Billionaires Use SCOTUS To Harm Labor

OPINION, JAMELLE BOUIE, NY Times, Opinion Columnist, June 6, 2023

There Is One Group the Roberts Court Really Doesn’t Like

It is difficult to overstate the hostility of the Roberts court to organized labor and the rights of American workers.

Under John Roberts, who became chief justice in 2005, the court has made it harder for workers to bring suit against employers collectively, limited the power of workers to hold employers responsible for discrimination on the job, ended the ability of public sector unions to require dues from nonmembers who benefit from collective bargaining and struck down a California law that allowed unions to recruit workers on the property of agricultural employers.

We saw this dynamic at work last week when the court issued its decision in Glacier Northwest v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local Union No. 174. The case involves a struggle in Washington State between workers represented by the Teamsters and their employer, a concrete manufacturer.

In its lawsuit, Glacier alleged that its workers timed a 2017 strike so that it would begin after some of the company’s mixing trucks were already filled with wet concrete, a perishable material. Glacier’s non-unionized workers were able to remove the concrete before the trucks were significantly damaged, but the company sued the Teamsters in state court anyway for damages relating to lost revenue from the wrecked concrete.

The union countered, citing the right to strike. It also noted that the damaged concrete was essentially spoilage of a product, for which unions have not generally been held liable. The Washington State Supreme Court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the dispute was “pre-empted by the National Labor Relations Act.”

The Supreme Court took Glacier’s appeal. And in an opinion joined by Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh, Justice Amy Coney Barrett held that unions are liable for damages during strikes under federal labor law when they take “affirmative steps to endanger” the employer’s property rather than “reasonable precautions to mitigate that risk.” She also sent the case back to the Washington State court for further litigation.

In a separate concurrence joined by Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas said the Supreme Court should reconsider its 1959 decision in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, which held that state courts are barred from handling claims concerning conduct that is “arguably” covered by the National Labor Relations Act. Under Garmon, employers must first receive a favorable ruling from the National Labor Relations Board if they want to sue a union for striking in state court. Tossing Garmon would bring labor law much closer to its pre-N.L.R.A. status quo, when conservative judges treated union actions as little more than criminal conspiracies to harm employers. Justice Samuel Alito also filed a concurrence in support of the majority.

The divide among the liberal justices was especially striking. The sole dissent came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who argued that the ruling would “erode the right to strike” and undermine the oversight of workplace law by the N.L.R.B. “Workers are not indentured servants, bound to continue laboring until any planned work stoppage would be as painless as possible for their master,” she wrote. “They are employees whose collective and peaceful decision to withhold their labor is protected by the N.L.R.A. even if economic injury results.”

It is possible that Justices Kagan and Sotomayor joined Barrett’s opinion in a strategic move meant to foreclose a more expansive decision from Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito. If so, it may ultimately prove a short reprieve in the face of a conservative majority that is eager to undermine a set of interests (labor’s interests) and a set of rights (workers’ rights) that it does not respect.

One point that must be emphasized is how, with its war on workers, the Roberts court is only acting in the Supreme Court’s historical capacity as an agent of capital. At times, the court has taken an expansive view of the civil and political rights of the American people. But it has rarely been a friend to the right of workers to organize and act in their own interests.

In the decade before the passage of the National Labor Relations Act, for example, the Supreme Court under William Howard Taft issued rulings constraining the ability of unions to act and organize, subjecting union actions to antitrust law and upholding restrictions on speech that targeted unions and other pro-labor organizations.

In other words, the Supreme Court is first and foremost the leading defender of property within our political order. And how could it be otherwise? The Constitution itself was written, in part, to protect the rights of property in the face of democracy and the spirit of egalitarianism. Even a more liberal Supreme Court than the one we have now would eventually find itself acting against labor, for the simple reason that the American political system was not built with the interests of workers in mind.

This means, as our actual court has again made clear, that the struggle for the emancipation of labor does not, as Samuel Gompers once wrote, take place in an “ideal world.” Instead, “we are in the bitter struggles of an unjust society.” If labor is ever going to get what it needs, it probably won’t be with the helping hand of a judge or a justice.

Jamelle Bouie became a New York Times Opinion columnist in 2019. Before that he was the chief political correspondent for Slate magazine. He is based in Charlottesville, Va., and Washington. @jbouie

“The people run democratic governments, but fascist governments run the people.” US War Department 1943

 

Heather Cox Richardson 

  · 

May 29, 2023 (Monday)

Beginning in 1943, the War Department published a series of pamphlets for U.S. Army personnel in the European theater of World War II. Titled Army Talks, the series was designed "to help [the personnel] become better-informed men and women and therefore better soldiers."

On March 24, 1945, the topic for the week was “FASCISM!”

“You are away from home, separated from your families, no longer at a civilian job or at school and many of you are risking your very lives,” the pamphlet explained, “because of a thing called fascism.” But, the publication asked, what is fascism? “Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze,” it said, “nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy. It is important for our future and that of the world that as many of us as possible understand the causes and practices of fascism, in order to combat it.”

Fascism, the U.S. government document explained, “is government by the few and for the few. The objective is seizure and control of the economic, political, social, and cultural life of the state.” “The people run democratic governments, but fascist governments run the people.”

“The basic principles of democracy stand in the way of their desires; hence—democracy must go! Anyone who is not a member of their inner gang has to do what he’s told. They permit no civil liberties, no equality before the law.” “Fascism treats women as mere breeders. ‘Children, kitchen, and the church,’ was the Nazi slogan for women,” the pamphlet said.

Fascists “make their own rules and change them when they choose…. They maintain themselves in power by use of force combined with propaganda based on primitive ideas of ‘blood’ and ‘race,’ by skillful manipulation of fear and hate, and by false promise of security. The propaganda glorifies war and insists it is smart and ‘realistic’ to be pitiless and violent.”

