Preserving wise words before they magically disappear
A Little Background
I do not know Beau Willimon. I’ve never met the young man and, quite honestly, until last week didn’t know a thing about him. Yet, most of what you will find here, all the good parts, are his words, not mine.
If you know of Mr. Willimon, it is likely in connection with this little show he produced for Netflix called House of Cards. Given all the awards its won and the general acclaim for the series, one might assume that Mr. Willimon understands how Washington politics work.
What you might not know is that Mr. Willimon has hands-on experience in the political world, having worked on campaigns for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and was press aide for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign. He’s done a bunch of other political stuff as well to give him a fairly substantial background in politics. Top that with his House of Cards experience and I think it’s reasonably safe to say his understanding of the political world is a bit more advanced than the average guy sitting at the bar.
So, when he decided last Friday, 3 February, to present the Internet with his Declaration of Resistance via Twitter, it carried a little more weight than the average entertainment industry celeb. However, Willimon is also a playwright and as such there are some subtleties and inferences built into his tweetstorm that may not be immediately obvious. Some of them may not need to be obvious for his meaning to be clear, but our opinion is that assurance is better than adding to the heaping mounds of confusion spread across the Internet. He bases his words largely upon the contents of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, we’ve decided to annotate his entries both as a means of explaining what might not be immediately evident and confirm what might be inferred.
This also gives us a chance to more reliably preserve and index Willimon’s entries. If there is a downside to posting these things on Twitter, it is that they are quickly pushed down the list and more difficult to find with each passing day. Willimon uses Twitter a fair amount so even one day after they were posted we still had to do a great deal of scrolling to find them. This will, hopefully, provide a more consistent point of reference for more long-term use.
What Beau Said
These are the original tweets since from @BeauWillimon. Our additions are in red italics between tweets. Note: we do not control how Mr. Willimon’s tweets appear on this page.
1. DECLARATION OF RESISTANCE
When in the course of American history it becomes necessary for the people to save our Nation from a Tyrant,
If the opening sounds at least slightly familiar, that’s a good thing: it comes close to the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which I will refer to from here on out as “the Declaration.” He only modifies a portion of the first sentence, but the remainder is implied through the rest of the document. For those who slept through Civics class, please allow me to remind you of that first paragraph.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Now, see the connection between what the framers of the Declaration were saying and Mr. Willimon’s words? Consider the phrase “dissolve the political bands” extremely important from here on out.
2. To safeguard equality for all and their inalienable rights of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness from bigotry and corruption,
Another Declaration reference. The second paragraph of that document begins:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The use of the word “men” in this context should be interpreted as representative of all humanity. While women had few legal rights at the time of the Declaration’s writing, the framers were not intentionally leaving them out. Rather, they were attempting to make the statement as inclusive as possible. Willimon nicely modernizes the sentence with the phrase “To safeguard equality for all.”
3. To ensure that our Government continues derive its power from the consent of the governed rather than by autocracy,
Breaking things down into smaller chunks, we hit a point of the preamble that some consider inflammatory. Those who would call themselves “patriots” have long used this portion of the Declaration to justify acts of violence against the government and/or its representatives. The Declaration reads:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Arguably, in challenging the authority of the 45th president, Willimon claims that the person residing in the White House does not have sufficient consent of the government. His point is based on the fact that while some 63 million people did vote for the president, over 75 million voted directly against him and over 200 million others are not represented by either vote. Therefore, one might well argue that the president is far from having the consent of the governed and that his election is illegitimate.
4. That whenever any President becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to make such demands upon their Congress:
Willimon is being very careful with his words here. Using the phrase, “to make such demands upon their Congress” is a softer action than what is stated in the Declaration. I don’t blame him. To copy the words of the Declaration might be considered by some as an attempt to overthrow the government. Take a look at the original language:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
We have to understand the challenges that the founding fathers experienced in living under the auspices of Great Britain, which was in full-tilt empire-building mode at that particular moment. The intent was very clear: do the will of the people or the people will kick you out on your ass and do something different. Never would they have guessed that either the government or the nation would become as large and complicated as it is today. We can’t just march on Washington and institute a new government, no matter how attractive that might sound to some. Appealing to Congress to act on our behalf is a lot safer and doesn’t get one arrested as quickly.
5. Immediate impeachment of the President for crimes committed, or removal from office by way of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution.
