• Home
  • Could It Happen Here, A Federal Syndicate Coup d’état?

Could It Happen Here, A Federal Syndicate Coup d’état?

William L. Kovacs

September 2023

Could It Happen Here, A Federal Syndicate Coup d’état?

Since Sinclair Lewis wrote “It Can’t Happen Here” in 1935, many authors have raised the question: Is Democracy so fragile that the U.S. could become an “ism” nation? Fortunately, all the writers have been wrong about the U.S. becoming a dystopian nation. They have been right, however, about Democracy being fragile. This article will examine the actions of the federal government, its spy, propaganda, and law enforcement machines (collectively “the Federal Syndicate”) against former President Trump and his supporters over the last few years. It asks the question – is the federal government run by stupid people doing stupid things, or are its leaders subverting the Constitution to control the government?

But for the political advantage to the Democrats, the events of January 6th would have been defined as a riot, “a violent disturbance of the peace by a group of people.” Unfortunately, Democratic leadership deemed it an insurrection, an attempt by an organized group of people to defeat their government and take control of it. As part of its narrative, the federal government, which has a $944 billion annual military machine and describes its military as a fearsome and gargantuan beast, exhibits existential fear of destruction by the fact “several rioters had firearms and dozens more wielded knives, bats and other real makeshift weapons.” The Federal Syndicate’s reactions to the January 6th riot are best characterized by the hilarious movie “The Mouse that Roared.”

The crowd so paralyzed the Speaker of the House, the D.C. mayor, and the Capitol Police that they could not respond to President Trump’s offer to send the National Guard. These political elites seemed confident the FBI infiltrators planted in the crowd to incite legal demonstrators to break the law would prove the truth of their insurrection narrative. Two thousand demonstrators entered the Capitol, and 1100 were arrested. Many were sent to D.C. Gitmo without their right to counsel or a speedy trial. The DOJ/FBI’s dragnet is the largest in the history of the U.S. DC Gitmo is similar to the Guantanamo military prison in Cuba, also referred to as Gitmo, but without the sunshine.

If January 6th were a riot and not an insurrection, then the systematic actions by the Federal Syndicate would be what academics define as a self-coup d’état. It is a form of coup in which the nation’s power structure comes to power legally but seeks to stay in power through illegal means.

Did The Federal Syndicate label January 6th an insurrection as an excuse to prosecute 1100 Trump supporters and organize the entire Democrat political machinery to indict former president Trump? Unfortunately, many citizens arrested were unknowing and loyal Americans who simply trespassed inside the Capitol. Many even believed the police were waiving them in.

Since the opinion pages are full of articles talking about the coordination of the four Trump prosecutions to inflict destruction, perhaps even death, on him, the Durham report decimating the alleged Russian cover-up by the FBI and CIA, and the Biden administration’s manipulation of Big Tech to shut down the truth in America, this article will focus on the most recent effort to ensuring Trump is “finally taken out.”

Specifically, a few members of the Federalists Society and a retired “conservative” circuit judge, disgruntled over not being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, asserted that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment (“Section 3”), a Civil War Amendment, forbids President Trump from ever again holding office since he somehow participated in an undefined, not judicially established, insurrection.

More disconcerting is that January 6th may have been a camouflage for covert activities. Is the Federal Syndicate pretending to protect the Constitution while secretly plotting to destroy Donald Trump and conservative Americans?

The relevant parts of Section 3 read:

No person shall…hold any office…under the United States or any state, who having previously taken an oath…as an officer of the United States…to support the Constitution… [if such person] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.

The proponents for disqualifying Trump under Section 3 claim:

Further, they argue to the extent Section 3 conflicts with prior constitutional protections, “Section 3 repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto fact laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech protections of the First Amendment.”

According to the mainstream press, New Hampshire already has activity to disqualify Trump. Several progressive advocacy groups are lobbying state election officials to disqualify Trump from being listed on their state ballots.

The flaws in the proponents’ arguments are legion. The term “insurrection” is not defined in the 14th Amendment or anywhere in our Constitution or laws; as such, it cannot be applied since it would be unconstitutionally vague. Moreover, the two federal cases addressing Section 3 rejected its use to disqualify government officials from holding office. In, In re Griffin (1869), Justice Chase rejected the application of Section 3 for several reasons. Its application would cause legal chaos, and it was not self-executing. Most importantly, the application of Section 3, as claimed, denies defendants due process and several other constitutional guarantees. In U.S. v. Powell (1871), the court ruled there must be findings of fact before rendering any decision.

Crazily, the authors assert Section 3 is so broad it rewrites the U.S. Constitution by repealing numerous constitutional protections for government officials without involving Congress, the states, the process for amending the Constitution, judicial determinations of fact and law, due process, or even the people of the nation.

The authors again crazily pronounce election officials are empowered to disqualify Trump. According to the National Council of State Legislators, there are more than 10,000 election administration jurisdictions in the U.S. There are likely tens or even hundreds of thousands of election officials. Can each of them disqualify President Trump because they believe he is an insurrectionist?

Under existing circumstances, could the facts establish a self- coup d’état?

