My Open Letter via Twitter to Chief Justice John Roberts, Constitutional oaths, and the “I” word

by faithgibson on June 27, 2018

The “I” word in my Tweet is “impeachment“, but I’m not talking about impeaching our President. The great anxiety that nearly every Americans feels over our painfully impaired system of government started decades ago.
The troubling behavior of the current president is just the most recent symptom of this grave problem, but only a symptom, however extreme. Simply appointing VP Pence or Speaker of the House Paul Ryan to the Oval Office would not correct or even address the re
The root of this system-wide problem is an ideology that is ultimately incompatible with the democratic republic created by framers of the US Constitution. The reason our Founding Fathers chose a strong national government that was constitutionally empowered to have primary authority over states, local governments and all persons, including foreigners, residing in the United States was the immediate and specular failure of a weak federal government.  
The reason we pay taxes to the federal government and give more power to the federal government than state governments is simple and straightforward: our first ‘constitution’ — the “Articles of Confederation” adopt in 1776 after the publication of our Declaration of Independence — turned out to be a total failure, so much so that the state legislatures of 12 of the original 13 colonies (Rhode Island declined) sent one or more representatives the Constitutional Congress to fix this problem. Between May and September of 1787, familiar names such as George Washington, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton,  and many lessen known Founding Fathers meet together in Philadelphia during a particularly hot and humid summer to hammer out an alternative to the Articles of Confederation.
Nonetheless this ideology, and the considerable controversy that has always surrounds it, has been with us a very long time, since the beginning of our newly independent country. It is the deep divide between two competing and mutually incompatible views of government — federalism vs. anti-federalism (i.e. states as sovereign and independent governments).
The majority of our Founding Fathers were Federalists who believed (with good reasons – more on why later), that our newly independent country needed a strong national government with hierarchal authority over state and local governments and formally empowered to both regulate the actions of individuals and groups and a duty to protect the civil rights of the entire population — American citizens as well as foreigners residing within our boarders.the the tt
@@@ add –> To define the primary role of a sitting president to be concerned with America’s place on the international stage non-domestic trading partners, functioning as chief diplomate and ambassador to negotiate foreign treaties, trade agreements and interface with other countries
to defend the country from threats foreign and domestic using its authority to organize resources of state militias (domestic issues) and US military and navy with the sitting president as  command and chief able to oversee the big picture, balancing needs, resources and cost-benefit of
Anti-Federalists has two objections. First, they were afraid that a strong central government would concentrate power, become corrupt and turn our newly independent country back into a monopoly run a self-appointed king.  Second, was the issue of states rights. Geographically small states, and the larger southern states that had a small number of whites (would could vote) AND large population of a slave that greatly outnumbered the whites but couldn’t vote (i.e. didn’t count as citizens) were afraid the would not be able to have sufficient influence over a a strong a federal government
adopted over 40 years ago by the GOP, during the .