Impeachment. There’s a word that politicians have been tripping over themselves to avoid. With the president’s administration only two weeks old, there are few members of Congress who have the intestinal fortitude to even think about drafting articles of impeachment at this point. While they might admit that the president is building such a case, few have dared to actually utter the word aloud in public. To engage in impeachment is to bring much of government to a grinding hault while the matter is addressed. This is not a matter to be entered into lightly or without sufficient preparation.
Willimon references the 25th amendment. Let me refresh your memory on that one.
The 25th amendment was ratified in 1967 and clarifies exactly what happens in the event that the president is no longer capable of fulfilling his oath of office. There are four sections to the amendment, the first two not applying to our current situation unless the president should happen to simply fall dead or become a victim of some violent action against his life. Section three has been used any time the president undergoes any type of treatment where he is under anesthesia, temporarily rendering him incapacitated. Section four is the kicker. It reads:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Let’s be clear that this action would most likely occur only after articles of impeachment against the president had been passed by both bodies of Congress, or should the vice-president be able to convince enough members of the Cabinet to implore Congress with sufficient reasons for removing the president from power. Either path is extremely difficult given the partisan politics currently dominating the legislative bodies. This is a serious course of action with a distinct set of consequences.
6. Donald J. Trump has conducted injuries and usurpations, pursuing the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.
Here is Willimon’s charge against the president: that the has “conducted injuries and usurpations, pursuing the establishment of an absolute Tyranny …” Reference again back to the preamble, pretty much picking up where he left off. The Declaration specifically states:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Let me emphasize again that the framers were referring to the “abuses and usurpations” of Britain’s King George III. For our use here, Despotism and Tyranny are sufficiently close in meaning as to be interchangeable. In short, Willimon is saying that the current president is no better than mad King George III and should be deposed for exactly the same reasons.
7. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world–
This is a direct quote from the preamble. In the Constitution, it is followed by the charges of the colonies made against Britain’s king. This was not so much for the benefit of King George, but a justification for those who might choose with which side the might ally themselves.
In our particular case here, however, very specific charges are necessary not only so that one might recruit allies to the cause, but to justify taking any action in the first place. One does not simply call the president a tyrant without providing evidence of such. So, Willimon proceeds to make his case.
8. He has obstructed the Laws for Naturalization of Immigrants, and illegally banned refugees in need of safe haven.
As I am writing this, we are waiting for the 9th circuit court of appeals to make a full decision regarding the president’s ban on immigrants and refugees. The president’s executive order created a ban against people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering this US. While verbally asserting that this was not a ban against a specific religious group, it had the effect of such, likely making it a violation of the Constitution’s first amendment prohibiting any action against any religion. One can also reasonably argue that the ban failed to allow for due process. The end result has been chaos.
9. He has continued to violate federal court orders which require the temporary cessation of this ban, thereby violating his executive oath.
When a New York judge issued a temporary restraining order against deportations arising from the ordered travel ban, the president refused to acknowledge the action and instructed federal agencies to continue. This can be interpreted as a violation of the presidential oath, but actual charges against the president on this account could easily be challenged by Congress.
10. He has dismissed an Attorney General for fulfilling her oath to defend the Constitution, defying the autonomy of the Dept. of Justice.
For the sake of history, and anyone who might not have been paying attention, one should be aware that the president dismissed acting Attorney General Sally Yates for failing to defend the president’s travel ban. By definition, it is the job of the Attorney General and the US Department of Justice to defend the laws and interest of the federal government. However, Ms. Yates voiced concern that the order was possibly not legal and therefore should not be defended.
Willimon’s claim regarding the autonomy of the Department of Justice is shaky, however. The position of Attorney General, specifically, has been highly politicized since John F. Kennedy nominated his brother, Robert, to the post in 1961. There are no laws that specifically require or enforce the autonomy, though it is, in practice, an ethical goal.
11. He has purged the State Dept. of its highest level officials without any regard for a responsible continuity of State Affairs.
Here, Willimon is referring to actions taken on 26 January 2017. At first, it appeared as though the senior officials at the State Department had walked out of their own accord. Only later did it become known that they had, in fact, been dismissed by the president. This created a vacuum of knowledge and experience within the federal government regarding international relations. While the move is within the president’s prerogative, it came at a time when the action arguably left all US embassies and overseas personnel without a direct contact or person of authority at the State Department, creating an inherent security issue.
12. He has enlisted amateur ideologues – such as the white supremacist Stephen L. Bannon – to make national security decisions.
The reference here is regarding the placement of the president’s chief strategist (and campaign manager) Steve Bannon to the principals committee of the National Security Council. This committee ultimately makes direct recommendations to the president regarding matters of national security. Mr. Bannon’s previous statements present ideologies and philosophies consistent with those of a white supremacist, though Bannon denies the charge.