  1. Before Trump became president, there were systematic actions by the Federal Syndicate to circulate false information to make the public believe the Russians compromised him.
  2. The lies about Trump led to two impeachments in the House. While the Senate acquitted Trump, the actions of the Federal Syndicate had the intended negative impact on Trump.
  3. As far back as 2019, the Federal Syndicate protected Biden by denying the evidence that Hunter’s “Laptop from Hell” was real. It also hid that there were 5400 Biden emails in which Joe Biden used the pseudonyms “Robert L. Peters” and “JRB Ware” to conceal the Biden money laundering activities with Ukraine, Russia, and Romania.
  4. The Secret Service, in violation of federal law, tipped off Hunter Biden that his storage units were to be raided, thereby allowing Hunter to remove all incriminating evidence.
  5. The circulation by the Federal Syndicate of false information about Trump continued while he was in office, as evidenced by the Durham and Horowitz Reports.
  6. As to the January 6th riots, the Federal Syndicate still refuses to release the information requested by Congress.
  7. The special January 6th committee formed by the House Democrats prohibited Republicans from naming their members to the Committee, thereby preventing the cross-examination of witnesses and a fair hearing on the day’s events.
  8. After President Trump left office, the Democrats waited until the 2024 primary election season started to indict him in four separate jurisdictions. The Democrats, using public resources, are spending hundreds of millions of dollars to go after one person. There is no record in the world of such a massive use of public resources to prosecute one political opponent. Even the famous Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals focused the government’s prosecution in one court.
  9. All the prosecution trials are scheduled during campaign season to ensure Trump cannot compete against Biden. The Federal Syndicate appears to be interfering with the 2024 election under the pretense of saving the Constitution.
  10. Now, the Democrats seek to disqualify Trump from holding office by advocating that any election official in any state can disqualify the former president from office. All to be accomplished by a process that is self-executing by any state executioner who somehow personally believes, without a public inquiry, legislative definition, or judicial determination, that Trump is an insurrectionist.

Since Americans can vote for Congress every two years, a coup d’état is highly unlikely. But Americans would be fools to believe a coup d’état can’t happen here. Self-coups come in many forms, and all use legal means. Leaders could assume special emergency powers as a permanent means of governing. We all experienced these emergency powers during the COVID pandemic with lockdowns, masks, school cancellations, and restrictions on free speech if it related to the truth of the federal government’s pronouncements on health matters. Moreover, 136 federal emergency laws in the U.S. grant the Executive the power to be a dictator at the time of his choosing.

Between 1946 and 2022, an estimated 148 self-coup attempts occurred, of which 110 were in dictatorships and 38 in democracies. Based on the actions of the Federal Syndicate, one could argue it is implementing a self-coup d’état. If that is not the goal of the Biden administration and its Federal Syndicate, then these groups need to renounce the activities that give the impression of a coup taking place. Continuing with its illegal actions to over-prosecute objectionable individuals, restrict constitutionally protected free speech, withhold evidence of criminal activity from Congress, and give the appearance of interfering with elections only leads the public to believe “It is happening here.”

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief counsel to a congressional committee, and a partner in law D.C. law firms. His book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change. He can be contacted at [email protected]

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • The Emperor Has New Clothes; U.S. Has New National Debt

The Emperor Has New Clothes; U.S. Has New National Debt

William L. Kovacs

December 2022

The Emperor Has New Clothes; U.S. Has New National Debt

In the oft-told story, The Emperor’s New Clothes, the vain emperor was constantly showing off his new clothes and wanting more impressive new clothes. To satisfy his vanity, a weaver told him there were magic clothes that were invisible to anyone who was unusually stupid. The emperor wanted them and the weaver went through the motions of dressing the emperor in magic clothes. While the emperor could not see the clothes the weaver dressed him in, he pretended to see them so he did not appear stupid. The emperor was told by all how fabulous were his new clothes. The emperor paraded everywhere so all could see the magic clothes that fit him to perfection.

One day, a little child saw the emperor, and said out loud, “But he hasn’t got anything on.” The child’s father dismissed his comments as “prattle.” But many in the crowd knew the child was right and whispered to others what the child said. The emperor heard it and suspected the child was right. But not wanting to appear wrong, he continued to walk prouder than ever in his magic clothes, and his nobleman continued to hold the train that wasn’t there.

Like the emperor, the leaders in our federal government dismiss as “prattle” the many in the crowd who cry, “The federal government hasn’t got any money at all.” But the federal government, unwilling to acknowledge it has no money, continues to proudly print more magic money.

The United States is $31 trillion in the hole. In the last several months, the Biden administration persuaded Congress to enact the Inflation Reduction Act ($500 billion), subsidies for the semiconductor industry ($46 billion) and is promising to forgive $400 billion in student loans and transfer another $36 billion to bail out the Teamsters Central States Pension Fund. The federal government of the U.S. is a “Spending Addict.” It is in desperate need of rehabilitation, but like the Emperor, it is too proud to stop doing stupid, shameful acts.

The federal government is the central reigning governmental body in the U.S. It is not the United States, notwithstanding the caption on lawsuits. Rather it is a constitutionally established mechanism in which representatives of the people are granted limited powers to serve the people and advance the common good of the nation. These representatives are not given individual or personal power. They are fiduciaries who must exercise their powers solely for the benefit of the common good of the nation and the American people.

The framework of our Constitution has few guardrails as to the type of government it can create. As long as any government is elected by the people to make laws and serve their interests, it is an acceptable Republican form of government under the Constitution.  Today, while the people of the nation elect representatives that have the theoretical power to change the laws, the political culture of the nation is such that these representatives are more loyal to the political party that helped them get elected than to the institution in which they serve. As such, our representatives are elected, but their power to change laws is limited by the power of the political party of which they are a member; not the institution in which they serve.

By giving their loyalty to the political party rather than the institution in which they serve, the power of representative government is severely limited. In this instance, it is the political party that protects freedom. In the other instance, it is the institution of Congress that protects freedom. Under the protection of a political party, our government functions as a combination of capitalist, socialist, oligarchy, kakistocracy, woke cult, and very likely, though unproven, a “deep intelligence state” that allows the optics of a Republic to exist in order to maintain the secrecy of action and the accumulation of greater powers.

The intent of our founders was to place perpetual sovereignty with the people of the country, not the federal government. As such, the federal government is an entity separate from but theoretically subject to control by the people. Unfortunately, those occupying the institutions comprising the federal government manipulate the Constitution and our laws to amass great personal power over the people. The individuals occupying federal positions, especially those in the Executive branch, have used their accumulated powers to become rulers and have transformed the people into servants.

Being separate from the people has allowed the federal government to use its powers to spend our money and impose mandates on us. The question must be asked who will pay off the debt? Notwithstanding its gross mismanagement of the nation, the federal government will tax the people to pay for its mismanagement. It has given itself the power to impose a tax burden of almost any amount needed to pay for what it wants to be done. From 1932 to 1981, the marginal tax rate in the U.S. ranged between 63% – 91%.

The national debt is 102% of the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) of the nation. It is expected to be double the GDP by 2051.  Each taxpayer’s share of the national debt today is $245,191. The average personal income in the U.S. is $63,211. If Americans are concerned with inflation, wait until they get the bill for the national debt. The national debt will become so burdensome to future generations that it will undermine democracy. If the federal government taxed current citizens the amounts needed to pay for today’s government, a tax revolt would topple the government. It avoids being confronted for its lack of responsibility by passing the debt to future generations who have no responsibility for creating it.

If it is our responsibility today to ensure the federal government runs the country for the common good, we have failed. The federal government has spent more money than it brings in almost every year since Calvin Coolidge was president in 1930. The American people now send the federal government over $4 – $5 trillion annually for its operations. That amount is never enough. The federal government always spends trillions more annually. It just spends and spends without restraint. 88% of our $31 trillion national debt was accumulated by our last six presidents.

On the asset side of the balance sheet, the federal government holds only $5.6 trillion of assets in cash, accounts receivable, loans receivable, and property, plant, and equipment. Its largest asset is $1.6 trillion of student loan debt, which the government wants to forgive to curry political favor with college students.

The federal government has so far escaped default on its debt obligations by printing magic money.

The federal government has also developed mechanisms for passing the cost of federal programs onto the public without having to account for the cost. Specifically, the federal government has imposed so many statutory laws on the private sector that it is a “fruitless project” to count them. In addition to statutory laws, federal agencies have imposed over 200,000 regulations between 1976 and 2016 and published over 10,000,000 pages of regulations between 1950 – 2021. Regulations are also laws. Additionally, presidents have issued 14,088 Executive Orders, and hundreds of thousands of Guidance Documents to explain the hundreds of thousands of issued regulations. Congress has also enacted 136 Emergency laws that allow the president to rule as a dictator at the time of their choosing. These “laws” are not only costly, but they also restrict our freedom, literally mandate by mandate. The emergency laws come in the form of Covid lockdowns and vaccine mandates that carry a penalty of being fired for non-compliance.

Furthering the tentacles of the federal government, it has thousands of employees in every state in the nation. It also provides state and local governments with  $721 billion in grants to manage programs the federal government wants to be implemented but does not have the constitutional authority to impose by law or regulation.

With all of its massive spending and millions of workers, laws, and regulations to control every aspect of life, the federal government oozes incompetence. Not only is it bankrupt, but it is also unable to control its own borders, the essence of sovereignty. Its educational system, the core system for supporting future competition with the world, is in disarray. The U.S. ranks 30th in math and 18th in reading, on international assessments. The American people know the nation is not well governed. Seventy-four percent of its people believe the U.S. is going in the wrong direction. Only 21% think it is going in the right direction. Forty-three percent of Americans believe the U.S. will be in a civil war in the next ten years.

While the federal government continues to print more and more money while dismissing as prattle those claiming it has no money; it will soon find that magic money, like magic clothes, is not real. Eventually, the debt will have to be repaid by people who had no say in its borrowing or spending. As a final act to save itself, the federal government will put future generations of Americans into involuntary servitude to it as a means of paying off the national debt. So much for the federal government worrying about the common good for Americans.

William L. Kovacs, author of Reform the Kakistocracy, winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change, and former senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

 

 

  • Home
  • Trust Is Government’s Most Important but Disregarded Asset

Trust Is Government’s Most Important but Disregarded Asset

William L. Kovacs

October 2022

Trust Is Government’s Most Important but Disregarded Asset

Trust is a simple concept; it is the assured reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something. In simple terms, it means the person or institution does what it states it will do. The United States government has a hard time persuading a majority of its citizens to trust it. The lack of trust in the federal government is seriously eroding its creditability. If it continues to grow, it will impact the federal government’s ability to govern the nation.

The government of the United States has massive assets. It owns 27% of all the land in the country, and through the use of eminent domain, it can acquire whatever other lands it desires. It has trillions of dollars to spend on its wishes while passing its debt to future generations, so it does not burden the current “taking generation.” It controls a well-armed military and an overly arbitrary Federal Bureau of Investigation, to keep any dissent in its place, down to parents at school board meetings. Through the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the Supreme Court holds the federal government “can do no wrong,” therefore it is immune from suit and accountability unless it allows some commoner to sue it.

Yet, having these many powers and riches to do what it wants, and to be free of legal challenges, is not making the lives of citizens  better.

The Pew Research Center’s study of trust in government from 1958-2022 found only two in ten Americans in 2022 trust the government in Washington. In 1958 seventy-five percent of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing almost always or most of the time.

Trust is the foundation of democracy. The philosophical theories underlying democracy believed that it was only by persuading man to trust the benefits of civil society (primarily the protection of property) that man was willing to abandon his state of nature, that wild, primitive state untouched by civilization. When trust in government is lost, it is hard to ensure the continuation of democracy.

In a civil society, humans renounce individual power and comply with the rules of the community by trusting the community will safeguard them and subject offenders to punishment. When the bonds of civil society break, people no longer feel protected from their enemies, which can include government.

As a radically polarized country, Democrats have more trust in government when they control government, just as Republicans have more faith in government when they control it. This situation leaves half the nation in perpetual distrust of those who rule the country.

The seeds of this distrust are sown by those who seek public office. These office seekers do not seek office to be our servants. They seek it to be our masters. They do not have loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. Their loyalty is to their brand, and the political party and interest groups that help elect them. To these office seekers, being a federal office holder is about being a ruler of the people, not a trustee of the Constitution. This misguided loyalty destroys our Constitutional structure by ignoring the separation of powers mandate to ensure each branch of government is an independent check on the other branches to limit the powers of government.

Institutional integrity is lost when the powers of the several branches of our government become blended due to party affiliation. Once in this situation, the rights of the people are only protected by Republicans or Democrats, depending on who is in power and who they want to protect. In this situation, Congress generally diminishes itself by allowing the Executive to legislate through Executive Order, rulemaking, arbitrary enforcement, or non-enforcement of the laws.

As our public officials abandon strict adherence to the separation of powers structure of the Constitution, government separates itself from the people. The new structure replaces the sovereignty of the people with the authority of government officials.

Our government officials:

  • saddle future generations with such massive amounts of debt; they are placing these generations into involuntary servitude to the government;
  • enforce a two-tier system of justice in which justice is administered according to political beliefs, not according to the actions of individuals;
  • mislead, misinform, and lie to the public so frequently that the public can no longer decipher facts from conspiracy theories;
  • impose laws on the people that they do not follow; as such citizens observe hypocrisy, not leadership; and
  • by rewarding friends (saving Hunter Biden) and punishing enemies (raiding Trump’s residence), one-half the public views only corruption.

How can citizens have faith in a government that acts in this manner? John Locke believed these government actions put it in a state of war with its people. Locke writes, “Whensoever, therefore, the legislature [government] shall transgress this fundamental rule of society… [by] this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people who have a right to” establish a new government.”

Today the government of the United States is in a perpetual state of war with half the people of the nation. The United States truly depicts Lincoln’s “House Divided.” While a congressional election in a few months may restrain some of the hostility directed at many citizens, it will not be sufficient to heal the nation. Over the next few elections, the country needs to elect representatives who seek to be our servants, not our rulers. Only when citizens elect Representatives who pledge to serve as fiduciaries to the nation and trustees of the Constitution, will we have a government that restores trust in the government.

While the government must have the trust of the people, the actions U.S government are at war with fifty percent of its population. This makes trust impossible.

  • Home
  • To Whom Does an Elected Official Owe a Duty of Loyalty?

To Whom Does an Elected Official Owe a Duty of Loyalty?

William L. Kovacs

October 2022

To Whom Does an Elected Official Owe a Duty of Loyalty?

As the 2022 elections for Congress approach, citizens should ask to whom an elected official owes a duty of loyalty. Are these candidates merely politicians seeking office to enhance their brand by leading the opposition against Americans who think differently? Or are these candidates seeking office to serve as fiduciaries to the Constitution? In a dangerously polarized nation, the answer leads to dramatically different forms of governance. The current political strife leads to deceit, distrust, and conflict. Electing fiduciaries should lead to trust that our institutions work for the people.

For 256 years, the U.S. has elected representatives, but their duty of loyalty to whom or what is vague. Of course, all take an oath to the Constitution and represent constituents, but such responsibilities are so abstract they are meaningless.

The writings of John Locke, Edmond Burke, and James Madison reflect a fundamental belief that no power is granted to our representatives as individuals. These representatives are fiduciaries that must act to achieve the public good. As fiduciaries, they cannot act beyond their legal authority and must administer laws impartially. Unfortunately, today this view is rejected by what Madison terms “factions,” groups of citizens united in a common interest adverse to others in the community.

These factions are today’s political parties and interest groups that build their brand, raise massive amounts of money and acquire power by preaching division. The academic literature supports this self-interest by arguing that public officials cannot be fiduciaries since it would be impossible to give loyalty to the many diverging interests confronting elected officials.

While divergent ideas are essential and constitutionally protected, the fiduciary’s duty of loyalty does not apply to individuals, groups, or political parties. Instead, it applies to the Constitution’s separation of powers structure that allows society’s many contestable issues to be debated rationally to foster a consensus around the public good. The process includes a Congress that formulates laws after listening to all sides of a debate; an Executive administers those laws, and courts resolve the controversies between branches.

For this structure to work, each branch of government has an independent duty to act as a check on the other branches. This tension is necessary to achieve the public good. Unfortunately, when elected representatives function as politicians, they distort the constitutional structure by placing their loyalty to political parties and interest groups ahead of the institution they serve. Displaced loyalty diminishes the Constitution.

Since our Constitution is held in trust by our elected representatives, for the American people, it is protected when these officials vigorously defend the powers and duties of the branch they serve. Such defense is the best mechanism to ensure government is limited to the powers given it by the Constitution.

Today’s political climate illustrates this point. We have one political party controlling Congress and the Executive. We have an Executive making new laws, (student loan forgiveness), or refusing to enforce existing law (immigration). While the Executive’s party in Congress may have a majority of members in its caucus, at times, it still may lack the votes needed to authorize the Executive’s actions. In instances when the Executive acts without congressional authority, his party in Congress generally has the power to block the minority party from preventing the Executive’s arbitrary accumulation of power. As an end run around the Constitution, the politicians in Congress, rather than dealing with the difficulties of the legislative process, abandon their oath to uphold the separation of powers by allowing the Executive to make law through regulation, Executive Order, or simply not enforcing laws.

In theory, the Constitution works well. In practice, however, the constitutional mandate of separation of powers is regularly abused. When Congress ignores its duties to defend the separation of powers, it limits the ability of the constitutional structure to fully allow the multitude of interests a voice in the debate needed to achieve a governing consensus. For several decades party-line voting (Democrats vote one way; Republicans oppose) has become the norm. In the 1960s, party-line voting was around 60%, but by the Trump administration, it reached 90%. Without letting the structure of the Constitution work, these representatives breach their fiduciary duty to the Constitution by allowing the Executive to enhance its power by diminishing the power of Congress.

When loyalty to political parties and interest groups eliminates the separation of powers protections in the Constitution, citizens must rely on the interest groups named Democrats or Republicans for protection. Today such actions are arbitrary political power. Tomorrow it could be tyranny.

This article was first published in TheHill.com

William L. Kovacs, author of Reform the Kakistocracy, winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change, and former senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • A Republican House Alone Can Reverse the Authoritarian State

A Republican House Alone Can Reverse the Authoritarian State

William L. Kovacs

January 2022

A Republican House Alone Can Reverse the Authoritarian State

Freedom-loving people may believe the U.S. is at the edge of darkness with Biden’s 76 Executive Orders, 46 Presidential Memoranda, and 176 Presidential Proclamations that take the form of conflicting vaccines mandates, bans on energy supplies, open borders, union organizing rules, the teaching of critical race theory, and frenzied proposals on climate change to name but a few. In the last several weeks, The Washington Post published at least four articles ( 1, 2, 3, 4), telling us “…the nation is closer to civil war than any of us would like to believe.” The narrative running through the articles is that the January 6, 2021 riot was an “insurrection” by Trump’s unarmed followers to destroy Democracy.

The Progressive press is pushing its “coming civil war narrative” so hard it seems as if it wants to incite civil war so its leftist government can use the military to violently crush the assembly of objectionable, unarmed, ordinary Americans. It would also give justification to the Department of Justice and FBI to implement their threats against parents who speak out at school board meetings. It’s hard to believe that parents protecting their children are deemed to be “domestic terrorists” by any government, yet alone a U.S. government.

While the Democrats may hysterically claim the Republicans are trying to assassinate Democracy, they cannot hide their real angst over the fact that our Constitution allows us ordinary citizens, to elect the entire House of Representatives every other year. The Left may want a civil war, but patriotic Americans can win a revolution with their votes in November.

Democrats act out of fear of what voters might do on November 8, 2022. Yes, a Republican majority in the 2023 House of Representatives can restrain Biden’s authoritarianism. That’s the easy lifting. The House also has the constitutional power to do far more to reign in an authoritarian state, even if Republicans do not regain control of the Senate.

In simple terms, the real power the original Constitution gives citizens is the right to elect the House of Representatives every two years. That constitutional right is the power to change the direction of government before any administration can cement authoritarian rule. Voting for the House is the power of revolutionary change.

While the original Constitution had state legislatures electing Senators, and presidential electors, the people, have always directly elected the House of Representatives. Our Constitution has always empowered citizens with the full power to control the federal government by electing representatives wanting to limit government’s power over its citizens.

One may ask how is such power possible when laws must be passed by the House and Senate and signed by the President? There is an unstated and rarely used power that allows a majority of just one House of Congress to control the nation’s budget and the size of government. All a Republican House needs to do is refuse appropriate money to run the authoritarian state. Think of such power as a Congressional veto over crazy spendthrifts. Using such power allows one party, controlling just one House of Congress, to restructure the entire federal government by refusing to squander taxpayer money.

Suppose voters want control over their federal government. In that case, all they need do is elect a House of Representatives that spends substantially less money than it costs to run a bloated, debt-ridden government. That action alone will shrink the federal government.

How would this process work?

Under our Constitution, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” This power can authorize more spending or be used to reduce spending and the national debt.

For Congress to spend more of the taxpayer’s money, it must appropriate the new money by enacting a law that requires the approval of both Houses of Congress and a Presidential signature. To spend less money or to spend no money; however, one House of Congress merely needs to do nothing. No provision in the Constitution gives the power to anyone to force Congress to spend money. Moreover, as an institution, Congress is the only branch of government that controls the nation’s purse, and one House of Congress can shut the purse.

Under Article I, section 7, of the Constitution, all bills for raising revenue must originate in the House of Representatives. By electing a majority of the House who support smaller government, the House has the sole power to block the enactment of new revenue streams to support a bigger government.

It is clear that no matter how big or powerful the federal government has become, a party that controls the House of Representatives can reign it in if it has to courage to do so. Republicans talk about smaller government, but the government has continuously expanded. They talk about reducing the national debt, but Republicans have increased the national debt more than the Democrats for the last several decades.

If Republicans take control of the House in 2023, it will be their “put up or shut up” moment. Only time will tell if the government remains wildly out of control or the Republican House of Representatives “puts up” to Save Democracy?

William L. Kovacs has served as senior vice-president for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, chief-counsel to a congressional committee, a partner in law D.C. law firms, and his book Reform the Kakistocracy is the winner of the 2021 Independent Press Award for Political/Social Change.

  • Home
  • Trump: “To Pardon or Not to Pardon Me, Is the Question”

Trump: “To Pardon or Not to Pardon Me, Is the Question”

William L. Kovacs

December 2020

Trump: “To Pardon or Not to Pardon Me, Is the Question”

President Trump’s 2020 election loss raises the question – Will he pardon himself before leaving office? It would free him of all legal liability for any past federal criminal acts he might have committed. Such liability or defending himself against charges of wrongdoing is certainly a real possibility. Many Democrats are seeking criminal action against President Trump after he leaves office. Congressman Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) recently stated Trump and his worst enablers “…must be tried for their crimes against our nation and Constitution.”

The pardon power in the Constitution is straightforward: “The President shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.”  It contains no limitations such as “a president cannot pardon himself.” Why not pardon himself, family, and friends before walking out the door? Why not use the pardon power to give himself a long, peaceful life after the White House? Trump and his family would be free of alleged conspiracies with Russia, tax evasion, or any other federal crimes.

New York state would likely still pursue him for business crimes but such crimes are civil violations or if criminal, complicated document crimes, requiring proof of intent. Crimes usually settled by a check and a harsh-sounding press release.

Whether a president can pardon himself has never been determined. Once he pardons himself, however, unknown consequences will follow. It will also be irrevocable, uncertain and could be Trump’s real hell.

While the few words of the pardon power do not contain any limits, the Constitution has many clauses that must be read together. Every clause is related to and limited by some other part of the Constitution.

For example, Article I reads: “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in Congress.” Certainly today, legislative powers are delegated to a president that makes law through regulation, Executive Order, and now seemingly with tweets. Congress holds the power to declare war, yet it the executive, without congressional declarations of war, has taken us into several wars for the last seventy years.

While the role of the courts is to interpret the meaning of the Constitution as it applies to controversies, many times the Court has “discovered” massive federal powers in the Constitution that our founders did not write. The Supreme Court has bestowed the absolute power on the federal government to declare “sovereign immunity;” thereby exempting itself from lawsuits and associated damages for harm it causes. The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionally of the Affordable Care Act by magically finding it a tax, a characterization rejected by Congress. U.S. history is replete with judicially imposed constitutional changes from civil rights, to property rights, to abortion. Predicting what the Supreme Court will do with a pardon power case is unpredictable.

What is likely, however, is that the scope of presidential pardon power will be balanced against the president’s obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This faithful execution of law means the president, as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer, must enforce the law. He may not break the laws he enforces. Allowing a president to break the laws he enforces, nullifies the “take care” clause of the Constitution. If a president can pardon himself, he nullifies one of the primary duties of his office.

Worse, however, if the president pardons himself for violations of law, the pardon itself may establish a continuing violation of law by obstructing justice, i.e. the interference with the orderly administration of law and justice. Granting himself a pardon would be viewed as a continuation of obstructing justice. Were such pardon deemed to be “faithful execution of the law,” presidents would be “above all law.” They would be supreme rulers, exempt from the law.

It is likely, for similar reasoning, then-President Richard Nixon left to his successor Gerald Ford, the power to grant him a pardon in accordance with the law. President Trump faces the same existential dilemma as Nixon; if he leaves office without a pardon, he risks vengeful Democrats wanting to prosecute and imprison him for what could be the rest of his life.

Trump has two choices, resign and hope a president Pence gives him a pardon, or serve out the rest of his term and hope a president Biden pardons him. It may be a step too far for Trump to resign and expect a pardon from President Pence. Unlike Gerald Ford, who put the healing of the country ahead of his political future, a President Pence is unlikely to put his presidential ambitions at risk for Donald Trump.

This leaves a pardon to a president Biden. A person promising exactly what President Ford delivered, bringing unity to a divided nation. President-elect Biden has signaled he is a transition president, likely only to serve one term. Biden is perfectly positioned to make “This is the time to heal America,” happen.  Pardoning Trump would be the overt action that tells 70 million Trump voters, it is time to heal a divided America.

The John F. Kennedy Library Foundation bestowed on President Ford its Profiles in Courage Award for his bold actions to bring the nation together. Will a President Biden have the courage to heal a divided nation or is his talk of “unity” just more talk?

 

 

 

 

  • Home
  • Politics Will Destroy 200 Years of Expanding Voting Rights

Politics Will Destroy 200 Years of Expanding Voting Rights

William L. Kovacs

September 2020

Politics Will Destroy 200 Years of Expanding Voting Rights

Politicians have voting “ass-backward.” They believe voting is about them and their exalted role as our “rulers.” They believe voters are cheap commodities that pay taxes so the government can give their money to its friends.

It is highly likely that politicians will screw up the 2020 presidential election. Republicans want us to vote early (by mail) and often (in-person). Democrats want to mindlessly flood the U.S. with blank ballots that can be completed by anyone. Both sides believe chaos works to their advantage.

Nothing can be further from the truth! Voting is too important to be determined by politicians.

Voting is for citizens to choose fellow citizens to operate their government for the sole benefit of citizens. Voting is the only tool a citizen has to control a government with massive powers that can be used against us.

In the 2020 elections, officials may be unable to count all the mail-in ballots before the electoral college voting deadline of December 14, 2020. Lawsuits will challenge millions of ballots for every minor deviation, e.g. smudges, signatures looking different than ten ago when one registered. These challenges will all be in the name of a “fair election.”

Perhaps Democrats believe Biden can be selected president by the 2021 House of Representatives. The Republicans may believe a repeat of 2000 elects Trump, since only the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court vote. Whoever is selected, elected or ordered to be president will be perceived illegitimate by at least half the country. Worse, citizens’ belief in the integrity of the voting process will be destroyed. Such harm will rot the nation!

A brief history of voting places its importance in perspective

The right of citizens to vote is merely a cryptic mention in the text of the Constitution, requiring the House of Representatives “…be chosen every second year by the people of the several States.” Initially, citizens did not vote for Senators; they were elected by state legislatures. Citizens still do not vote for the president, that is the job of the electors selected by state legislatures. Judges were never elected; they are political appointees.

The U.S. Supreme Court explains, the Constitution “does not protect the right of all citizens to vote, but rather the right of all qualified citizens to vote.” Politicians and courts determine who is qualified.

“The U.S. Constitution did not originally define who was eligible to vote, allowing each state to determine who was eligible.” After several centuries of living under our Constitution, we the people are still expanding the list of “qualified voters.”

Voting is really a question of power – if one can vote, one can influence how the government works. Since the beginnings of this nation, those possessing the legal right to vote fought to preserve their power to rule by preventing others from securing the right to vote.

Initially, only white men with a certain amount of property could vote. Beginning in the 1820s property requirements began to recede for all white men, including white immigrants. After the Civil War, the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution abolished slavery and guaranteed citizenship to all born or naturalized citizens.

These rights were short-lived in that after the election mess of 1876 (Tilden v. Hayes), Democrats traded the presidency away for the removal of northern troops in the South, thereby disenfranchising free blacks through poll taxes, literacy tests, Jim Crow laws, Black Codes and military-style hate armies such as the White League, Red Shirts, and the KKK.

In the late 1880s, Native Americans were gradually given citizenship and the right to vote. In the 1920s women secured the right to vote. In the 1940s Chinese immigrants were given citizenship and the right to vote.

In the 1960s, with the enactment of new Civil Rights laws, many of the restrictions on black voting were made illegal. Eventually, with the draft and the war raging in Viet Nam, the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified giving citizens 18 to 21 years of age the right to vote. The chant at the time was “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote.”  In 1986 citizens living overseas on military bases were given the right to vote.

The struggle for voting rights continues

The struggle to secure the right to vote continues today over access to polling stations, long lines and limited hours to vote, the security of mail-in ballots, voter identification, accommodations for the disabled, seniors, the homeless, felons, and for minorities, especially in poorer communities.

Historically, it is the government that restricts voting. Voting is a struggle because it is immensely important to those holding the power to rule us. The outcome of voting determines who will make and enforce our laws, the amount of tax we pay and who pays, who gets services, who goes to jail, and who remains free for committing the same “crime”.

How voters feel about government and what they can do about it

Polls tell us 71% of likely voters believe the U.S. is on the wrong track. Yet, in 2016 only 139 million citizens out of 250 million citizens of voting age, a 55.7% turnout. That means 111 million eligible voters did not care enough about what the government is doing to vote. The low percentage turnout shows disrespect to all who fought over the centuries to secure for us, the right to vote. These non-voters are invisible citizens at a time when every citizen must be counted.

To all eligible voters – be relevant – Vote in the 2020 election. Minimize the tendency of government to screw up the election by taking time to follow the directions, if voting by mail, and vote as early as you can to take the stress of the system. Urge your neighbors to vote. Be a poll watcher. Citizens, always keep in mind – if you do not vote for the government you want, politicians will impose on us what they want.

  • Home
  • Rule of Law or Different Rules for Us and Government

Rule of Law or Different Rules for Us and Government

William L. Kovacs

October 2019

Rule of Law or Different Rules for Us and Government

The rule of law is a centuries old concept that all members of society, citizens as well as government officials, are equally subject to the laws established by their duly elected government. This concept is described in many ways such as “the law is the king”, “no man is above the law”, or “we are a government of laws, not men.” We are told these concepts so we believe our government will always be fair to us and if our government breaks the law, the government official or the government itself, will receive the same treatment under our legal system as we would receive for similar activity. Very comforting as a concept. But keep in mind the “rule of law” is not a law of any kind and it has no binding effect on anything. It is merely a concept or more appropriate, a fable repeated by governments to make themselves sound accountable.

The U.S. Constitution places limits on the powers of government and how the government must treat us should they want to act against us, which is the requirement of due process, a procedural right. Additionally, Amendment XIV of the Constitution establishes that the government cannot deny any person within its jurisdiction equal protection of the laws. Note, it requires the government to treat persons equally when the government acts against them. Other than limits placed on the government by the Constitution or laws passed by Congress, there is scant mention of how our legal system applies to the operation of government when it acts illegally.

Cementing this disparity of how government relates to its citizens, is that after our Constitution was ratified the federal courts adopted from English courts the doctrine (not a law) of sovereign immunity, i.e. “The King Can Do No Wrong”, which means that no one can sue the federal government without its consent. While the federal government has given its consent to be sued on specific matters (e.g. torts, breaches of contract, copyright violations, open records laws, and violations of civil rights when government officials are acting under color of law), the doctrine of sovereign immunity usually bars citizens from taking legal action against the illegal operations of government.

Our legal system operates on two separate tracks. The first is the law imposed upon ordinary citizens for which we are prosecuted for violating. And since the government has hundreds of thousands of laws it can always find a violation of some law by a person it wants to prosecute.

The second track is the one under which government operates. This second track, due to sovereign immunity, can only enforced if there is a specific statute that allows citizens to enforce it, or by political means, i.e. voting or impeachment. Otherwise, the nation’s courts do not recognize the right of citizens to have standing in a court of law to sue their government unless the government grants that right.

A few examples put this disparity into perspective.

A Navy officer took photographs of a nuclear submarine he worked on and was imprisoned for improperly handling national security secrets. During the same time period a presidential candidate maintained an illegal a secret server in her home that illegally received classified security information and by not properly protecting it the security secrets were obtained by other governments. Because the presidential candidate was closely tied to the sitting president, she was not ever seriously investigated; yet alone prosecuted.

The Federal Bureau of Investigations investigates the alleged criminal activity of one presidential candidate but not the alleged criminal activity of the other presidential candidate who had the backing of the sitting president.

The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) files misleading and dubious applications with a national security court and obtains a court order to spy on American citizens, a felony, if falsely obtained. DOJ and the court both refused to even investigate these illegal actions. If any of us filed a false application with any court we would be subject to criminal prosecution.

Congress issues a subpoena to the DOJ for information on false filings before a national security court. The DOJ refuses to provide Congress with the documents to avoid embarrassment and likely the acknowledgement of criminal activity. By refusing to provide such information the constitutional checks on the other branches of government are eliminated. Imagine what would happen to any of us if we refused to comply with a federal subpoena?

And there is a story in the Washington Times about a senior FBI official who lied to the DOJ Inspector General about accepting free tickets to a professional sporting event. He told the FBI he paid for the tickets, yet he received them free. The DOJ decided not to prosecute, yet several citizens working on the Donald Trump campaign were prosecuted for lying.

The moral of this article is that the government has truly separated itself from us. Government operates in a netherworld of secrecy, deceit, arbitrariness, and finding targets to attack. The government can usually act any way it wants to act, and there is little we can do since we are barred by the doctrine that the “government can do no wrong” and the courts will not grant us standing since they believe we have not been harmed by government’s actions. We are merely citizens without the ability to hold our government accountable.

We, the people, only have control over the parts of the government we elect. We need to fully embrace the only real power our founding fathers gave us, the right to vote which is a legal mechanism for revolution. With our votes we can vote out all elected officials over four years and hope that the new government officials will establish a government that willingly stands before us as accountable servants of the Constitution. Unfortunately, such accountability, under the current legal structure, is voluntary.

This article was first published in The Reality News, November, 2018.

 

 

  • Home
  • FOR WHOM DID WE FORM A GOVERNMENT?

FOR WHOM DID WE FORM A GOVERNMENT?

William L. Kovacs

September 2019

FOR WHOM DID WE FORM A GOVERNMENT?

This question was first asked at the Constitutional Convention. While there is the occasional politician who asks it during a campaign, the question is mostly rhetorical.  Our politicians really do not want a response since it is clear that our government today is formed for politicians and political parties to control the resources of the nation. What’s worse, is that we are accepting of a government that now views itself as our principal; not our agent.

We have allowed our federal government to grow form one of limited powers to one of massive power that occupies almost every cavity of human existence. It is a government that cannot pass necessary appropriation bills, control its debt, or even determine when it is appropriate to declare war. We give our government $4 trillion a year to operate, but it is never enough. We now have $22 trillion of debt, which is about $64,000 of debt for every person in the nation, including infants born today. Each person’s share of the debt increases by $3,000 for every additional trillion dollars of debt. At what point will our debt put us into involuntary servitude to the federal government? Another rhetorical question since our government views taxes as an obligation of citizenship.

Since “We the People” bear the blame for allowing this reversal of roles to occur; it is our duty to fix the situation. We owe this to posterity. But how? Reading a newspaper, or listening to the media or politicians or surfing the web; there is only negative chatter, personal attacks, and many factual inaccuracies. There is rarely a discussion of how to address these issues and when?

In my opinion articles I promise never to complain about an issue without at least discussing ways to address it. In future articles I will talk about one issue at a time and offer solutions to address that issue. For this article however, let me offer a few general suggestions.

First, we don’t expect enough from our elected representatives. They may be politicians but we must mandate they be trustees. In James Madison’s “The Federalist 46” he argued that the federal and state governments are in fact trustees of the people; not some amorphous entity called a “government”. Since government only operates through people, it is our representatives that must be the trustees. Each trustee owes its duty of loyalty to the Constitution and to the branch of government in which they serve. Such loyalty cannot be divided, nor can the trustee put personal or political benefit before that of the beneficiary. By acting with loyalty to the institution in which they serve, each elected official will ensure there is a real separation of powers in our government. This protects us from tyranny, big government and preserves liberty.

Action: Demand elected officials publicly pledge to serve as trustees of the Constitution, not handmaidens of a political party.  Breach of the pledge establishes a violation of their oath to support the Constitution.

Second, we must all remember that political parties are nothing more than associations of individuals organized to take control of government, our resources and liberty. Why should two associations of individuals, i.e. Republicans and Democrats, be able to manipulate the laws of the nation to allow them control of our government?

Action: Demand a public commitment from elected officials to speak out against political parties gaming the voting process and limiting who can represent citizens, by constantly filing lawsuits or initiating party-centric legislation to deny independent and smaller party candidates a place on the ballot.

Thirdly, Article I of our Constitution provides that “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress…” Unfortunately, Congress over the last eighty-five years has delegated to the executive the power to fill in the blanks in the broad and vague laws it passed. This gives the executive the power to make, by regulation, many of the laws of the nation. Also, the lower courts, through the use of nationwide injunctions, make national policy through court order. Other than the Supreme Court, the lower courts are creatures of Congress. While Congress has not granted the lower courts specific power to issue nationwide injunctions, Congress has stood silently as the lower federal courts act as super-legislatures.

Action:  Congress must reclaim from the executive and the courts its full Article I power. It must clearly legislate the return of such powers. If the executive vetoes these enactments and Congress cannot override the veto, Congress has exclusive control over the appropriations process, which it must use to return the nation to one of separation of powers between the branches of government.

 Citizens have options for reclaiming our government from the politicians, we just need to start using them.

This article was originally published in the July 18,2019 edition of The Libertarian Republic.

  • Home
  • Separation of Powers Demands Congress Reclaim Its Powers

Separation of Powers Demands Congress Reclaim Its Powers

William L. Kovacs

May 2019

Separation of Powers Demands Congress Reclaim Its Powers

Nothing in our Constitution can be more explicit in intent and meaning than the first sentence which reads: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

To fulfill this Article I, constitutional mandate, Congress needs to act as an institution that both legislates and checks the powers of the Executive and the courts when those institutions legislate in ways not intended by Congress.  Such actions require an institution comprised of members who act as fiduciaries to the Constitution and who are loyal to the institution in which they serve.  At all times, these members must be willing to provide the checks on the other branches of government to ensure Congress is the primary lawmaker.

When members of Congress become more loyal to the political parties of which they are members than to the Congress to which they are elected, Congress morphs from a constitutional bulwark into a political association, which is nothing more than a corporation whose mission is to control the government of the United States.  Even more insidious is when members of Congress and the Executive are of the same party. In this situation members of Congress generally give all loyalty to the Executive, thus abdicating their primary role as a check on the powers of the other branches of government.

Notwithstanding the declarative constitutional statement on the powers of Congress in Article I of our Constitution, we find ourselves living in an age in which Congress has delegated its legislative powers to the federal administrative state to determine what Congress intended. With such delegated authority, administrative agencies impose by regulation the intent of the Executive rather than the intent of Congress.

Compounding this travesty, the federal courts, for decades, grant great deference to the decisions of the administrative state. In cases in which a statute is vague, and the agency fills in the blanks, the court views the agency action proper since the court considers the agency as the expert. In other situations where the record is large, complex or in need of understanding science or economics, the court upholds agency regulations if the agency can point to any part of the administrative record that establishes the agency decision rational, notwithstanding the intent of Congress.

Moreover, the courts on more than a few occasions legislate by issuing orders that expand laws in ways never intended by Congress.  These actions place our Congress in a state of helplessness unless it can muster a super-majority of its members to overrule court decisions; an almost impossible task.

Once in this state of helplessness, Congress has only one power to control the courts or administrative state; that is the power of the purse.  Under our Constitution “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.”  If a party is in control of the Executive and both houses of Congress, the will of the Executive generally prevails. However, if a minority party controls one house of Congress, it can withhold the monies needed to run the parts of the administrative state it believes are acting improperly. While withholding the funds to operate the administrative state is viewed by many as abhorrent; it is the only constitutional power that Congress can exercise that cannot be blocked by the other branches. If Congress cannot withhold monies to fund the administrative state out of fear of political backlash, then it is a useless power for controlling the administrative state.

To address this failure, we citizens must demand that every member of Congress pledge to support and defend the institution of Congress; not the political party of which it is a member.  Only by making and keeping such pledge can the government official act as a check on the other branches of government, as intended by our Constitution.  If a person seeking election to Congress cannot make and keep this pledge, citizens should withhold their vote from that person, which is our real power to control the Kakistocracy.

Follow Bill @WilliamLKovacs