in order to trust government, both citizens and political functionaries need to understand what government is and is not supposed to do. We all need to understand how government actors are supposed to behave—in other words, we need to understand what behaviors our particular Constitutional system requires, and what behaviors are inconsistent with that system. (A sound civic education would impart that knowledge; unfortunately, the current emphasis on job skills and STEM has largely displaced citizenship instruction.)

As most of you in this room understand, the choices originally made by this nation’s Founders shaped a very distinctive American culture. Those constitutional choices have shaped our beliefs about personal liberty, and our conceptions of human rights. They’ve framed the way we allocate social duties among governmental, nonprofit and private actors. I think it’s fair to say that those initial Constitutional choices created a distinctively American worldview.

Most Americans fail to understand how incredibly radical the choices made for the then-new United States were for the times. For example, in the new country our Founders established, unlike the situation in countries elsewhere, citizenship wasn’t based upon geography, ethnicity or conquest; instead, it was based on an Idea, a theory of social organization, what Enlightenment philosopher John Locke called a “social contract” and journalist Todd Gitlin has called a “covenant.” Perhaps the most revolutionary element of the American Idea was that our Constitution based citizenship on behavior rather than identity. An individual’s status and rights depended upon how that individual behaved rather than on who he or she was.

Right now, as you all know, there are elements in American society and government trying to ignore or even reverse that fundamental precept. We’ve had stunning Supreme Court decisions that allow government actors to ignore the 4th Amendment’s requirement of probable cause and to detain people based only upon their skin color or language, and we have numerous political figures who insist that White Christians are the only “real Americans” –and that others are not.

Public officials who are focused on providing basic services usually aren’t tempted to distinguish between members of the public on the basis of their identity—local officials pave streets that everyone drives on, pick up garbage from all the homes in a district, fight fires wherever they erupt and so forth. But many of you do hold positions that allow or even require the privileging of some citizens over others, and making those distinctions on the basis of identity—as some political actors at both the state and national level are encouraging you to do—would  violate both the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause and a foundational American ideal. Disadvantaging or firing people based upon opinions they’ve expressed, as some political actors are advocating, would be a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. Obeying such mandates or similar ones, would violate the Constitutional ethic.

My co-author and I had both practiced constitutional law, and at the time we wrote the textbook, we both held professorships in schools of public affairs. We wrote the book, it was adopted by several schools of public management, and we both went on to pursue other projects. To be honest, I hadn’t revisited that textbook for several years, and when I was preparing for this workshop, I pulled it out again– and I will admit I was startled to read some of the supposedly “far-fetched” examples we’d used that were intended to illustrate the relationship between public administration and the Constitution. We explained, for example, that the Constitution and other authorities in our legal system don’t permit American officials to use U.S. troops to address domestic criminal activity; that the Constitution doesn’t permit censorship as a solution for disfavored political opinions; that the Equal Protection Clause wouldn’t permit the reduction of welfare rolls by refusing to feed Black or Hispanic children, and that substantive due process guarantees prevent government from forcing women either to abort or give birth.

Fourteen years later, some of those examples are no longer so far-fetched.

As we acknowledged in that textbook, the American Idea is not monolithic, and it is constantly contested and evolving, but—as we also insisted– it has real content. It rests on considered normative judgments about the proper conduct of public affairs, and it prescribes an ethic that should dictate the behavior of those engaged in public administration and management—even when it is uncomfortable or even dangerous to do so.

So here’s the bottom line: When push comes to shove—when keeping your heads down is no longer an option— the Constitutional ethic must guide you.

These days, that may not be comforting.

Comments