13. He has vowed to enact policy and legislation which clearly tread on the separation of church and state.
At a prayer breakfast on 2 February 2017, the president told a group of religious leaders that he would “get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment.” The Johnson Amendment was enacted in the 1950s to maintain the wall between church and state by prohibiting religious organizations from participating directly in political activities. The president enjoyed considerable support from Christian extremists during his presidential campaign. This move is seen as a way of undergirding that support. However, repealing the Johnson Amendment would require, at the very least, a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress, something that is not generally considered likely to happen.
14. He has refused to remove or address conflicts of interest regarding both his own business and that of his cabinet and family.
Conflicts of interest have been a persistent issue against the president from the day he took office. Already, multiple lawsuits have been filed in federal court seeking to force the president to either divest himself of his business holdings or place them in a genuine blind trust. To date, the president has refused to do either. Instead, he handed off control of his business concerns to his two oldest sons while maintaining full ownership.
The effective law here is what is generally considered the emoluments clause of the Constitution. The clause in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution says that, “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or Foreign State.” Given that the president’s considerable business holdings are often utilized by other heads of state, many claim that to retain any interest at all in the properties or holdings would be in violation of the law.
We should note that the current lawsuits represent the first serious challenge to the Emoluments Clause in modern history.
15. He has hastily signed multiple Executive Orders without the advisement of Congress, policy experts, his cabinet or staff.
Willimon’s statement here is based primarily on anecdotal evidence. While that evidence appears likely to be valid, it lacks the weight of authority to have any genuine effect beyond the matter of public opinion. The argument speaks more to the character of the president and the possible presence of mental illness, specifically narcissistic personality disorder (DSM-5 301.81 (F60.81)). The presence of such a mental illness could provide justification for the invocation of the 25th amendment.
16. He has signed an Executive Order which knowingly deprives the sick of desperately needed healthcare with no concern for their lives.
Repealing the Affordable Care Act was one of the president’s primary campaign promises and one of the first executive orders signed once he was in office. If the repeal were to be immediate, ti would indeed leave many without healthcare. However, any change in the law requires action on the part of Congress where the momentum to make any change has waned under differences of opinion and public backlash. At the time of this writing, there is no way to determine whether the president’s order will have any long-term effect or not.
17. He has signed an Executive Order permitting a pipeline that tramples on Native American Rights and endangers safe water supply.
In two separate Executive Orders, the president pushed for reinstatement of the KeystoneXL pipeline and the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Keystone pipeline had been effectively halted by the previous administration while the Dakota Access project had been stalled due to high-profile protests. Both pipelines present significant environmental concerns, endanger nearby water supplies, and usurp the rights of indigenous North American tribes. While the president’s actions on the matter are not technically illegal, one can argue they are in violation of the public trust by putting drinking water at risk.
18. He has illegally threatened to cut off funding to Sanctuary Cities which have determined their values through self-governance.
Back in January, the president signed an Executive Order instructing federal agencies to identify funds that might be withheld from sanctuary cities. This presents problems on two fronts. Denying the funds would require an act of Congress and it’s difficult to imagine a member of Congress who would vote against their home state. Such an act would almost certainly come back to haunt them in 2018. Second, the very suggestion of the idea may exceed the limit of the president’s authority. The cities in question are already fighting back. Removing funding from these cities could dramatically hurt a lot of people, but the president seems to not care.
19. He has knowingly, repeatedly and egregiously misled the public, and directed his staff to do the same.
You’ve heard the phrase “alternative facts” by now, right? That would be a prime example of what Willimon addresses here. The number of misstatements and outright lies are too numerous to list. One would think that the White House would be embarrassed being caught in so many lies. Instead, they double down and assert their own version of reality. There are a lot of things the White House can get away with, but lying to the American public is not one of them. This issue alone is an impeachable offense.
20. He has strongly advocated for the silencing and suppression of a Free Press.
Again, there are multiple examples backing up Beau’s statement. The press is a protected entity under the first amendment. Any attempt to suppress or silence the press would violate the Constitution. The challenge is that the White House is using demeaning and distraction tactics in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the press. The latest salvo came on 5 February as the president claimed that any “negative” polls are a form of “fake news.” Shortly thereafter, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer attacked the satire of an NBC television show. While the tactics skirt the border of legality, any outright attempt to quieten the press would be an impeachable offense.
21. He has repeatedly and consistently shown contempt for people based race, ethnicity, gender, sexual identity and religion.