Fascists understood that “the fundamental principle of democracy—faith in the common sense of the common people—was the direct opposite of the fascist principle of rule by the elite few,” it explained, “[s]o they fought democracy…. They played political, religious, social, and economic groups against each other and seized power while these groups struggled.”

Americans should not be fooled into thinking that fascism could not come to America, the pamphlet warned; after all, “[w]e once laughed Hitler off as a harmless little clown with a funny mustache.” And indeed, the U.S. had experienced “sorry instances of mob sadism, lynchings, vigilantism, terror, and suppression of civil liberties. We have had our hooded gangs, Black Legions, Silver Shirts, and racial and religious bigots. All of them, in the name of Americanism, have used undemocratic methods and doctrines which…can be properly identified as ‘fascist.’”

The War Department thought it was important for Americans to understand the tactics fascists would use to take power in the United States. They would try to gain power “under the guise of ‘super-patriotism’ and ‘super-Americanism.’” And they would use three techniques:

First, they would pit religious, racial, and economic groups against one another to break down national unity. Part of that effort to divide and conquer would be a “well-planned ‘hate campaign’ against minority races, religions, and other groups.”

Second, they would deny any need for international cooperation, because that would fly in the face of their insistence that their supporters were better than everyone else. “In place of international cooperation, the fascists seek to substitute a perverted sort of ultra-nationalism which tells their people that they are the only people in the world who count. With this goes hatred and suspicion toward the people of all other nations.”

Third, fascists would insist that “the world has but two choices—either fascism or communism, and they label as ‘communists’ everyone who refuses to support them.”

It is “vitally important” to learn to spot native fascists, the government said, “even though they adopt names and slogans with popular appeal, drape themselves with the American flag, and attempt to carry out their program in the name of the democracy they are trying to destroy.”

The only way to stop the rise of fascism in the United States, the document said, “is by making our democracy work and by actively cooperating to preserve world peace and security.” In the midst of the insecurity of the modern world, the hatred at the root of fascism “fulfills a triple mission.” By dividing people, it weakens democracy. “By getting men to hate rather than to think,” it prevents them “from seeking the real cause and a democratic solution to the problem.” By falsely promising prosperity, it lures people to embrace its security.

“Fascism thrives on indifference and ignorance,” it warned. Freedom requires “being alert and on guard against the infringement not only of our own freedom but the freedom of every American. If we permit discrimination, prejudice, or hate to rob anyone of his democratic rights, our own freedom and all democracy is threatened.” And if “we want to make certain that fascism does not come to America, we must make certain that it does not thrive anywhere in the world.”

Seventy-eight years after the publication of “FASCISM!” with its program for recognizing that political system and stopping it from taking over the United States, President Joe Biden today at Arlington National Cemetery in Arlington, Virginia, honored those who gave their lives fighting to preserve democracy. “On this day, we come together again to reflect, to remember, but above all, to recommit to the future our fallen heroes fought for, …a future grounded in freedom, democracy, equality, tolerance, opportunity, and…justice.”

“[T]he truest memorial to their lives,” the president said, is to act “every day to ensure that our democracy endures, our Constitution endures, and the soul of our nation and our decency endures.”

Guidance: Protecting Pride Events from Armed Extremist Activity

Read original here: Georgetown Law - Links below do not work, see original for working links. Thanks to Rachel Maddow for link.

 Guidance: Protecting Pride Events from Armed Extremist Activity

Over the past year, armed extremist groups—including the Proud Boys, who led the breach of the

U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021—have increasingly targeted LGBTQ+ community events. Across the country, drag events and other LGBTQ+ community spaces have been vandalized, disrupted, and violently attacked. In some cases, this has resulted in violent clashes between protesters and counter- protesters. Given that these incidents have taken place amid a larger rise in homophobia and transphobia, often driven by dangerous conspiracy theories, it is possible that extremists—armed with firearms or other weapons, and sometimes acting as private militias—will attempt to target and interfere with upcoming Pride Month events, endangering LGBTQ+ individuals and their allies.

This guidance document draws on ICAP’s expertise in combatting armed activity by unauthorized private paramilitary groups in order to inform Pride organizers, LGBTQ+ community members, and their allies inside and outside government about what they can do to keep Pride Month safe.

Are Pride events legal?

Generally, yes. Parades and other public assemblies are constitutionally protected as a form of free speech and association.1 This means that although states and cities may regulate the time, place, and manner in which a parade or other public event takes place (for instance, by requiring permits for a parade route or for use of a park, or by limiting the times during which such events may occur), they may not discriminate based on content or viewpoint.2 Governments may not use regulation as a pretext to prevent a constitutionally protected public gathering.3

Under these core First Amendment principles, members of the LGBTQ+ community and their allies are free to assemble and celebrate during Pride Month. In fact, courts have ruled that local governments can take appropriate action to protect Pride events, including by imposing regulations that minimize the risk of violence between event attendees and protesters,4 so long as these regulations are content- and viewpoint-neutral, narrowly tailored to address the government’s interest in public safety, and leave open “ample alternative channels” for expression.5

ICAP’s online guide on constitutional rights during protests is available here for further reference.

But what about new laws that are targeting drag performances?

As of May 2023, legislators in at least fourteen states have introduced legislation to criminalize activities related to drag shows: Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and West Virginia.

1 Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536, 544-45 (1965).

2 Forsyth Cnty. v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134 (1992); see also Inst. for Const. Advoc. & Protec., Protests & Public Safety: A Guide for Cities & Citizens [hereinafter Protests & Public Safety], https://constitutionalprotestguide.org.

3 Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969).

4 Marcavage v. City of Philadelphia, 481 F. App’x 742, 747 (3d. Cir. 2012).

5 Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791 (1989) (quoting Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984)); see also Protests & Public Safety.

