Tag Archives: empty chair

We The People

Wednesday night I attended an “Empty Chair” Town Hall, and I was absolutely blown away–in a very good way–by the event.

I was one of three people who “kicked off” participant testimonies with brief descriptions of what we are currently facing. My assignment was to explain why DOGE and the majority of Trump’s Executive Orders are unconstitutional; the other two addressed assaults on Medicaid and Women’s rights.

Here’s what I said:

Under the Constitution, Congress has exclusive power to raise revenue and “pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.”  The Appropriations Clause states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” DOGE has never been authorized as a government unit of any kind, and it is exercising financial decision-making that the Constitution vests exclusively in Congress.

Accordingly, every decision DOGE has made and is making is illegal and unconstitutional until and unless ratified—or more properly, authorized in advance– by Congress.

Most of Trump’s increasingly incoherent, petty and autocratic Executive Orders are similarly unconstitutional. Most of them violate the Separation of Powers—a structural element fundamental to America’s constitutional system. The most blatant example was his effort to use an Executive Order to overturn birthright citizenship, which was established by the 14th Amendment. A president cannot amend the Constitution via Executive Order.

An Executive Order is defined as a written directive signed by the president, that orders agencies of the federal government to take specific actions in pursuance of the Executive’s duty to ensure that the laws of the nation “be faithfully executed.” To the extent that such orders apply to matters not properly within the Executive’s authority, they are legally unenforceable.

Trump’s disdain for the Constitutional limits on his authority have plunged the nation into a full-blown Constitutional crisis.

Following those first, very brief presentations, some sixty people (out of the nearly 600 in attendance) lined up to address that empty chair. They were a cross-section of ordinary Americans (not a “coastal elitist” to be seen)– working class folks, a mixture of young and old people, retired folks– and they were amazing.

Don’t take my word for it: here is a link to the recorded livestream.

The citizens who turned out on a week-night (and presumably those watching via the livestream) wanted Todd Young to know that they are angry at his lack of a backbone, and his failure to live up to the oath of office that he took both as a Marine and as a Senator. They wanted him to understand how this rogue administration’s attacks on government are harming Hoosiers–the shutdowns of mental health services, the refusals to pay funds legally due to local nonprofits, the disregard of Free Speech and due process guarantees, and especially the persistent, vicious assaults on America’s diversity.

The people addressing that empty chair were passionate, but more significantly, their charges of malfeasance were accurate. They’d done their homework. The people who attended that Town Hall were the epitome of the “informed electorate” that sustains democratic regimes. When I left, I felt more positive than I have since the election.

The Town Hall’s organization by the Central Indiana Indivisible Chapter was flawless–there were volunteers directing traffic (which significantly overflowed the church’s large parking lot); and others inside directing attendees, managing microphones and herding the people waiting to testify. The crowd was more than just energized–attendees applauded speakers, booed references to Trump and Musk, and clearly demonstrated their intent to protect the America they value–an America where every person is (at least theoretically) valued.

The minister who welcomed the crowd emphasized that message, insisting that “Everyone is welcome here,–we don’t care what color you are, we don’t care who you pray to or whether you pray, we don’t care who you love. You are valued and welcome here.” Several of those who spoke made a similar point: America is a land of immigrants, a “melting pot” (or “tossed salad”) of diverse folks–and that is our strength. That is what makes America great. That is the beauty of We the People, and we will fight to retain it.

If Senator Young is too weak and intimidated to join the fight for America, the people in that Town Hall will find someone who isn’t weak and intimidated to replace him.

If you weren’t there, I really, really hope you will watch the recording. We the People are beautiful.

Comments

The Guy in the Chair

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart is a penetrating observer of today’s politics, and the other night–while delivering a very funny review of Clint Eastwood’s “dialogue” with an empty chair at the Republican convention–he delivered one of those “Aha” moments.

Stewart noted that he’d had trouble getting his head around many of the accusations Republicans leveled at Obama, but that now he understood: there are TWO Barack Obamas, one of whom only Republicans can see!  It’s the invisible guy they keep talking about!

There’s more than a little truth to that, and it is unfortunate for a lot of reasons.

I’m not the only person who has been mystified by charges that a moderate Democrat implementing a healthcare program devised by Republicans is somehow a “socialist,” or that a President who has presided over the slowest growth in government spending since Eisenhower is engaged in ruinous and unrestrained spending. I’ve been stunned by accusations that a man who entered the national consciousness with an “only in America” speech at the 2004 Democratic convention is routinely accused of “hating America.”

Stewart is right, of course, as he usually is: the Barack Obama who is the target of these accusations isn’t the Obama who actually occupies the White House. It’s the Barack Obama of fevered–and let us be honest here, essentially racist–imaginations.

There are two major problems with the nature of these attacks. The obvious one is that the Romney campaign’s willingness to “go there,” to engage in dog whistles and worse, exacerbates an ugly divide that America has tried hard to erase. It is analogous to picking at the scab on a still-unhealed wound. If the strategy wins–if, in the wake of the election, Romney is perceived to have benefitted from it–racial tensions will make it even harder to rebuild a politics of reason.

The other problem with the Republicans’ fixation on an imaginary Obama is that it has foreclosed debate on the actual policies of the actual Obama. This President–like all of his predecessors–has implemented, or failed to implement, a wide variety of policies that deserve to be critically examined. Like most citizens, I agree with some and disagree with others. Elections are intended to provide citizens with discussions of the strengths and weaknesses of policy positions held by the candidates, as well as giving voters a sense of the character of those who are asking for our votes.

That discussion–that reasoned critique of this Administration’s performance and priorities–has been virtually absent from this campaign.   It has been drowned out by hyperbole and outright fabrication.

The campaign against the real Barack Obama has been obscured by the one directed at the invented version sitting in the empty chair.

Comments