Much of the evidence behind this statement comes from the mountain of information in the president’s path. While he actively denies that he dislikes anyone when he is challenged, his actions and his history both point to an attitude of contempt for anyone not rich and white. This includes comments regarding inappropriate groping of women and demeaning people because of their ethnicity, including a federal judge. While this is not directly an impeachable offense, it does speak to his suitability for the office and could potentially be used in a 25th amendment argument for removal from office.
22. He has shown disdain and disregard for the judiciary, and the fundamental human rights that are the foundation of Justice.
Willimon is using nice words again here to convey what is a rather nasty characteristic of the president. Put more accurately, the president seems to have absolutely no concept of the system of checks and balances put in place by the country’s founders. The founders understood all too well the corruptive power of the office of President and put in place multiple safeguards to protect against the totalitarianism of a despot. This is where we get to test those safeguards placed in both the judiciary and legislative branches.
23. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Once again, a direct quote from the Declaration. Of course, in its original context, the “Prince” was King George. The parallels between the behavior of the mad king and the 45th president are striking. Just as there were assertions made regarding the king’s mental state and his suitability for governing, so too have such concerns been raised in regards to the president. Both would seem to suffer from narcicisstic personality disorder, among other things. Of course, proving that assertion without clinical examination is impossible. Yet, given the accusations made above, it doesn’t seem improbable for Congress to demand such an examination.
24. We shall Resist until our Congress uses the mechanisms afforded to by the Constitution to remove this Tyrant from Power.
The most important thing Beau says here is the phrase “mechanisms afforded to by the Constitution.” During times like these, there will always be those who find in their cause a reason for violence. We saw those forced in action both at the inauguration day protest and more recently at the protest in Berkley. Chaos and anarchy is their goal. They do not represent thoughtful-minded people but are vigilantes bent on vengeance and a warped sense of justice. Any resistance to this president must first employ every available legal method available to it.
This is the precedent set forth in the Declaration. Look at it. The phrases “We have warned …,” “We have reminded …,” and “We have appealed …,” reference the attempts on the part of the colonists to resolve their grievances in an appropriate and legal manner. King George III and his parliament made the fateful decision to not only ignore the colonists, but to increase the unfair treatment directed toward them. Only when separation was the only choice remaining did the representatives pen the Declaration.
So, too, now it is necessary that we utilize every legal option available to its fullest extent as we resist the illegal dealings of this tyrant in the White House. We must implore Congress to act on our behalf as they have been elected to do and we must show patience in giving them an opportunity to act within the letter of the law. We fail just as surely if we allow ourselves to be taken by our own anarchy as we would if we did nothing.
25. And for the support of this Declaration we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Honor.
This is an interesting though not inappropriate variation of the final line of the Declaration. The founders included the phrase, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” and also referred to their “Sacred” Honor. Too many have misinterpreted those inclusions, along with other deific references in the Declaration, as pointing toward a specific religious foundation in our country’s founding.
Those misinterpretations are grossly unfounded. Among the signers of that document were men of many various and contrasting belief systems., most notably Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Franklin, both of whom were deists. None of their belief systems, including those of the four active preachers on the list, would have remotely compared to anything seen in contemporary religion. They would not have held any book or writing as inerrant nor infallible and bristled at the thought of their religious beliefs dictating the functions of government.
The only common belief among them was that some power external to them must be guiding their direction. It was that unnamed power they refer to as divine and sacred.
Given the extremes of religious beliefs and behaviors in contemporary America, it is appropriate that those references be removed so as to not infer an association that does not exist. We are not bound by religious duty or obligation. Ours is a duty to one another as humans. Our morality is based on the greater good of humanity, not the confines and strictures of a specific dogma.We do better because we know better.
Equally important in this statement, and something the founding fathers knew well, is that unity within the cause and the mutual support of those who resist is critical. This president has already proven that he can create chaos and destruction faster than anyone we’ve ever encountered. Dissent and resistance against the broad array of offenses is going to be tiring and will not stop. His intention is to wear us down in hopes we will just give up and let him have his way.
We cannot afford to give up. We cannot afford to give in to weariness. To stop is to yield to tyranny, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. We cannot let the banner be carried by a few while the rest sit in silence on the sidelines. The resistance must come from every state, from every city, in number incalculable. We must support and encourage each other, helping those most adversely affected by yet another madman attempting to ascent to a throne of his own construction. We must pledge to each other. Together.