 

Legislators in many of these states have introduced multiple bills on this topic, and more may follow. Language that criminalizes performances that occur in front of minors is strikingly similar across proposed and passed legislation, as well as language that targets performances where a performer exhibits a gender identity “different” from the performer’s gender as “assigned at birth.”6

At this point, anti-drag bills have become law in only two states: Tennessee and Arkansas, although Tennessee’s statute has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge who found that the bill was likely to unconstitutionally constrain free expression.7 Litigation in Tennessee is continuing and legal challenges are expected to be mounted in other states if more of these bills become law. Regardless of whether any of these laws withstand legal challenge, it is important to remember that private paramilitary groups do not have the power to enforce these criminal laws.8

Private paramilitary groups have no authority to detain, attack, or attempt to police drag performers or gender-nonconforming persons at Pride events.

How might armed extremists attempt to interfere with Pride?

Over the past year, there have been documented instances of armed extremists seeking to disrupt LGBTQ+ community events, often by seeking to block entry with armed demonstrations or by initiating conflict with community members. At times, LGBTQ+ events have become the focus of rallying cries for armed extremists. In March 2023, hundreds of armed extremists, including neo-Nazis and other white supremacists, descended on a drag show in Wadsworth, Ohio. In June 2022, members of the white supremacist group Patriot Front were intercepted as they tried to approach a Pride event in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho.

Recent efforts have targeted drag events that are open to all ages, given the focus by violent extremists and private paramilitary organizations on the false narrative that LGBTQ+ communities are sexually “grooming” minors. Due to the public nature of many Pride events, armed extremists may attempt to interfere with gatherings on the pretext that they are open to minors.

What types of activities by armed extremists are considered unlawful?

State and federal laws9 prohibit violence against Pride participants. But state laws also prohibit private paramilitary activity, even where it does not involve physical violence against a targeted person or persons. All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized militias from engaging in activities reserved for the official state militia (for example, the National Guard), including law enforcement activities. Nearly every state constitution prohibits groups functioning as military units from operating outside the

6 S.B. 201, 2023 Leg., Reg. Sess. (Kan. 2023); H.F. 1903, 93rd Leg., Reg. Sess. (Minn. 2023); L.B. 371, 108th Leg., 1st

Sess. (Neb. 2023); H.B. 2736, 59th Leg., 1st Sess. (Okla. 2023); H.B. 4129, 88th Leg., Reg. Sess. (Tex. 2023).

7 Friends of George's, Inc. v. Tennessee, Nos. 23-cv-02163, 23-cv-02176, 2023 WL 2755238, at *7 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2023).

8 Private militias and paramilitary organizations are not protected by the Constitution and their paramilitary conduct is prohibited in every state. See Inst. for Const. Advoc. & Protec., Prohibiting Private Armies at Public Rallies: A Catalog of Relevant State Constitutional and Statutory Provisions 1-8, (Sept. 2020) [hereinafter Prohibiting Private Armies], https://www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/wp-content/uploads/sites/32/2018/04/Prohibiting-Private-Armies-at-Public- Rallies.pdf.

9 Violent offenses motivated by a victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity can be prosecuted as a federal hate crime. See Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, 18 U.S.C. 249. In addition, state laws generally prohibit assaults and other violent conduct, and many also prohibit hate crimes.

 

authority of the state government. Dozens of state statutes prohibit groups of people from organizing as private military units without governmental authorization; dozens of state statutes criminalize paramilitary activity; and many states prohibit the false assumption of law enforcement duties and/or the wearing of uniforms confusingly similar to military uniforms.10 State-specific fact sheets from ICAP are available here for further reference.

This means that armed groups that self-deploy to Pride events and stake out tactical positions, operate in military-style formations, or purport to engage in law enforcement functions like policing, patrolling crowds, or protecting property, are likely in violation of state law. Armed extremists who attempt to intimidate others or perform law enforcement functions may also be violating state laws.

What can Pride organizers do to protect community members?

If Pride event organizers receive threats or know that a vigilante militia group plans to patrol or otherwise synchronize protest movements, they should consider the following options:

• Understand local gun restrictions and anti-paramilitary laws: Become familiar with the laws related to firearms possession and paramilitary activity in the jurisdiction in order to understand the types of armed conduct that may be unlawful.

• Communicate with law enforcement: Share information about threats and vigilante militia plans with local police departments, alongside ICAP’s video guidance and written materials to provide them an opportunity to prepare for potential disruption, prevent illegal coordinated activities, and establish safety plans. Be specific about potential unlawful activity.

• Communicate with threat researchers: Get in touch with ICAP and similar organizations, such as your local ACLU chapter, to become better aware of extremist threats to events.

• Create an action plan: Identify local, state, and federal actors beyond law enforcement who can be reliable partners. This could include city council members, state representatives, legal aid organizations, state attorney general offices, national civil rights organizations, and Members of Congress. Use those resources, alongside information from law enforcement and threat researchers, to plan for paramilitary activity or violence.

• Consider hiring private security: Private security forces should always be licensed professionals who are compliant with state and local law, with credible websites, experience, and credentials. Stay in communication with law enforcement and ensure that you are compliant with local and state regulations if you opt for this measure. You should not hire or agree to use unauthorized armed paramilitary groups as security.

How can Pride organizers ensure that they comply with prohibitions on private militia activity? Why is it important to do so?

Because anti-paramilitary laws are viewpoint-neutral, private armed militia who are acting in support of the LGBTQ+ community are also unauthorized. Their actions could violate the same state laws described in this guidance, and they could be subject to similar penalties. If, after liaising with law enforcement, Pride organizers still have concerns about their security, it is best to research state private security regulations and approach a licensed company for security support while maintaining open communication with the police. Armed counter-protesters who are not properly licensed as security could escalate the potential for violence at an event, which will put attendees at risk.

10 See Prohibiting Private Armies, supra note 8, at 4-8.

 

QUICK GUIDE: What should I do if I see armed groups

at a Pride Event or other LGBTQ+ community event?

First, contact law enforcement if you feel unsafe or believe there is immediate danger. If you are comfortable, try to document the following specific factors:

 What are the armed people doing?

 What are the armed people wearing?

 Are they carrying firearms? If so, what type?

