We had no shortage of undaunted defenders of democracy this week. In three locations, Americans stepped forward to protect the Constitution and uphold democratic norms.
 |
In one of the most damning opinions I have ever read, Ronald Reagan appointee U.S. District Judge William Young in Boston held that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and their subordinates “acted in concert to misuse the sweeping powers of their respective offices to target non-citizen pro-Palestinians for deportation primarily on account of their First Amendment protected political speech.” He meticulously dissected their gross First Amendment violations, denounced this administration’s attack on dissent, and made a moving plea for Americans to care about our precious rights and liberties.
A sample of what Young wrote about Donald Trump:
He meets dissent from his orders in those other two branches by demonizing and disparaging the speakers, sometimes descending to personal vitriol.
Dissent elsewhere among our people is likewise disfavored, often in colorful scurrilous terms. All this the First Amendment capaciously and emphatically allows. When he drifts off into calling people “traitors” and condemning them for “treason,” however, he reveals an ignorance of the crime and the special burden of proof it requires. More important, such speech is not protected by the First Amendment; it is defamatory. In his official capacity as President, however, President Trump enjoys broad immunity from any civil liability.
Young also excoriated Trump for his retribution campaign against political enemies. “Where things run off the rails for him is his fixation with ‘retribution.’ ‘I am your retribution,’ he thundered famously while on the campaign trail.” He then enumerated instances in which courts have intervened to protect law firms, the media, and universities.
 |
Young ended with an ominous question:
I fear President Trump believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected. Is he correct?
This opinion is bound to stand the test of time as a magnificent indictment of Trump and defense of the First Amendment. If only the Supreme Court MAGA justices were as clear-eyed and committed to defense of the Constitution as Judge Young.
Judge Young was not the only heroic figure this week. Hundreds of our top military officers (unnecessarily dragged away from posts around the world to Quantico, Va. at the cost of $6M to taxpayers) illustrated their loyalty to the Constitution. They remained stone-faced and refused to applaud during the most cringeworthy addresses ever delivered by a secretary of defense and a commander in chief.
Trump and his unqualified, clownish Secretary of Defense (who strutted around the stage issuing vulgar pronouncements and silly cliches) grossly underestimated the integrity of our top brass. As the New York Times reported, “The military officers assembled in the room listened silently. It is likely, though, that at least some of them were seething at his suggestion that their collective failure to enforce basic standards had caused, or even contributed to, the military’s failings in Afghanistan and Iraq.” Some likely left more convinced than ever that Trump is nuts and Hegseth is a joke.
 |
Military leaders who have attained such high rank and put in decades of service could not help but be repulsed by Trump’s vile suggestion that “we should use some of these dangerous cities as training grounds for our military.” Hearing the president declare that “America is under invasion from within…no different than a foreign enemy, but more difficult in any ways because they don’t wear uniforms” would deeply disgust senior officers steeped in Constitutional norms and a sense of duty. Some previously may not have fully grasped the depth of their civilian leaders’ moral, intellectual, and temperamental unfitness.
Although Hegseth and Trump disgraced themselves, uniformed military leadership did us proud. Now, however, they must navigate the next 3-plus years without endangering national security and violating their constitutional oaths. (Frankly, in a functioning democracy, Trump would be carted away under the 25th Amendment, and Hegseth would be compelled to resign.)
SubscribedMeanwhile, another band of undaunted democracy advocates rose to the occasion in Portland, Oregon. Local and state politicians, faith groups, community organizers, and unions had prepared for Trump’s military occupation, which he has telegraphed for months. Civil society and political leaders came out in unison to oppose the invasion of federal forces. They blanketed social media with lovely scenes of their peaceful city and mockedthe notion their city was “war ravaged.”
An umbrella community group Protect Oregon kept the public informed and put out a uniform message. “Any takeover of any community in Oregon is an abuse of power, a gross federal overreach, and a misuse of the military,” its website explained. “People across the state and the political spectrum are coming together to peacefully oppose politically motivated attacks on our communities.” It also helped organize a peaceful demonstration on Sunday away from the ICE facility.
 |
Most important, within hours of Trump’s announcement, state and local authorities filed a lawsuit (set for hearing today) spelling out why the deployment is illegal and unconstitutional. “While Congress has delegated a portion of that power to the Executive, it carefully limited the President’s authority to exert control over a state’s National Guard—the modern term for the militia—to specific circumstances,” the complaint stated. “And for over a century and a half, Congress has expressly forbidden federal military interference in civilian law enforcement.” It continued: “Defendants have trampled on these principles by federalizing members of the Oregon National Guard for deployment in Portland, Oregon, to participate in civilian law enforcement.”
It was a magnificent “whole of society” response to authoritarian bullying. Trump looked unhinged and clueless. In one of the most revelatory comments he has ever made, Trump asked, “Am I watching things on television that are different from what’s happening?” Well, if he is watching footage of disturbances from five year ago running on MAGA media, he sure is.
All told, from a courtroom in Boston to an auditorium in Quantico to Portland, undaunted, unbowed, and unapologetic patriots took up the fight to preserve democracy. We take confidence in knowing that while MAGA fanatics plot to destroy the republic, much larger legions of courageous, principled, and astute pro-democracy voices remain loud and determined.
The Contrarian is reader-supported. Kindly consider joining our lively community and help us fight back in the court of law and court of public opinion by becoming a subscriber.
No comments:
Post a Comment