Conclusions
I do not know Beau Willimon. I do not know his motivations, his plans, nor his favorite flavor of ice cream. As an artistic person who has achieved some success with his writings, I assume he has an underlying passion that pushes him into action. When he latches on to a concept or an idea, he follows it through with some level of excitement, I would guess. Based on what I’ve seen in his twitter feed the past few days, that seems to be evident. I would also guess that his carefully selected friends consider him a nice guy. Just guessing.
What I do know is that this statement of his is bold. He puts out into the public conversation a well-constructed argument and solid statement of intent. While he leaves the topics of methodology and implementation open for conversation, he has at least provided a framework around which those conversations can occur.
I don’t expect him to stand up and lead this fight. He might, but I don’t think it’s right to obligate him in that way. After all, it wasn’t Thomas Jefferson leading troops across the Potomac in the middle of that cold winter. Some stir the fires, others lead the charge.
Still, Mr. Willimon’s voice alone is not enough. The resistance needs voices in such volume as to create a shout that cannot be ignored. We need those willing and able to march as much as those willing to consistently hold members of Congress accountable for their actions. We need you.
Thank you, Beau Willimon, for igniting this conversation.
Declaration of Resistance, Annotated
Preserving wise words before they magically disappear
A Little Background
I do not know Beau Willimon. I’ve never met the young man and, quite honestly, until last week didn’t know a thing about him. Yet, most of what you will find here, all the good parts, are his words, not mine.
If you know of Mr. Willimon, it is likely in connection with this little show he produced for Netflix called House of Cards. Given all the awards its won and the general acclaim for the series, one might assume that Mr. Willimon understands how Washington politics work.
What you might not know is that Mr. Willimon has hands-on experience in the political world, having worked on campaigns for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and was press aide for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign. He’s done a bunch of other political stuff as well to give him a fairly substantial background in politics. Top that with his House of Cards experience and I think it’s reasonably safe to say his understanding of the political world is a bit more advanced than the average guy sitting at the bar.
So, when he decided last Friday, 3 February, to present the Internet with his Declaration of Resistance via Twitter, it carried a little more weight than the average entertainment industry celeb. However, Willimon is also a playwright and as such there are some subtleties and inferences built into his tweetstorm that may not be immediately obvious. Some of them may not need to be obvious for his meaning to be clear, but our opinion is that assurance is better than adding to the heaping mounds of confusion spread across the Internet. He bases his words largely upon the contents of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, we’ve decided to annotate his entries both as a means of explaining what might not be immediately evident and confirm what might be inferred.
This also gives us a chance to more reliably preserve and index Willimon’s entries. If there is a downside to posting these things on Twitter, it is that they are quickly pushed down the list and more difficult to find with each passing day. Willimon uses Twitter a fair amount so even one day after they were posted we still had to do a great deal of scrolling to find them. This will, hopefully, provide a more consistent point of reference for more long-term use.
What Beau Said
These are the original tweets since from @BeauWillimon. Our additions are in red italics between tweets. Note: we do not control how Mr. Willimon’s tweets appear on this page.
If the opening sounds at least slightly familiar, that’s a good thing: it comes close to the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which I will refer to from here on out as “the Declaration.” He only modifies a portion of the first sentence, but the remainder is implied through the rest of the document. For those who slept through Civics class, please allow me to remind you of that first paragraph.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Now, see the connection between what the framers of the Declaration were saying and Mr. Willimon’s words? Consider the phrase “dissolve the political bands” extremely important from here on out.
Another Declaration reference. The second paragraph of that document begins:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The use of the word “men” in this context should be interpreted as representative of all humanity. While women had few legal rights at the time of the Declaration’s writing, the framers were not intentionally leaving them out. Rather, they were attempting to make the statement as inclusive as possible. Willimon nicely modernizes the sentence with the phrase “To safeguard equality for all.”
Breaking things down into smaller chunks, we hit a point of the preamble that some consider inflammatory. Those who would call themselves “patriots” have long used this portion of the Declaration to justify acts of violence against the government and/or its representatives. The Declaration reads:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Arguably, in challenging the authority of the 45th president, Willimon claims that the person residing in the White House does not have sufficient consent of the government. His point is based on the fact that while some 63 million people did vote for the president, over 75 million voted directly against him and over 200 million others are not represented by either vote. Therefore, one might well argue that the president is far from having the consent of the governed and that his election is illegitimate.