 If there are no firearms, what other weapons do they have?

 Do they appear to have any shared insignia? If so, what do they say or look like? Look for armband, hats, etc.

 Are they bearing signs or flags?

 Do they seem to be patrolling like a law enforcement officer?

 Do they seem to be coordinating their actions?

 Do they have leaders?

 Are they stopping or talking to people outside of their group?

 Do they appear to be provoking or threatening violence? Document specific actions.

 Are attendees being affected by the armed group? Are they leaving the event?

Being able to describe these things will help law enforcement determine an appropriate response, if one is needed.

Finally, please consider reporting the incident to ICAP’s team at reachICAP@georgetown.edu. We will be ready to help.

This guidance was prepared by the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection (ICAP) at Georgetown University Law Center. ICAP’s mission is to use the power of the courts to defend American constitutional rights and values. Visit us at www.law.georgetown.edu/icap/. Contact us at reachICAP@georgetown.edu.

God Despises Billionaires

When we think about the Bible, some might think of stories like David & Goliath. Others might think of great teaching like the Sermon on the Mount. Still others might think of prophesy like the book of Revelation. Or some might think about the rise of a nation, the story of Abraham and the birth of Israel.

But the Bible also offers clear warnings—things to avoid. Here are seven verses warning of the dangers of wealth.

– Those who trust in riches will fall.

So says Proverbs 11.28:
“He who trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like the green leaf.”

– It is hard for those who trust in riches to enter God’s Kingdom.

Mark 10.23: “Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”

– The impossibility of serving God and money.

Mark 6.24: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth.”

– Wealth can choke God’s word.

Matthew 13.22: “And the one on whom seed was sown among the thorns, this is the man who hears the word, and the worry of the world and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, and it becomes unfruitful.”

– Wealth can lead to pride that causes us to forget the Lord.

Deut. 8.10-14: “When you have eaten and are satisfied, you shall bless the Lord your God for the good land which He has given you. Beware that you do not forget the Lord your God by not keeping His commandments and His ordinances and His statutes which I am commanding you today; otherwise, when you have eaten and are satisfied, and have built good houses and lived in them, and when your herds and your flocks multiply, and your silver and gold multiply, and all that you have multiplies, then your heart will become proud and you will forget the Lord your God who brought you out from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.”

– Wealth is a temptation and a snare to our hearts.

1 Timothy 6.8-9: “If we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction.”

– Be on guard against wealth.

Luke 12.15: “Then he said to them, “Watch out! Be on your guard against all kinds of greed; life does not consist in an abundance of possessions.”

Rich in good works and generosity

The Bible does not teach that wealth is evil in itself, but that we are vulnerable to pride, idolatry and selfishness. Given our weakness, wealth poses grave spiritual danger to all who possess it. On the other hand, wealth can be used for good, as the apostle Paul instructs in 1 Timothy 6.17-19:

Instruct those who are rich in the present age not to be arrogant or to set their hope on the uncertainty of wealth, but on God, who richly provides us with all things to enjoy. Instruct them to do what is good, to be rich in good works, to be generous, willing to share, storing up for themselves a good reserve for the age to come, so that they may take hold of life that is real.

Nonetheless, the Bible includes a sobering set of warnings about wealth. And it’s important to remember that, while nearly everyone is quick to point out that they’re not really wealthy, most Americans enjoy considerably more wealth than many in the rest of the world ever have.

How will we respond to God’s warnings about wealth?

See Bill High

National Security Tech Hubs

On behalf of my grandchildren, Thank You Grandpa Biden...

Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs (Tech Hubs)

Apply here. cut and paste:  https://doc-eda.my.site.com/EDAGrants/s/funding-program/a2j3d00000013MxAAI/fy-2023-regional-technology-and-innovation-hub-program-phase-1

Links below are not active.

EDA released a Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) on May 12, 2023 for Phase 1 of the Tech Hubs Program. For the latest updates, sign up for EDA emails and texts. For more information, register for the Informational Webinar on May 18, 2023.

The Tech Hubs Program is an economic development initiative designed to drive regional technology- and innovation-centric growth by strengthening a region’s capacity to manufacture, commercialize, and deploy critical technologies. This program will invest directly in regions with the assets, resources, capacity, and potential to transform into globally competitive innovation centers in approximately 10 years while catalyzing the creation of good jobs for American workers at all skill levels, both equitably and inclusively. 

More here:  https://www.eda.gov/funding/programs/regional-technology-and-innovation-hubs

Call McCarthy's Bluff

This Is What Would Happen if Biden Ignores the Debt Ceiling and Calls McCarthy’s Bluff

[spoiler alert - nothing happens]

[See the Contrary view:  https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/14/opinion/debt-limit-constitution.html]

By Robert Hockett; NEW YORK TIMES: OPINION GUEST ESSAY; May 9, 2023

Mr. Hockett is a professor of law at Cornell University and a senior counsel at Westwood Capital. He worked for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the International Monetary Fund.

The deadline for a debt ceiling hike is only weeks away, with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen saying the U.S. could run out of money to pay its debts by June 1. Some Republicans, whether serious or bluffing, seem ready to go to the brink of default — if not actually default on the U.S. national debt. Debate has intensified over whether President Biden might sidestep the debt ceiling so the nation can keep paying what it owes.

There are powerful legal reasons and arguments for him to do so. These include the 14th Amendment, which prohibits questioning what we already owe, and the so-called later-in-time rule of statutory construction, which basically means that Congress’s most recent budget legislation trumps any earlier legislated ceiling.

Given the stakes, it’s important to explore the likely consequences if Mr. Biden ignores the debt ceiling — how doing so would affect our economy and the markets, our retirement savings and even our constitutional system. There is encouraging news for the president and those who follow our first Treasury secretary, Alexander Hamilton, in believing we must pay our legally incurred debts. We are far better off doing so, even if it means short-term chaos should Mr. Biden allow the June 1 deadline to come and go.