A Quick Trip in the Way-back Machine

First, I need to say that I am an “Eisenhower Republican” who votes independent, with close family members that vote a straight Republican ticket.  The traditional principles and classic conservative policies of the Republican party, typified by the Eisenhower administration, have been usurped and replaced by a radial ideology.
Starting with the Nixon presidential election in 1968, the GOP began to diverge more and more from the principles  an increasingly distorted political system has enabled to use the institutions of our democracy in harmful and undemocratic ways, while shielding them from  responsibility for the harm they are causing.
The extreme ideological of anti-communism and vicious public behaviors exemplified by Senator Eugene McCarthy were adopted by Newt Gingrich two decades later with one important and fundamental change:  anti-communism was exchanged for anti-federalism — a hatred of the strong national government carefully and purposefully created by Hamilton, Madison, and other Founding Fathers.
After living under the Articles of Confederation for several years, a document described by historians as having more weaknesses than strengths, our Forefathers knew from their negative personal experience that a strong central government was necessary for the survival of the newly independent American colonies. In a world populated by many other astonishingly strong and wealthy countries, just waiting and able to take advantage of any weakness, our new country had to have a strong central government to coordinate the many moving pieces that it takes to maintain the independence of a physically big country with a lot of wealth in furs, lumber, mineral, and other resources that Spain, France or England would be only to happy to relieve us of.
June 27, 3:13 pm –> @@@ @@@
the intention of the GOP  has slowly but steady march by to covertly sabotage and ultimately drowned the federal government in the bathtub, all the while denying that they have any such intention.
This may seems like a simple matter of political preference — Dems vs. Repubs, conservatives versus liberals, vanilla or chocolate, etc. but it is really is not. The rarely voiced but ultimate goal of the post-Gingrich GOP world was (and still is) to end our 200 years of constitutional democracy, which is an inherently strong central government, and instead functionally return America to the Articles of Confederation, in which political power of the States trump those of the central government.
This is the type of government originally configured in 1776. This important historical document was, in essence, a gentleman’s agreement between the 13 sovereign and independent states of Colonial America. This hierarchical arrangement meant that state governments trumped, or were superior, to the power of the national government. The federal role was relegated to a voluntary alliance btw the states for the purpose of military defense.
Unfortunately practical consequence of having each state be an independent sovereign power while the  federal government was very weak was the worst of all worlds — chaotic behavior by the states and combined with maddening inertia at the federal level. It was like having 13 mules randomly tied to the front, back and sides of a buggy and then expecting them to make a coordinated effort to all pull in unison at the same direction at the same time.
In modern times, the anti-federalist ideology combined partisan politics with big money — the GOP  and big business and financial services and began as a reaction to FDR’s policies in respond to the Great Depression that increased taxes on the rich individuals and corporation.
The purpose was to stimulate the economy by pumping federal money into programs for the destitute underclass that included goods, services and providing gov’t service job such as the WPA and many other opportunities to support, employ or invest in the unrich.
The economic reasoning was simple and straight-forward:  the poor, by virture of their dire circumstance immediately spend virtually 100% of their income on necessities. This small but steady and dependable trickle of cash creates economic pipeline with an upward flow that prevents further bankruptcies while doing what we  in the 21st century would describe as “job creation” and ultimately, wealth creation as the economic resources of the federal government used tax revenue from the uber wealthy to stimulate the economy from the bottom up and thus to create an upward directed conveyor belt that ultimately return the tax dollars of wealthy merchants and corporation as a profitable business model with money in the bank and the kind of wealth that can be invested back into stocks and bonds and even more wealth down the line.
The way this work is this: At the bottom of the free market are many small shopkeepers that depend on a steady stream of small purchases by the working poor. But during the Depression, there were no  jobs for about 40% of the US populations. No jobs meant no income; no money meant they could not buy their usual necessities from small shop owners. Their inability to be a local ‘distributor’ of wealth would naturally force many small shopkeepers into bancruptcy.
But instead businesses of going broke on a grand scale, FDR’s economic policies of distributing from the bottom up meant they were able to stay in business. While they only sold only basic necessities — groceries, clothing, shoes, tools, tires, etc. Instead of having been forced into bankruptcy, the new income stream — once removed from the government jobs that generated it — meant shopkeepers and other businesses had enough disposable income to to purchase the nice things — lamps, rugs, better clothing and shoes, restaurant meals, etc, which in turn was sent upstream to fancier upper class businesses. This strategy ultimately prevented the total collapse of our economy in 1933-34. By turned around the flow of money,  stocks and the bond market successfully recovered and ushered in a period of prolong prosperity for all level of Americans during the second half of the 20th century.
However, the same free market economy that saved by FDR’s bottom-up economic response to Great Depression (to be contrasted with the $700 billion given to the banks during the economic crisis of 2007-2008) greatly angered the wealthy, who were required to pay more in taxes during the time these government funded jobs and social programs were necessary. The wealthier upper classes, who were aghast at the very idea of being taxed at all, much less at such a high rate, soon generated political movement looking for a way to end and then reverse FDR’s policies.
was labeled as “communist” >>> communism was vilified as a form of treason, soon to be legally defined as a criminal activity  and successfully extinguished as a lawful political expression.
However, many working class activists who wouldn’t dream of joining the Communist Party were nonetheless sympathetic with its stated goal, which to create a more equable distribution of wealth. This form of activism by the working class Americans created two distinct political movements — one organized around social justice and the other around union organizing.
Their opponents quickly labeled the social justice movement as ‘socialism’, and equated it to a kind of “communism lite”. The same upper-class organization that had been so successful against when after ‘socialism’ with the same zeal and perseverance previously used against “Commie pinkos”. The high-water mark of this period were Congressional hearings held by Senator Joseph McCarty and the execution of the Rosenbergs (who had a 10 year old son and 8 yr old daughter at the time of their deaths) as communist traders.
By equating socialism with communism, its opponents could portrayed it as a dangerously slippery slope that would lead to the kind of class warfare, when the very large number of poor working class peoples would get laws passed allowing them to steal wealth from the middle and upper classes. Even though opponents of socialism were not able to criminalizing the movement, as they had with communism, they did successfully extinguish the ability of any organization associated with socialism —  used the word ‘socialism’ in its name, or promoted ideas of social and economic equality — to become a reviled fringe movement with no political clout.
 The successful campaigns by upper class elite and businessmen against both communism and socialism left unions as the only political movement left that was dedicated to bettering social and economic conditions of the working class.
developing in the 1970s during Nixon’s administration, when the other party (the Democrats) were seen as so inept and reprehensible .
Then the post-Gingrich GOP world sees the US Constitution as being  fatally and unforgivably flawed.
was purposefully configured  by our Founding Fathers — literally voting line by line on its language — during the summer of 1787 in order to produce a strong and functional central government. But in this is seem as a
This language created the idea of E Pluribus Unum — one out of many. This describes a power pyramid, with the national government at the top, state government , and then . This was a very conscious, rational, well-informed, well-thought out conclusion based on the well documented and spectatular failure of .
GOP pincer movement that
There has been a growing since the late 1980s, enabled by Gingrich-McConnell et al, dark money dispersed by the US Chamber of Congress
As Americans concerned about
particularly  We wouldn’t need to worry that our out-of-control president could only be stopped by his impeachment if the US Supreme Court acted like the independent and constitutionally-authorized 3rd branch of government it is suppose to be instead of carrying water for the GOP.

Early morning audio recording 06-27-2018

Using the Constitution itself to deconstruct the federal government — that is, the pimacy the superior authority of the federal government to be replaced by a de facto power base from the business and financial sector and the power that is liberated by access to virtually unlimited streams of money to achieve undemocratic goals .
a strong national or central government as the primary power –place where the ‘buck stops’) —  by using and mis-using provisions of the Constitution itself that would allow a de facto power base, allowing access to the power that is weilded by by  .
the purpose is to provide political and legal authority to states and to liberate the business community all fetters would interfere with a completely unconstrained capitalism
configured federal government in which the federal govt. has the
the purpose of this is to provide greater authority to states while reducing the role and authority of federal government to an agency tasked with the oversight of the US military, ports, boarder guards, issuing passports, printing US currency, and hosting White House dinners for visiting dignitaries.
 in regard policies and laws that apply uniformly across the entire country and to everyone in the country, including corporations, and to liberate the business community from all fetters that would in their perspective interfere with a completely unconstrained capitalism, defined an identified “right’ to make a profits, irrespective of the impact on others — negative externalities such as air and water pollution, danger to employee and customers, etc.
This has in great measure already been achieved via a number of enablers that cooperate or work in tandem with the GOP to have achieve its partisan goal,  goals that ultimately aim to use constitutional principles to dismantle the constitutional basis of the federal government as having primacy or ultimate  authority over state governments and the general population of the country. These enablers are chiefly from the business community and include the Business Round Table(ILR), the Koch brothers, with lesser roles (and less monetary contributions) by the Carl Rover’ organization “??”, Sheldon Adeison,  Freedom Party, Americans for Prosperity, Club for Growth, and think-tanks such as the Heritage Foundation, as well as many fundamentalist religious groups.  .
They provide the political strategies and money and  promoting, manipulate the public discourse and fund
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ parking/barking lot @@@@@@
This also coincided with the rise of communism of the world stage. However lofty its goals may have been, the governments it produced were typically authoritarian and awful — an offense to the sensibilities of democratic countries.

Previous post:

Next post: