-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
So many Trump .X's. on the Constitution, one hardly knows where to begin. But I do, in this column.
(Image by IoSonoUnaFotoCamera) Details DMCA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, (and this does have to be considered, given "Jan. 6"), is a Trumpian version of the 1933 German "Reichstag Fire" in the offing? I have discussed that possibility on more than one occasion, at previous times in the Era of Trump. Since in my mind it is even more of a possibility now, I am considering it again. Very possible? Well, not very. But hey, you never know. Who could have seen "Jan. 6" coming?
Briefly, to begin, leading up to the "Reichstag Fire," this is what happened in Germany, 1932-33. In an election for seats in the Reichstag (the German Parliament) held in late 1932, the National Socialist German Workers Party (abbreviated NSDAP, "Nazi" for short-er in German), actually saw its vote total go down slightly, compared to those of the Kommunist Partei Deutschland (KPD) and the Sozialistische Partei Deutschland (SPD) in previous elections. As it happened in early 1933, the German (post-World War I, Weimar Republic) parliament faced another one of its repetitive leadership crises. An increasing amount of noise was heard advocating for the Weimar Republic's President, Paul von Hindenburg (yes, the infamous German airship was named after him), who had been, in the First World War, the Commander of the Prussian military, to appoint the Nazi Party's leader, Adolf Hitler, as Chancellor.
Ernst Thaelmann, the leader of the German Communist Party, famously said words to the effect of "Hitler's a joke. Let the President appoint him. In a few months, it will be our turn." As we know, Hitler was appointed, on January 30, 1933, and it was not a joke. Within weeks the Nazis arrested Thaelmann. He spent the rest of his life in a Gestapo prison, only to be executed in his cell by a gunshot to the head as the Soviet Red Army was closing in on Berlin.
On February 27, 1993, the famous "Reichstag Fire" occurred. The Nazis very quickly (using forged documents) blamed it on the KPD and the SPD. Neither of those organizations knew anything about it. It was later proven that it was actually se t by a detachment under the command of Herman Goering, already a close right-hand man of Hitler.
The equivalent in our time of course would be the burning down (to the extent that that could be achieved) of the United Sates Capitol. It would have to be meticulously planned and managed in the highest secrecy. "Jan. 6" would pale in comparison. And of course it would be blamed on "the Dems., and etc.," with, following the Nazi plan very carefully, forged documents.
Why did the Nazis do this? To establish the basis for an authoritarian government which happened to be provided for under the Weimar Constitution, through its "Establishment Clause." Of course there is not such equivalent provision in the U.S. Constitution. But since the Supreme Court has added a "Presidential immunity" clause to Article II of the Constitution (which happens to contain no language even vaguely authorizing such an additional clause), they could likely figure out a way to sanction authoritarian governance, under Trump and no one else, of course.
Trump has already made it clear that he would like-to/intends-to overthrow Constitutional governance in the United States. For example, he famously said to Sean Hannity (despite the latter's best efforts to get him to walk it back) that he would like to, would, be "Dictator of Day 1." Of course, if he assumed such powers on Day 1 (certainly nothing of the kind is provided for in the Constitution) nothing would prevent him from saying "well, I am going to continue them for another day," and another, and etc.
Even though during the campaign Trump distanced himself from "Project 2025," many of its authors are already taking their places, at one level or another, in the in-coming Administration, presumably by decree (since it doesn't spell out any other method). (For an early, comprehensive, treatment of "Project 2025," see The Nation's June, 2024 issue.)
Some would call that fascism. Of course, that depends upon which definition you use (among the numbers of them out there). Here's mine:
"There is a single, all-powerful executive branch of government, in service of a capitalist ruling class that controls, for the most part, the functions of production, distribution, finance, and exchange. There is no separation of the principal governmental powers: executive, legislative, and judicial. There are no independent media. There is a single national ideology, based on some combination of racism, misogyny, religious bigotry and authoritarianism, homophobia, and xenophobia. There is a political party supporting the movement. There is a state propaganda machine using the big and little lie techniques. There may be a full-blown dictatorship, a charismatic leader, engagement in foreign wars, and the use of the mob/private armies to enforce governmental control."
Second let's go on to, however you want to characterize them, the Policies-of-Trump that are being announced every day, by: direct statement, appointments to staff positions that do not need Congressional approval, and nominations for Cabinet positions that do. It is becoming very clear that Trump intends to overthrow the existing Constitutional order this time around (by, for example, destroying the Federal Civil Service, and by deporting "birthright citizens," which are provided for in the 14th Amendment [see further on this below]).
Given the flaccidity of the Republican Party, with majorities (although thin) in both Houses of Congress, and the absolute lining up of the Republican Supreme Court majority behind Trump, a "Second Reichstag Fire" might not be necessary for the installation of U.S. version of fascist governance. But, as I like to say, "hey, you never know." Because, as I said some time ago (late 2015, to be exact), are we facing Hair Trump or Herr Trump?
So, let's briefly consider certain statements, positions, and policies of Trump and his henchmen (some of which we have already mentioned):
Dictator on Day One (again). What he might do. But further, what provision of the Constitution does the establishment of that Federal office come under?
Further amending the Constitution without bothering to go through the Amendment process, as in deporting birthright citizens (as that citizenship is established in Section 1, of the XIVth Amendment -- which, of course, was designed to provide citizenship for formerly enslaved persons).
One Kevin Roberts, of the Heritage Foundation, a long-time Trump-influencer, has pronounced the coming of "the 2nd American Revolution" (see P2025), without bothering to tell us exactly why one is necessary or how exactly it is to be accomplished. He will stay at Heritage, presumably to offer more advice, which might be implemented with or without the consent of, say, the Congress.
As is very well-known, Trump's lied about the outcome of the 2020 election (and continues to do so to this very day), and he lies, in the opposite direction, about the elections of 2024, which he claims was a popular vote landslide in his favor (it wasn't). (Actually, it appears as if there is a Trumpian loyalty test as a condition of appointment to a position in his incoming Administration: one has to hold to the view that the won the 2020 election.)
Trump wants to arrest FBI agents who were doing their jobs, investigating various aspects of his functioning (as in the national security files removed by him to Mar-a-Lago), because he didn't/doesn't like the job they were doing. What statute is that under? (Kash Patel, if he becomes FBI Director, which seems increasingly likely, has announced as his first task rooting out all the "Deep-staters" [that is agents who were doing their jobs] at the FBI. It will then become Trump's private "intelligence" agency. Which then might even be called "The Secret State Police" [which, translated into German reads "Gestapo"]).
Trump has announced something else unprecedented, in advance: apparently without going through any kind of pardons-procedure, he will pardon all tried-and-convicted "Jan. 6-rioters" "on Day 1." Just because --- apparently the because being that they were on his side in his attempt to reverse the results of the 2020 election. The implications of that one are far-reaching, but we are not reaching that far here. For Trump it's simple: they were on his side.
Trump is a convicted felon in New York State (regardless of what happens with the sentencing for now), and is a person found guilty of sexual assault in a civil trial (as well as in the "paying-off-the-porn-star" case which now seems to be widely forgotten). Trump will do whatever he can to further cover-up those legal findings, about which covering-up he has been very successful so far.
Trump wants to arrest the members of the "Jan. 6 Committee." As it happens, he has not stated: a criminal action under which such an arrest would be made, under which jurisdiction it would occur, and which provision(s) of Article I of the Constitution were violated in the appointment of the Committee. And what, keep them in confinement indefinitely (since no law appears to exist under which they could be tried, much less found guilty)? Of course, he also wants to arrest Jack Smith and presumably all the staff who worked with him, again proposing to do so without naming the statutory authority under which such arrests would be carried out.
And so on, and so forth. None of the actions and procedures described above, which Trump has said he will carry out (or would like to carry out) from Day 1 of his Presidency, is provided for anywhere in the Constitution of the United Sates, or in any legislation that has been created under its provisions. At least I know of none such, and I haven't heard Trump or his acolytes referring to any such legislation either. And since he's got the Supreme Court majority in his pocket, he doesn't have to worry about any opposition coming from that direction.
What is all this called, folks? Being repetitious, of course it's a well-known term. It's called "fascism," at least according to the definition I use (see above). (Indeed, in my view, the word should only be used as a term defining a form of government, not as definition-less slogan to be waved around at moment's notice.)
More importantly, it is coming, folks, whether there is a Second Reichstag Fire or not. How does one know that? Just read Trump's lips, and read the statements of the White House Policy people coming in around him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum: Just as I was coming to the end of the editing for the next-to-final draft for this column, came the news of the resignation of the current Director of the FBI, Christopher Wray, coincident with the end of the Presidency of Joe Biden. Not that Trump would not have fired Wray anyway in order to put his own man in the slot. But the symbolism is important. Wray, a career law-enforcement official, seems to not even want to force Trump to, for the second time in history, dismiss an FBI Director.
But that is only symbolic. The real focus here must be on the man that Trump has picked to replace him, not a career law-enforcement person, but a career far-rightist. And as is very well known, Kash Patel has already announced that his number one task will not be, for example, to expand the FBI's activities against organized crime, or to expand their counter-intelligence functions in an increasingly dangerous world. (Actually, Patel would not want to do that. The FBI might come up with who-knows-what kind of further intelligence concerning Trump's own foreign entanglements. Or other top-secret documents hidden who-knows-where. [It was in fact Wray's raid on Mar-a-Lago that really turned Trump against him.] The pee-tapes, anyone?) For Patel it would seem that the one-and-only task will be to go after Trump's political enemies, whether there is a basis-in-law for doing so or not. After all, doing so seems to be right-at-the-top of Trump's personal "to-do-list." Gestapo (see above), anyone?
(Article changed on Dec 13, 2024 at 4:09 PM EST)
(Article changed on Dec 13, 2024 at 6:28 PM EST)
(Article changed on Dec 13, 2024 at 7:44 PM EST)
