Reima Jussila’s Post

Elevator Pitch. On January 8, 1790, President George Washington FIRST established the practice of reporting to the U.S. Congress once a year. Article II, Section 3, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution requires that the President ". . . shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient." President Washington gave Congress his FIRST annual message — now known as the "State of the Union" — on January 8, 1790. He addressed Congress in person in the U.S. Senate Chamber of Federal Hall in New York City, New York (the temporary seat of our government at that time). The second President, John Adams, also conveyed his annual messages in person. Adams' successor, Thomas Jefferson, ended the practice. President Jefferson sent his messages to Congress in writing. For his FIRST annual message, Jefferson had his private secretary deliver copies to the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate to be read by clerks. In an attached letter, Jefferson states that appearing in person is too time-consuming, and he wants to give Congress "relief from the embarrassment of immediate answers on subjects not yet fully before them." Jefferson's written communication with Congress began a tradition that lasted over a hundred years. The 28th President, Woodrow Wilson, broke custom by personally addressing a joint session of the 63rd Congress on December 2, 1913, in the form of a speech. With few exceptions, all subsequent Presidents have made it a tradition to deliver an annual message before a joint session of Congress. For example, President John F. Kennedy practiced his prepared remarks in a U.S. Capitol elevator pre-State of the Union on January 11, 1962. This message, which serves as an opportunity for the President to address the Nation and the Congress on the state of the country and their policy agenda, has become known as the "State of the Union" address. The term "State of the Union" was FIRST coined during the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt and became a common phrase in American political discourse during Harry Truman's administration. The "State of the Union" address has become a crucial event on the political calendar, allowing the President to outline their vision for the coming year and for the American people to hear directly from their elected leader. #Constitution #ConstitutionalLaw #Politics 

The Senate Majority Leader, a position that is not mentioned in the US Constitution, has evolved over time. It is now one of the most influential roles in all of American government. Exemplified by Mitch McConnell’s 17-year tenure as the Senate Republican Party leader–six years of which he spent as Majority Leader–the Leader controls the Senate’s agenda, committee assignments, and daily operations. This power allows Senate leaders to prioritize or block legislation, shape the political landscape, and influence the appointment of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices. In this video featuring Zach C. Cohen and former leaders, Trent Lott and Tom Daschle, we explore what the Majority Leader does, where the power comes from, and how the Leader is chosen. Watch the full video here: https://lnkd.in/eJVHExQW

Impressive. If you were fortunate enough to have heard the audio stream of today’s US Supreme Court, aka SCOTUS, you may have been even shocked at the intelligence, scholarship, and lack of any obvious political agenda of all of the justices. While the 14th amendment is critical to the progressive agenda, providing a partial explanation for the very evenhanded questioning of the Colorado contingent, it was truly a day to celebrate. Regardless of the outcome of this Supreme Court session and it’s ruling on the eligibility of a presidential candidate, if one were to note the “party” of each president who appointed each Justice, it was nearly indistinguishable in the line of questioning. It was a day about law and logic, not politics, thankfully. A ray of hope — in an insane world on fire? 1. Chief Justice John Roberts - Appointed by President George W. Bush in 2005. 2. Justice Clarence Thomas - Appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1991. 3. Ketanji Brown Jackson - appointed by President Joe Biden in 2022. 4. Justice Samuel Alito - Appointed by President George W. Bush in 2006. 5. Justice Sonia Sotomayor - Appointed by President Barack Obama in 2009. 6. Justice Elena Kagan - Appointed by President Barack Obama in 2010. 7. Justice Neil Gorsuch - Appointed by President Donald Trump in 2017. 8. Justice Brett Kavanaugh - Appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018. 9. Justice Amy Coney Barrett - Appointed by President Donald Trump in 2020.

For those of us who believe in the great American Experiment — a constitutional republic based on the principles of freedom and democracy — this is what it looks like, folks. It’s raucous, sometimes ugly, painful, and chock full of anxiety. But one thing we can do and are doing is speak freely. That could all change. Imagine a world where the Trump police track down naysayers and truth tellers. He has vowed retribution, even military tribunals for his political enemies. And then he would not be subject to prosecution. In our system of government, we have the right to question our leaders. If Trump wins, that could quickly disappear. In the confusion, uncertainty, and anxiety of the moment, and amidst all the disappointing media coverage, it is time to remind ourselves once again what is at stake in this election.

Once George Washington is elected to the executive branch, a new and important topic is considered. What title do you give an elected leader of the executive branch of a new government? We take it forgranted that he was our first president, a word that simply means someone who presides over a group. However in 1789, the use of the term for someone presiding over a country was wholly inventive. It was James Madison who suggested the title, a simple title reflective of the reasoned constitutional framework he had largely developed. However, Madison wasn’t the only one making suggestions. John Adams, who now led the new Senate, recommended a title with a little more flourish: “His Highness the President of the United States of America and Protector of Their Liberties.” It was a title borrowing from an older framework of government, which Madison detested, and it was, frankly, too damn long. Let us pause on this moment in history and consider what excluding the words “His Highness” meant at a time when our fledgling government was in urgent need of leadership. Adams was placing emphasis on Washington’s position over the states. Madison was presenting a new vision for what leadership, under a federal democratic republic, looks like. Simple and cooperative; not reigning supreme. It was choices like this, easily overlooked today, that defined America. Imagine a world, then ruled by monarchs, dictators, and tyrants, learning of this newly elected head of government who merely presides over the people. Choosing the simple title of “president” sent a message around the world that these United States were working of their own free-will under a constitution fashioned by reason, voted in by a representative democratic process. It was new and exciting and terribly fragile, but in the end, it worked.

Missed this prescient and soberingly realistic but perhaps overly fatalistic essay from Robert Kagan back in November last year. A few issues with it: (1) He uses the words "illegitimate" and "extralegal" to describe violent political action in response to the coalescence of a Trump dictatorship. "Extralegal", yes; "illegitimate", no. (We might recall that the American Revolution was also extralegal.) If one side tosses the Constitution, the other side is no longer bound by it either--that would be just silly--making violent action to overthrow his regime perfectly legitimate; the only question is what would be the most strategic course of action. Arguably that would be to strike him immediately and give him no chance to organize his regime, though of course that would require leadership, planning, and organization. Care should be taken to minimize harm to innocent civilians--the key word there being 'innocent'--but Trump, his loyalists, and anyone who stood in the way of the American people laying down the law on them the good old-fashioned way would absolutely be fair game. (2) He writes, "Those who hope to be saved by a U.S. military devoted to the protection of the Constitution are living in a fantasyland." This is baffling. If the US military is genuinely devoted to the protection of the Constitution, it will support the American people or remain in barracks and let us have it out properly. If it backs a Trump dictatorship, it will obviously no longer be devoted to the protection of the Constitution and a vital part of our work would be to disintegrate the bonds of loyalty between senior military officers and enlisted troops through low-tech information warfare. (3) "....we continue to drift toward dictatorship, still hoping for some intervention that will allow us to escape the consequences of our collective cowardice, our complacent, willful ignorance and, above all, our lack of any deep commitment to liberal democracy. As the man said, we are going out not with a bang but a whimper." Let us hope for the best but if the worst comes, may we relish the confrontation and may it end with him gunned down by a firing squad, hung from a noose on the National Mall, or whatever would be the best way of putting an end to him without being overly gratuitous about it. #Trump #2024election #FirstAmendment #freespeech #SecondAmendment #democracy #authoritarianism #fascism

In this timely episode of Hidden Forces, I speak with Henry Olsen about the unprecedented circumstances surrounding Joe Biden’s candidacy for the 2024 Democratic Presidential nomination, who is likely to replace him, and why Donald Trump is well-positioned to win in 2024. In the first hour, Henry analyzes the unprecedented circumstances surrounding Joe Biden’s recent debate performance and the pressure mounting on him to withdraw from the race, including rumors that the U.S. President may, in fact, have Parkinson’s disease or some other type of neurological disorder that disqualifies him from running in 2024. We speculate about who may be making policy decisions in the White House outside of the president himself, why so many Democrats and members of the press appeared surprised by the President’s debate performance, Biden’s potential replacement, and when (and how) his replacement will be chosen. In the second hour, Henry offers his opinion, backed by polls and decades of political experience, on what the 2024 election will ultimately be about and how this election will be remembered in American history. We discuss: 1⃣ the role immigration will play in this election 2⃣ the possibility of a U.S. withdrawal from NATO under Donald Trump 3⃣ the evolution of Trump’s foreign policy since leaving office 4⃣ the people who would staff the Trump Whitehouse and cabinet in 2024 5⃣ and why Trump’s likely choice for Vice President is so important. https://lnkd.in/e8MZszCK

By The Editorial Board (PART ONE) It is hard to imagine a candidate more unworthy to serve as president of the United States than Donald Trump. He has proved himself morally unfit for an office that asks its occupant to put the good of the nation above self-interest. He has proved himself temperamentally unfit for a role that requires the very qualities — wisdom, honesty, empathy, courage, restraint, humility, discipline — that he most lacks. Those disqualifying characteristics are compounded by everything else that limits his ability to fulfill the duties of the president: his many criminal charges, his advancing age, his fundamental lack of interest in policy and his increasingly bizarre cast of associates. This unequivocal, dispiriting truth — Donald Trump is not fit to be president — should be enough for any voter who cares about the health of our country and the stability of our democracy to deny him re-election. For this reason, regardless of any political disagreements voters might have with her, Kamala Harris is the only patriotic choice for president. As a dedicated public servant who has demonstrated care, competence and an unwavering commitment to the Constitution, Ms. Harris stands alone in this race. She may not be the perfect candidate for every voter, especially those who are frustrated and angry about our government’s failures to fix what’s broken — from our immigration system to public schools to housing costs to gun violence. Yet we urge Americans to contrast Ms. Harris’s record with her opponent’s. Ms. Harris is more than a necessary alternative. There is also an optimistic case for elevating her, one that is rooted in her policies and borne out by her experience as vice president, a senator and a state attorney general. Over the past 10 weeks, Ms. Harris has offered a shared future for all citizens, beyond hate and division. She has begun to describe a set of thoughtful plans to help American families. Beyond the economy, Ms. Harris promises to continue working to expand access to health care and reduce its cost. ... Globally, Ms. Harris would work to maintain and strengthen the alliances with like-minded nations that have long advanced American interests abroad and maintained the nation’s security. Mr. Trump — who has long praised autocrats like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orban and Kim Jong-un — has threatened to blow those democratic alliances apart... Kamala Harris is the only choice.

Oath and Honor: A Memoir and a Warning Hardcover – December 5, 2023 by Liz Cheney (Author) https://a.co/d/50xMYLP "This is the story of the momnet when American democracy began to unravel." - Prologue Liz Cheney, as a prominent figure in the Republican Party, is known for her propensity towards conservative principles and steadfastness in upholding her convictions. Her political career has often reflected: 1. Conservative Values: Cheney has demonstrated a commitment to conservative values, advocating for policies aligned with traditional Republican principles, including limited government intervention, strong national defense, and free-market economics. 2. Principled Stance: She's been recognized for her principled stand on issues, even when diverging from the prevailing opinions within her party. Cheney has shown a willingness to speak out against actions or rhetoric she views as contrary to the core values of the Republican Party. 3. Commitment to Rule of Law: Cheney has emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law and the Constitution. Her stance against attempts to undermine democratic processes, as seen in her opposition to unfounded claims about the 2020 election, reflects this commitment. 4. Defense of Institutions: She has defended the integrity of political institutions, advocating for accountability and transparency in government, and expressing concerns about actions that might undermine democratic norms and institutions. 5. National Security Advocacy: Cheney has been a strong voice in matters of national security, advocating for a robust U.S. foreign policy and national defense strategy. Cheney's propensity towards conservative values, combined with her principled approach and commitment to upholding democratic norms, has often positioned her as a vocal advocate for what she perceives as the fundamental principles of her party and the country. Her actions and stances have sparked both support and controversy within the political landscape. #Book #OathandHonor #LizCheney #Plainfield