Willimon is being very careful with his words here. Using the phrase, “to make such demands upon their Congress” is a softer action than what is stated in the Declaration. I don’t blame him. To copy the words of the Declaration might be considered by some as an attempt to overthrow the government. Take a look at the original language:
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government
We have to understand the challenges that the founding fathers experienced in living under the auspices of Great Britain, which was in full-tilt empire-building mode at that particular moment. The intent was very clear: do the will of the people or the people will kick you out on your ass and do something different. Never would they have guessed that either the government or the nation would become as large and complicated as it is today. We can’t just march on Washington and institute a new government, no matter how attractive that might sound to some. Appealing to Congress to act on our behalf is a lot safer and doesn’t get one arrested as quickly.
Impeachment. There’s a word that politicians have been tripping over themselves to avoid. With the president’s administration only two weeks old, there are few members of Congress who have the intestinal fortitude to even think about drafting articles of impeachment at this point. While they might admit that the president is building such a case, few have dared to actually utter the word aloud in public. To engage in impeachment is to bring much of government to a grinding hault while the matter is addressed. This is not a matter to be entered into lightly or without sufficient preparation.
Willimon references the 25th amendment. Let me refresh your memory on that one.
The 25th amendment was ratified in 1967 and clarifies exactly what happens in the event that the president is no longer capable of fulfilling his oath of office. There are four sections to the amendment, the first two not applying to our current situation unless the president should happen to simply fall dead or become a victim of some violent action against his life. Section three has been used any time the president undergoes any type of treatment where he is under anesthesia, temporarily rendering him incapacitated. Section four is the kicker. It reads:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Let’s be clear that this action would most likely occur only after articles of impeachment against the president had been passed by both bodies of Congress, or should the vice-president be able to convince enough members of the Cabinet to implore Congress with sufficient reasons for removing the president from power. Either path is extremely difficult given the partisan politics currently dominating the legislative bodies. This is a serious course of action with a distinct set of consequences.
Here is Willimon’s charge against the president: that the has “conducted injuries and usurpations, pursuing the establishment of an absolute Tyranny …” Reference again back to the preamble, pretty much picking up where he left off. The Declaration specifically states:
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Let me emphasize again that the framers were referring to the “abuses and usurpations” of Britain’s King George III. For our use here, Despotism and Tyranny are sufficiently close in meaning as to be interchangeable. In short, Willimon is saying that the current president is no better than mad King George III and should be deposed for exactly the same reasons.
This is a direct quote from the preamble. In the Constitution, it is followed by the charges of the colonies made against Britain’s king. This was not so much for the benefit of King George, but a justification for those who might choose with which side the might ally themselves.
In our particular case here, however, very specific charges are necessary not only so that one might recruit allies to the cause, but to justify taking any action in the first place. One does not simply call the president a tyrant without providing evidence of such. So, Willimon proceeds to make his case.
As I am writing this, we are waiting for the 9th circuit court of appeals to make a full decision regarding the president’s ban on immigrants and refugees. The president’s executive order created a ban against people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering this US. While verbally asserting that this was not a ban against a specific religious group, it had the effect of such, likely making it a violation of the Constitution’s first amendment prohibiting any action against any religion. One can also reasonably argue that the ban failed to allow for due process. The end result has been chaos.
When a New York judge issued a temporary restraining order against deportations arising from the ordered travel ban, the president refused to acknowledge the action and instructed federal agencies to continue. This can be interpreted as a violation of the presidential oath, but actual charges against the president on this account could easily be challenged by Congress.
For the sake of history, and anyone who might not have been paying attention, one should be aware that the president dismissed acting Attorney General Sally Yates for failing to defend the president’s travel ban. By definition, it is the job of the Attorney General and the US Department of Justice to defend the laws and interest of the federal government. However, Ms. Yates voiced concern that the order was possibly not legal and therefore should not be defended.
Willimon’s claim regarding the autonomy of the Department of Justice is shaky, however. The position of Attorney General, specifically, has been highly politicized since John F. Kennedy nominated his brother, Robert, to the post in 1961. There are no laws that specifically require or enforce the autonomy, though it is, in practice, an ethical goal.
Here, Willimon is referring to actions taken on 26 January 2017. At first, it appeared as though the senior officials at the State Department had walked out of their own accord. Only later did it become known that they had, in fact, been dismissed by the president. This created a vacuum of knowledge and experience within the federal government regarding international relations. While the move is within the president’s prerogative, it came at a time when the action arguably left all US embassies and overseas personnel without a direct contact or person of authority at the State Department, creating an inherent security issue.
The reference here is regarding the placement of the president’s chief strategist (and campaign manager) Steve Bannon to the principals committee of the National Security Council. This committee ultimately makes direct recommendations to the president regarding matters of national security. Mr. Bannon’s previous statements present ideologies and philosophies consistent with those of a white supremacist, though Bannon denies the charge.
At a prayer breakfast on 2 February 2017, the president told a group of religious leaders that he would “get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment.” The Johnson Amendment was enacted in the 1950s to maintain the wall between church and state by prohibiting religious organizations from participating directly in political activities. The president enjoyed considerable support from Christian extremists during his presidential campaign. This move is seen as a way of undergirding that support. However, repealing the Johnson Amendment would require, at the very least, a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress, something that is not generally considered likely to happen.
Conflicts of interest have been a persistent issue against the president from the day he took office. Already, multiple lawsuits have been filed in federal court seeking to force the president to either divest himself of his business holdings or place them in a genuine blind trust. To date, the president has refused to do either. Instead, he handed off control of his business concerns to his two oldest sons while maintaining full ownership.
The effective law here is what is generally considered the emoluments clause of the Constitution. The clause in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution says that, “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or Foreign State.” Given that the president’s considerable business holdings are often utilized by other heads of state, many claim that to retain any interest at all in the properties or holdings would be in violation of the law.
We should note that the current lawsuits represent the first serious challenge to the Emoluments Clause in modern history.
Willimon’s statement here is based primarily on anecdotal evidence. While that evidence appears likely to be valid, it lacks the weight of authority to have any genuine effect beyond the matter of public opinion. The argument speaks more to the character of the president and the possible presence of mental illness, specifically narcissistic personality disorder (DSM-5 301.81 (F60.81)). The presence of such a mental illness could provide justification for the invocation of the 25th amendment.
Repealing the Affordable Care Act was one of the president’s primary campaign promises and one of the first executive orders signed once he was in office. If the repeal were to be immediate, ti would indeed leave many without healthcare. However, any change in the law requires action on the part of Congress where the momentum to make any change has waned under differences of opinion and public backlash. At the time of this writing, there is no way to determine whether the president’s order will have any long-term effect or not.
In two separate Executive Orders, the president pushed for reinstatement of the KeystoneXL pipeline and the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Keystone pipeline had been effectively halted by the previous administration while the Dakota Access project had been stalled due to high-profile protests. Both pipelines present significant environmental concerns, endanger nearby water supplies, and usurp the rights of indigenous North American tribes. While the president’s actions on the matter are not technically illegal, one can argue they are in violation of the public trust by putting drinking water at risk.
Back in January, the president signed an Executive Order instructing federal agencies to identify funds that might be withheld from sanctuary cities. This presents problems on two fronts. Denying the funds would require an act of Congress and it’s difficult to imagine a member of Congress who would vote against their home state. Such an act would almost certainly come back to haunt them in 2018. Second, the very suggestion of the idea may exceed the limit of the president’s authority. The cities in question are already fighting back. Removing funding from these cities could dramatically hurt a lot of people, but the president seems to not care.
You’ve heard the phrase “alternative facts” by now, right? That would be a prime example of what Willimon addresses here. The number of misstatements and outright lies are too numerous to list. One would think that the White House would be embarrassed being caught in so many lies. Instead, they double down and assert their own version of reality. There are a lot of things the White House can get away with, but lying to the American public is not one of them. This issue alone is an impeachable offense.
Again, there are multiple examples backing up Beau’s statement. The press is a protected entity under the first amendment. Any attempt to suppress or silence the press would violate the Constitution. The challenge is that the White House is using demeaning and distraction tactics in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the press. The latest salvo came on 5 February as the president claimed that any “negative” polls are a form of “fake news.” Shortly thereafter, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer attacked the satire of an NBC television show. While the tactics skirt the border of legality, any outright attempt to quieten the press would be an impeachable offense.
Much of the evidence behind this statement comes from the mountain of information in the president’s path. While he actively denies that he dislikes anyone when he is challenged, his actions and his history both point to an attitude of contempt for anyone not rich and white. This includes comments regarding inappropriate groping of women and demeaning people because of their ethnicity, including a federal judge. While this is not directly an impeachable offense, it does speak to his suitability for the office and could potentially be used in a 25th amendment argument for removal from office.
Willimon is using nice words again here to convey what is a rather nasty characteristic of the president. Put more accurately, the president seems to have absolutely no concept of the system of checks and balances put in place by the country’s founders. The founders understood all too well the corruptive power of the office of President and put in place multiple safeguards to protect against the totalitarianism of a despot. This is where we get to test those safeguards placed in both the judiciary and legislative branches.
Once again, a direct quote from the Declaration. Of course, in its original context, the “Prince” was King George. The parallels between the behavior of the mad king and the 45th president are striking. Just as there were assertions made regarding the king’s mental state and his suitability for governing, so too have such concerns been raised in regards to the president. Both would seem to suffer from narcicisstic personality disorder, among other things. Of course, proving that assertion without clinical examination is impossible. Yet, given the accusations made above, it doesn’t seem improbable for Congress to demand such an examination.
The most important thing Beau says here is the phrase “mechanisms afforded to by the Constitution.” During times like these, there will always be those who find in their cause a reason for violence. We saw those forced in action both at the inauguration day protest and more recently at the protest in Berkley. Chaos and anarchy is their goal. They do not represent thoughtful-minded people but are vigilantes bent on vengeance and a warped sense of justice. Any resistance to this president must first employ every available legal method available to it.
This is the precedent set forth in the Declaration. Look at it. The phrases “We have warned …,” “We have reminded …,” and “We have appealed …,” reference the attempts on the part of the colonists to resolve their grievances in an appropriate and legal manner. King George III and his parliament made the fateful decision to not only ignore the colonists, but to increase the unfair treatment directed toward them. Only when separation was the only choice remaining did the representatives pen the Declaration.
So, too, now it is necessary that we utilize every legal option available to its fullest extent as we resist the illegal dealings of this tyrant in the White House. We must implore Congress to act on our behalf as they have been elected to do and we must show patience in giving them an opportunity to act within the letter of the law. We fail just as surely if we allow ourselves to be taken by our own anarchy as we would if we did nothing.
This is an interesting though not inappropriate variation of the final line of the Declaration. The founders included the phrase, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” and also referred to their “Sacred” Honor. Too many have misinterpreted those inclusions, along with other deific references in the Declaration, as pointing toward a specific religious foundation in our country’s founding.
Those misinterpretations are grossly unfounded. Among the signers of that document were men of many various and contrasting belief systems., most notably Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Franklin, both of whom were deists. None of their belief systems, including those of the four active preachers on the list, would have remotely compared to anything seen in contemporary religion. They would not have held any book or writing as inerrant nor infallible and bristled at the thought of their religious beliefs dictating the functions of government.
The only common belief among them was that some power external to them must be guiding their direction. It was that unnamed power they refer to as divine and sacred.
Given the extremes of religious beliefs and behaviors in contemporary America, it is appropriate that those references be removed so as to not infer an association that does not exist. We are not bound by religious duty or obligation. Ours is a duty to one another as humans. Our morality is based on the greater good of humanity, not the confines and strictures of a specific dogma.We do better because we know better.
Equally important in this statement, and something the founding fathers knew well, is that unity within the cause and the mutual support of those who resist is critical. This president has already proven that he can create chaos and destruction faster than anyone we’ve ever encountered. Dissent and resistance against the broad array of offenses is going to be tiring and will not stop. His intention is to wear us down in hopes we will just give up and let him have his way.
We cannot afford to give up. We cannot afford to give in to weariness. To stop is to yield to tyranny, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. We cannot let the banner be carried by a few while the rest sit in silence on the sidelines. The resistance must come from every state, from every city, in number incalculable. We must support and encourage each other, helping those most adversely affected by yet another madman attempting to ascent to a throne of his own construction. We must pledge to each other. Together.
Conclusions
I do not know Beau Willimon. I do not know his motivations, his plans, nor his favorite flavor of ice cream. As an artistic person who has achieved some success with his writings, I assume he has an underlying passion that pushes him into action. When he latches on to a concept or an idea, he follows it through with some level of excitement, I would guess. Based on what I’ve seen in his twitter feed the past few days, that seems to be evident. I would also guess that his carefully selected friends consider him a nice guy. Just guessing.
What I do know is that this statement of his is bold. He puts out into the public conversation a well-constructed argument and solid statement of intent. While he leaves the topics of methodology and implementation open for conversation, he has at least provided a framework around which those conversations can occur.
I don’t expect him to stand up and lead this fight. He might, but I don’t think it’s right to obligate him in that way. After all, it wasn’t Thomas Jefferson leading troops across the Potomac in the middle of that cold winter. Some stir the fires, others lead the charge.
Still, Mr. Willimon’s voice alone is not enough. The resistance needs voices in such volume as to create a shout that cannot be ignored. We need those willing and able to march as much as those willing to consistently hold members of Congress accountable for their actions. We need you.
Thank you, Beau Willimon, for igniting this conversation.
Now, let us carry it forward.
Share this:
Like this: