Courtesy of wikipedia.org
The murder of Charlie Kirk sparked a debate on Facebook when a woman admitted that she would shed no tears over his loss. Many who commented agreed with her, but one person pleaded that the world needed more empathy. The remark appealed to my better angels, and I wondered about the fate of values in a time of chaos.
Moral debates are the life breath of a democratic society. But if people lose faith in the rule of law, values such as empathy become imperiled.
I blame Republicans for putting values at loggerheads with those of justice. When elected leaders abdicate their authority to legislate, they pervert the Constitution’s balance of power. That document assigns financial and public policy to the legislature. The Executive branch is charged with administering those policies or vetoing them.
Children learn this catechism in school, together with reasons to support it. The primary one was that our Founding Fathers abhorred a monarchy.
The judiciary, the third branch of government, arbitrates disputes between the Executive and Legislative arms of government. They make their rulings based on the law, not politics. Unfortunately, today, many accuse the Supreme Court of being too eager to expand presidential powers.
Its permissiveness, critics argue, has allowed President Donald Trump to take the country along a lawless path toward dictatorship. More than once, for example, he has sent the National Guard into various states without the consent of their governors. Some argue these incursions are a rehearsal for the 2026 election. The sight of armed troops bordering precincts might discourage voter participation. Registration disputes could lead to the confiscation of ballot boxes.
The President’s use of the National Guard raises fears that one day he will impose martial law on the public. Nowhere does the Constitution grant him that right, nor has the Supreme Court held that the Executive has this authority. Even so, when Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, Congress declared martial law, and civilians found guilty of wrongdoing were tried before military tribunals.
No one disputes the President’s authority to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1827, however. It allows the President to deploy federal troops to control unrest when local jurisdictions either fail or refuse to enforce the law. What defines an “insurrection” or “rebellion” is unspecified, but there is no doubt that a President has the power to call up the National Guard under the Act. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Lyndon B. Johnson used the Insurrection Act to desegregate schools and other institutions in the South.
So far, Trump’s use of the Insurrection Act has produced more confusion than clarity. When lower courts rule against him, he is quick to file an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court.
If the High Court decides to hear the case, it creates a shadow docket. A shadow docket allows the jurists to make timely decisions without extensive oral argument. Death penalty appeals come under this rubric.
Unfortunately, Trump’s attempts to bypass the lower courts have left them grumbling. Not only are these judges unclear about the reasons behind their overturned verdicts, but they also complain that these shadow docket decisions arrive with breathtaking speed.
Excessive use of the appeals process erodes the public’s trust, as well. In an era of conspiracy theories and violence, decisions made with little transparency weaken democracy. Only a would-be tyrant benefits. He wins with a repeated and consistent message. Only I can fix it.
In a time of chaos, our values come into focus. Some among us will seek the comfort of a false messiah. Others will dedicate themselves to personal survival. If the nation is lucky, a significant number will recognize that to save themselves, they must join forces with others.
Where there is unity, there is always victory. (Publilius Syrus)
BOYCOTT TESLA