First, consider the consequences if the United States stopped paying its debts and defaulted on June 1. This would undo what Hamilton and his successors sought to ensure: a national credit rating beyond cavil or reproach. We would see a great tottering — if not worse — of U.S. banking, U.S. financial markets and the world’s capital markets.

For one thing, U.S. Treasury securities, valued at over $24 trillion (by far, the largest asset market in the world), are the primary safe asset held in banking, pension fund, mutual fund and other business portfolios. Our present regional bank crisis involving Silicon Valley Bank and others is occurring in response to a relatively slight, temporary drop in the value of low-yield Treasuries largely because of the Fed’s interest rate hikes. An outright default would leave us nostalgic for the comparable placidity of this troubled moment.

We would also probably see a rapid plunge in the value of the dollar worldwide as a global reserve asset. Our currency’s value in relation to others’ is rooted primarily in global demand for dollar-denominated financial assets, since we have relinquished our primacy as a goods exporter to China. Since Treasury securities are by far the most voluminous asset, their slide would be the dollar’s slide. This would quickly render imports, on which we continue to rely, far more expensive. Inflation could look more like that of Argentina or Russia 20 years ago than that of the present or even the 1970s.

This is to say nothing of our subsequent incapacity to maintain our military bases and other assets abroad and to pay thousands of U.S. military personnel. Only China would be a world-bestriding global superpower, abetting the moves it is already making with Russia, Brazil and other nations to displace the dollar as what Valéry Giscard d’Estaing once called the United States’ global “exorbitant privilege.”

Finally, even the serious prospect of U.S. default would quickly raise debt-servicing costs, rendering our deficit larger than it currently is — a consequence dramatically at odds with Republicans’ professed concerns about tying the debt ceiling hike to massive budget cuts.

It almost makes you think that fiscal responsibility isn’t what House Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s caucus really wants.

Now suppose the president decides to challenge or ignore the debt ceiling and instructs Ms. Yellen, on June 1 or before, to continue paying our nation’s obligations, as established by Congress in the most recent budget legislation, no matter what. Assume also that he and his administration carefully explain to the nation the legal and financial bases — not to mention the moral ones — for continuing to pay our debts.

The best-case scenario in this situation is that Mr. McCarthy’s caucus recognizes it has no legal case and its bluff has been called and that it gives up the tactic and passes budget legislation to which the Senate and the president can ultimately agree. This is unlikely but not impossible. After all, the only real alternative for Mr. McCarthy would be to go to court and seek to enjoin the president’s decision to continue to pay obligations — legal obligations already legislatively incurred. The impact of going to court to argue for defaulting on the nation’s debt, let alone the political optics for Mr. McCarthy, would be very risky.

It’s also possible that Mr. McCarthy’s Republicans howl in protest and stage more hearings and votes on the budget in the House, taking us to the brink of June 1 before legislatively addressing the debt ceiling. But it’s hard to see this getting them anything other than impotent spectacle, further cementing their public image as unserious, especially if the president formally repudiates the debt ceiling now or this month, rather than waiting until June.

But suppose the Republicans take the president to court nonetheless. What then? Assuming the courts didn’t refuse to hear the case on justiciability grounds, the challenge would certainly receive expedited review, given the magnitude of the matter. During the brief time the issue was being litigated, we’d see the beginnings of some of the nightmare economic scenarios sketched above.

But only the beginnings. The president’s multiple arguments would be compelling, and the markets, in any case, are already pricing in worries of this sort. The prospect of an end to the too-often threatened fiscal terrorism that is debt ceiling gamesmanship, moreover, would surely be more welcome to the markets than would be continued hostage taking and associated uncertainty of the kind that Republicans now regularly impose on the nation and its creditors.

However radical some of the Supreme Court’s right-wing justices might be, even they understand the legal precept that the Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. Even less so is the 1917 Liberty Bond Act, in which the debt ceiling is rooted. As a legal matter, this ceiling has long since been superseded by a new congressional budget process that has determined its own ceiling through budgeting since 1974 and was of doubtful 14th Amendment conformity, at least as now interpreted, in 1917.

Several of the court’s justices are pragmatic people on economic questions. It is exceedingly difficult to imagine Chief Justice John Roberts (who famously upheld Obamacare in 2012 and after) or Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, let alone the court’s Democratic appointees, demanding default — especially if the aforementioned financial tremors have already begun.

Justices Samuel Alito and Amy Coney Barrett are a bit harder to call, but it seems likely that at least Justice Alito would refrain from demanding default, given his record of moderate decisions on issues of financial law. All but Justice Clarence Thomas and perhaps Justice Barrett, accordingly, look fairly likely to strike the debt ceiling, at least as applied by Republicans, should they try to sue the president out of paying our already legislated obligations come June.

Will invoking the 14th Amendment amount to a constitutional crisis, as Ms. Yellen suggested this week? Not really. For one thing, as noted above, there are multiple grounds upon which Republican hostage taking on the debt ceiling is contrary to law, and not all of them implicate the Constitution. For another thing — and, in my view, yet more important — the present issue is not really a legal issue pitting the president against Congress.

The current debt ceiling nonsense is a case of one faction of Congress being pitted against Congress itself. Our legally contracted debt is congressionally legislated debt; refusal to pay on this debt boils down to the House Republican faction refusing to pay what Congress itself has mandated we pay.

Let us now end the absurdity. Let us bury the Liberty Bond-era debt ceiling.

Robert Hockett is a professor of law at Cornell University, an adjunct professor of finance at Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business and a senior counsel at Westwood Capital. He worked at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the International Monetary Fund. 

Hope Today

Today is a good day.

Jake Sullivan outlined an economic strategy for the United States which, if followed, can prevent real damage to the National Security of the United States.

Now, we can hope that our billionaire owners will allow Congress to make the changes we need to continue as a democracy and, even, save their billionaire hides along with the rest of us.

Heather Cox Richardson,  April 27, 2023 (Thursday)

Catie Edmondson and Carl Hulse in the New York Times yesterday noted that House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) cannot bring his conference together behind a budget plan. He wanted to pass a bill demanding major concessions from President Biden before the Republicans would agree to raise the debt ceiling, both to prove that he could get his colleagues behind a bill and to put pressure on the Biden administration to restore the old Republican idea that the only way to make the economy work is to slash taxes, business regulation, and government spending.

McCarthy was pleased to have passed his measure with not a single vote to spare, but it appears he got the vote because everyone knew it was dead on arrival at the Senate. According to Edmonson and Hulse, McCarthy got the bill through only by begging his colleagues to ignore the provisions of the measure because it would never become law. He urged them to focus on the symbolic victory of showing Biden they could unite behind cuts.

But today at the Brookings Institution, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan outlined a very different vision of the global economy and American economic leadership. First of all, just the fact this happened is significant: Sullivan is a national security advisor, and he was talking about economics. He outlined how Biden’s “core commitment,” “his daily direction” is “to integrate domestic policy and foreign policy.” 

Sullivan argued for a new economic approach to the challenges of the twenty-first century. The Biden administration is trying to establish “a fairer, more durable global economic order, for the benefit of ourselves and for people everywhere.” 

The U.S. faces economic challenges, he noted, many of which have been created by the economic ideology that has shaped U.S. policy for the past 40 years. The idea that markets would spread capital to where it was most needed to create an efficient and effective economy has been proven wrong, Sullivan said. The U.S. cut taxes and slashed business regulations, privatized public projects, and pushed free trade on principle with the understanding that all growth was good growth and that if we lost infrastructure and manufacturing, we could make up those losses in finance, for example.

As countries lowered their economic barriers and became more closely integrated with each other, they would also become more open and peaceful. 

But that’s not how it played out. Privileging finance over fundamental economic growth was a mistake. The U.S. lost supply chains and entire industries as jobs moved overseas, while countries like China discarded markets in favor of artificially subsidizing their economies. Rather than ushering in world peace, the market-based system saw an aggressive China and Russia both expanding their international power. At the same time, climate change accelerated without countries making much effort to address it. And, most of all, the unequal growth of the older system has undermined democracy.

Biden has attempted to counter the weaknesses of the previous economic system by focusing on building capacity to produce and innovate, resilience to withstand natural disasters and geopolitical shocks, and inclusiveness to rebuild the American middle class and greater opportunity for working people around the world.

After two years, the results have been “remarkable.” 

Large-scale investment in semiconductor and clean energy production has jumped 20-fold since 2019, with private money following government seed money to mean about $3.5 trillion in public and private investment will flow into the economy in the next decade. Building domestic capacity will bring supply chains home and create jobs.

But this vision is not about isolating the United States from other countries. Indeed, much of the speech reinforced U.S. support for the positions of the European Union. 

Instead, the U.S. is encouraging our allies—including developing nations—to build similarly to increase our united economic strengths and to enable the world to address climate change together, a field that offers huge potential for economic growth. The Indo-Pacific Economic Framework with 13 Indo-Pacific nations is designed to create international economic cooperation in that region, and the Americas Partnership for Economic Prosperity, which includes Barbados, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Mexico, Panama, Peru, and Uruguay, is designed to do the same here in the Americas. The U.S.-E.U. Trade and Technology Council and our trilateral coordination with Japan and Korea are part of the same economic program.

With this economic approach, the U.S. does not seek to cut ties to China, but rather aims to cut the risks associated with supply chains based in China by investing in our own capacities, and to push for a level playing field for our workers and companies. The U.S. has “a very substantial trade and investment relationship” with China that set a new record last year, and the U.S. is looking not to create conflict but to “manage competition responsibly” and “work together on global challenges like climate, like macroeconomic stability, health security, and food security.” “But,” he said, “China has to be willing to play its part.”

In today’s world, Sullivan said, trade policy is not just about the tariff deals that business leaders have criticized the administration for neglecting. It is about a larger economic strategy both at home and abroad to build economies that offer rising standards of living for working people. 

The administration is now focusing on labor rights, climate change, and banking security in this larger picture. Through organizations like the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment the administration hopes to mobilize hundreds of billions of dollars in financing in the next seven years to build infrastructure in low- and middle-income countries and to relieve debt there.

“The world needs an international economic system that works for our wage-earners, works for our industries, works for our climate, works for our national security, and works for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries,” Sullivan said. That means replacing the idea of free markets alone with “targeted and necessary investments in places that private markets are ill-suited to address on their own.” Rather than simply adjusting tariff rates, it means international cooperation.

And, Sullivan said, “it means returning to the core belief we first championed 80 years ago: that America should be at the heart of a vibrant, international financial system that enables partners around the world to reduce poverty and enhance shared prosperity. And that a functioning social safety net for the world’s most vulnerable countries is essential to our own core interests.”

This strategy, he said, “is the surest path to restoring the middle class, to producing a just and effective clean-energy transition, to securing critical supply chains, and, through all of this, to repairing faith in democracy itself.” He called for bipartisan support for this approach to the global economy. 

Sullivan noted that the phrase “a rising tide lifts all boats” came from President John F. Kennedy, not from later supply-side ideologues who used it to defend their tax cuts and business deregulation. “President Kennedy wasn’t saying what’s good for the wealthy is good for the working class,” Sullivan said, “He was saying we’re all in this together.”

Sullivan quoted Kennedy further: “If one section of the country is standing still, then sooner or later a dropping tide drops all the boats. That’s true for our country. That’s true for our world. [And] economically, over time, we’re going to rise—or fall—together.” 

“And that goes for the strength of our democracies as well as for the strength of our economies.”

Foreign policy journalist Laura Rozen noted that David Wessel of Brookings asked Sullivan for a quick summary of this new economic vision. Sullivan answered: “We’re at a moment now where we need to build capacity to build the goods & invent the technologies of [the] future & we’re going to make the investments to do that—us, +everyone who wants to be in on [the] deal. & then we’re going to build the resilience we need…so that no natural disaster or geopolitical shock can stop us from getting things we need when we need them….”

The United States of Charles Dickens

 

The following is an unedited rant about life in America today; I am posting it here without the author's permission or knowledge. I can track him down if needed, but his words speak well; I think the writer is a recent immigrant.

'...They tried to break into my car for the third time; my neighbors car has been stolen. My other neighbors car has been broken into. I have reported to the police but they don’t do nothing. Actually the last time I called they hung up on me. This is getting ridiculous. They’re just going around breaking into peoples cars stealing packages. This is all I see on this app and the ring app and yet the police choose to do nothing they say they can’t do nothing instead of sitting wherever they’re sitting, they should come sit over here. 

This is the third time they tried to break into my car the first time they even came back and tried to threaten my wife and my brother who was by the front door. there’s no telling what they will do. Shoot me shoot my family. Obviously these people are scared of anything because nothing happens the police. They only care about causing problems in the street. All I see is the police harassing innocent people on social media all the time pulling over people that don’t need to be pulled over asking for licenses and registration for people who don’t needed to be shown yet we are constantly getting robbed our packages. Our vehicles, nothing is safe ..[here] no more, every single day I hear about people getting robbed or their cars getting stolen or their cars getting broken into and still nothing has been done until we start taking matters into our own hands. 

That is the only time that the police will react and more than likely instead of taking or looking for the people who stole the car, they’ll take you to jail, this is a goddamn joke. I have to stay up all night and watch my car so no one breaks into it I honestly have no faith in our judicial system, nor do I have faith in our government. 

Feds are raising interest rates. Banks are collapsing. All I hear is commercials about buying gold and silver to protect the dollar and buying survival food. And all of this is connected because once the country starts doing bad, people start breaking into cars and houses it’s just how it goes ever since the move of all the people leaving the area only crackheads and bombs are left here and also people who haven’t been here their whole life. The bay area is no longer. What it used to be? The police don’t do nothing not once have I heard of any cop or police enforcement, helping anybody we work hard for our things I know it’s materialistic, but this is my hands and feet without my car. I am nothing I need it to feed my family. And to take care of responsibilities. If whoever is reading this, and you decide to still break into cars, I’m telling you that if the police won’t do nothing, I will take matters into my own hands to protect my family and their assets.'

The follow up:  

'All I did was speak about my car being broken into and people in the comment section were telling me that I will go to jail for protecting my family. How does that make any sense and then my account was suspended, but I did not say anything discriminated, nor did I bullied a single person I stayed respectful to the very end, even though the person continuously telling me that I will go to jail and that I should call a lawyer, being sarcastic and making smart remarks on how a criminal can break into your home and if you shoot them, you can go to jail the continuous breaking’s are getting ridiculous I work very hard for the Little that we do have we’re not even middle class. 

We’re barely making it living check . by check. Bills are barely getting paid. Food is barely brought on the table and now I have to deal with someone taking the Little that I do have recently I just lost my best friend which is my cat of 22 years I had posted about it. I’m sure that some of you remember after that, I had posted that my car was broken into about three times and that I had chased them and they were going about 100 miles [per hour] on H..on the opposite direction so I stopped because it became too dangerous.

The comment sections was nothing but a couple people telling me that I will go to jail for protecting my family that if someone breaks into my house and I shoot them, I will go to jail. Every single week my car, or my neighbors car has continuously been robbed; the police, they will never do anything about it. The area is not what it used to be. People most of the people that are here are new, rich and stuck up. Most of these people all they will do is complain on social media instead of making a real difference. 

By getting up and voting for our city officials, if real change if you want to see you real change. I think we should vote on a different mayor for the city ... because nothing is being done. I see so many people so many victims of this senseless acts and then you got your people that are protecting these people honestly, the person that was in my comment section saying that I would go to jail if I protected my home, it seem like that they were one of the people going around breaking into cars again next-door.

You disabled my account on grounds that we’re not clear. Do you allow bullying trolls on your app? Instead of punishing the aggressor you punish the victim; never did I discriminate, nor did I say not one curse word. I was completely respectful to the very end, even though they were telling me that I will go to jail for protecting my family. I still wish them nothing but the best.

This is becoming increasingly difficult to take care of my family to live to be alive to breathe to eat. I don’t make a lot of money and now someone is trying to take the little that I do have I will start taking matters into my own hands since the police doesn’t want to do anything about it.'

E. K.

NAZI Republicans Take Tennessee in Bloodless Coup

 

NAZI Republicans Take Tennessee  - Thankfully the coup did not spill any blood.

By Eliza Fawcett and Emily Cochrane, New York Times, April 6, 2023

In the wake of a school shooting in Nashville that left six people dead, three Democratic lawmakers took to the floor of the Republican-controlled Tennessee House chamber last week to rally for stricter gun control.

On Thursday, the three lawmakers — State Representatives Justin Jones, Justin J. Pearson and Gloria Johnson — were facing expulsion from the House, a dramatic act of political retribution.

In the first vote, the legislature voted 72-25 to oust Mr. Jones. The votes on expelling the other two lawmakers were expected to follow.

How did the General Assembly reach this point?

Hundreds of students, parents and teachers have marched to the State Capitol since the Covenant School shooting on March 27 and have held demonstrations at the Capitol to demand action by the legislature to toughen gun laws.

Last Thursday, Representatives Jones, Pearson and Johnson — whose districts are in Nashville, Knoxville and Memphis, the state’s three largest cities — interrupted the legislature by chanting “No action, no peace” on the House floor. Legislative proceedings were forced to a halt.

The speaker of the House, Cameron Sexton, responded by comparing the three lawmakers to the rioters who breached the U.S. Capitol in 2021. He called their actions “unacceptable” and a violation of House rules of decorum and procedure. By Monday, he had revoked their ID access to the State Capitol building and had stripped two of the three lawmakers of their committee assignments.

The protests over gun policy have continued. Demonstrators flooded the building again on Thursday morning before the expulsion votes, with loud chants of “Gun control now” and “Not one more” outside the House chamber. Inside, dozens of protesters held up fists and signs in support of gun control and the three Democrats, but they remained silent to avoid being ejected from the galleries.

The Republicans who control state government, led by Gov. Bill Lee, have rejected the calls for tighter gun laws and have largely focused instead on toughening school security. The Tennessee House passed a bill on Thursday that would require schools to conduct annual drills, keep all entrance doors locked and install a mobile panic-alert system.

The three Democratic lawmakers spoke out against the measure on Thursday, with Mr. Jones calling it a “white flag of surrender” that does not address the root causes of gun violence.

Who are the three lawmakers?

Ms. Johnson, who represents parts of Knoxville, is the most senior of the three; she was first elected to the House for the 2013-2014 term. A former teacher, she was elected again in 2018, and after redistricting following the 2020 census, she moved to avoid having to contest the seat of another Democratic member.

Mr. Jones, 27, is one of the youngest members of the state House of Representatives. He won election in November to represent parts of Nashville. A graduate of Fisk University in Nashville, he made a name for himself locally as a community organizer. He has held sit-ins in the State Capitol and, in the summer of 2020, led a 61-day protest against racial injustice outside the building that included demands for the removal of a bust of a Confederate general.

Mr. Pearson, 28, won a special election by a landslide in January to represent parts of Memphis. A native of the city and graduate of Bowdoin College in Maine, he is the son of an educator and a preacher. Mr. Pearson gained prominence when he successfully opposed a crude oil pipeline proposed for South Memphis.

In interviews, all three lawmakers spoke of how gun violence — and in some instances, their personal experiences of it — had helped shape their paths to politics. Mr. Pearson recounted the pain of losing family members and a mentor to gun violence, and said the push for tighter restrictions on firearms “is personal when you lose your friends, when you lose loved ones.”

Mr. Jones recalled attending his first protests after Trayvon Martin, a 17-year-old Black teenager, was shot by a neighborhood watch volunteer in Florida. “This issue is something that has been a part of our generation,” he said. “This is a very personal issue.”

Ms. Johnson recalled a shooting at Central High School in Knoxville that took place while she was still working as a teacher, and “the terror on the kids’ faces as they were running down that hill into my classroom.”

How does expulsion work?

Three Republican state representatives — Andrew Farmer, Gino Bulso and Bud Hulsey — filed individual resolutions on Monday to formally expel each of the three Democrats. Hours later, a procedural vote easily cleared the chamber, despite Democratic opposition.

In each resolution, Republicans charge that the lawmaker “did knowingly and intentionally bring disorder and dishonor” to the House and “generally engaged in disorderly and disruptive conduct.” The measures do not cite any other consequence of the protests.

A two-thirds vote of the House is required to expel a member. The Republicans have the necessary supermajority to pass the expulsion resolutions.

What would happen to the vacated seats?

Special elections would be held to fill the seats of the expelled lawmakers. All three Democrats would have the ability to run again in the special elections and to be re-elected to the seats.

Local governing bodies in each district can appoint temporary representatives — who could even be the expelled lawmakers themselves — to hold the seats until the special elections are held.

Is expulsion common?

Expulsions of lawmakers from state legislatures have been rare in American history.

Six lawmakers were expelled from the Tennessee House in 1866, immediately after the Civil War, for seeking to prevent the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, which granted citizenship to formerly enslaved people. Since then, the House of Representatives in Tennessee has voted only twice to oust a lawmaker. Both votes were bipartisan: in 1980, after a sitting lawmaker was convicted of soliciting a bribe, and in 2016, after the House majority whip faced allegations of sexual misconduct while in office.

Across the country, most expulsion cases have involved state lawmakers who faced criminal charges or accusations of sexual misconduct. An Arkansas lawmaker, Mickey Gates, was expelled in 2019 for failing to pay taxes; a Colorado lawmaker, Steve Lebsock, was expelled in 2018 after facing multiple allegations of sexual harassment.

In 2021, a four-term Republican lawmaker, Mike Nearman, became the first person ever expelled from the Oregon House after he let armed demonstrators into the locked State Capitol and was charged with official misconduct.

That same year, the Ohio House expelled Larry Householder, who had been arrested and charged in a $60 million corruption scheme while serving as House speaker. It was the first time an Ohio lawmaker had been expelled since 1857, when a member was removed for punching another member.

In 1920, the New York State Assembly expelled five Socialist lawmakers — the party’s entire delegation. No other lawmaker was expelled in the state for nearly a century, until the State Senate expelled Hiram Monserrate in 2010 after he was convicted of misdemeanor assault.

Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.

Eliza Fawcett is a reporter for the National desk and a member of the 2022-2023 New York Times fellowship class. @ElizaFawcett

Emily Cochrane is a national correspondent covering the American South, based in Nashville. She was previously a congressional correspondent in Washington, chronicling the annual debate over government funding and economic legislation. @ESCochrane

The trump Indictment, Including Statement of Facts

Click here for indictment

or copy and paste

 https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/read-trump-indictment/7db5e99723374b48/full.pdf

To include the Statement of Facts click here

Or copy and [aste:  https://www.politico.com/news/2023/04/04/read-the-trump-indictment-document-00087925

trump for Dummies

trump is a Russian/Putin asset.

His status alone explains most of his actions. 

Fill in the blank: trump's decision helps Putin by_________________________________.

Then the question becomes this: What does Putin want?

It's harder to answer that question.

I find it easier to understand Putin when I imagine a rat in a tenement.

This rat will try to steal all the food he can find, shit wherever he is, run from threats until cornered and, when cornered, will fight with all his might.

Unfortunately for us, this rat has nuclear weapons, good energy reserves and about 140 million people he considers as slaves.

Putin wants Western Democracies to wither and die. So he directs trump to foster division, violence and corruption in the United States and other Democracies.