A Most Dangerous Time

:


This is a most dangerous moment in the life of this nation. Organized groups, claiming that their cause of white supremacy  (embracing religious, racial and ethnic bigotry) has been empowered by the electorate, have moved out of the shadows and openly engage in Nazi rhetoric and symbolism including the straight-armed salute. The press is demonized and individual journalists are regularly threatened and harassed. History teaches that these signals are the precursors of escalating hatred, violence and ultimate atrocity on what was once believed to be an unimaginable scale. These stirrings are mirrored in other areas of the world.
Brave and forceful leadership is urgently required to counter this incipient catastrophe before it rages beyond control. Even if Donald Trump were so inclined, and he appears not to be, he has neither the moral standing nor ethical fiber to staunch the dark forces he has knowingly or inadvertently unleashed.
Others, including the out-going president, responsible members of both political parties, religious leaders of all faiths, labor unions, business heads, professional associations and governments worldwide must all address and condemn the emerging virulence before it becomes an unstoppable contagion. Only immediate awareness of the danger and a coordinated and determined resistance can preserve our country as it was conceived and governed and protect the rights and lives of all of its citizens.

Leaks from the FBI

Just days before FBI Director Comey informed senators that his agency would be investigating additional emails pertinent to Hillary Clinton's use of a private server, former mayor Rudy Giuliani told a Fox News interviewer that something big would break in a couple of days that would turn the election around. He refused to be specific, smiling slyly and saying, in substance, "you'll see, we have a couple of things up our sleeve."
Patently, he had been informed illegally of the investigators' progress and intended action. The only source of such information had to be a leak from the FBI. If Comey has any regard for the eroding reputation of his agency, and for the nonpolitical enforcement of the law, he has an obligation to immediately question Giuliani under oath about the sources of his ill-gotten information and to take action against those who betrayed their duty, and public trust, to act in a lawful and nonpartisan way in conducting a federal investigation.

Email Found By FBI

   The announcement by FBI director Comey, that his agency is resuming its investigation of Hillary Clinton's emails just eleven days before election, appears to be a serious blow to her campaign.  The question that needs a swift response is whether the newly discovered emails are different than those already reviewed and whether they are otherwise significant.  The expectation is that these questions cannot be answered in the short time remaining before the vote notwithstanding Clinton's demand that the FBI promptly disclose the relevant facts. In all fairness, the FBI owes it to the public, and the candidates, to put into perspective the significance of the renewed inquiry.  The FBI can do this by reviewing a statistically significant sampling of the emails to determine whether they are duplicative and whether they are classified and make that finding public as soon before election day as possible.


   Director Comey, in his memo to FBI staff, explained that it would be misleading the American people if he failed to advise that the investigation would be continued.  It would be equally misleading not to expeditiously determine and advise the public whether the emails are, in any respect, significant.

Trump's Tax Avoidance

Faced with disclosure that he fully exploited what he has termed a "rigged" system, to avoid paying a vast sum of personal taxes and to enrich himself, Trump and his A-list apologists have constructed a mocking defense; his avoidance of taxes, and his use of huge indebtedness, are marks of genius. Now he is prepared to remake that system so that others may not resort to such uncivic maneuvers. So at last we have the basic premise underlying Trump's presidential fitness; it takes a thief to catch a thief.

How to Cover A Charlatan

Of course, Nicholas Kristof is right when he asserts that the job of journalists is truth-telling, not stenography. He is properly worried that the Press fears being labelled partisan and so simply reports flagrant lies without adequately exposing their known falsity.
While this tendency of the media is troubling, what is more concerning is the conversion of some cable "news" programs into free advertising for a political candidate. Even though these programs concede that they deal in opinion rather than hard news, they surely run afoul of campaign financing regulations (what is left of them after Citizen's United) if they are , in effect, simply a continuing advertisement for a candidate. For example, Trump regularly appears on Hannity programs devoted exclusively to providing a platform for his nonfactual assertions and hate-filled messages. His interrogator acts as a cheerleader, supplying his own distorted data in support. These programs are then shown repeatedly just as though they were political ads, without cost to the Trump campaign.

Trump and the Press

Shockingly, the media has been cowered by Trump's daily assaults upon it and by right-wing radio's constant carping about the media's alleged anti-conservative bias. Thus, stories about Trump's obvious ignorance of policy, especially foreign, and his rambling, wholly inconsistent rants about immigration, race, and taxation are reported uncritically and, when read from teleprompters, treated as bordering on presidential.
On the other hand, reporters seem to feel pressured into regularly raising faux issues about Clinton's honesty, and judgment, fueling her low ratings for transparency, likability and truthfulness. The result is the  prospect of an unnervingly close election and the nightmarish possibility of a Trump presidency.
The duty of the press to be unbiased and fair does not override its essential obligation to report fully and accurately. When the emperor has no clothes, it should say so.

Donald Trump's Rant

Presumably, expecting Donald Trump to react in a newsworthy fashion to FBI Director Comey’s exoneration/condemnation of Hillary Clinton, the three major cable news channels showed nearly the entire 30 minutes of Trump’s speech in Cincinnati. (NY Times, July 7, P A16)

 What we got instead, was a chilling insight, in real time, into the unbalanced, obsessively self-centered mind of the presumed Republican nominee for the presidency. Trump’s rambling, unhinged vituperative rant was appalling and recalled nothing so much as the cringe worthy performance of Captain Queeg of the Caine Mutiny as he testified neurotically about the stolen strawberries.  Queeg was removed from command of his ship.  We must not put Trump in command of the nation.

Keep Guns Away From Terrorists

Some gun advocates, in the name of protecting a sacred constitutional right to bear arms, oppose restrictions on the ability of  persons on a terrorist watch list or no-fly list to purchase weaponry. Their objection, they say, is not to keeping guns out of the hands of terrorists, but to the government's unfettered discretion in compiling such lists without a corresponding right of persons so listed to effectively challenge their inclusion.
With this as their basic premise, the gun advocates find it easy to resist proposed laws that prohibit the sale of weapons to persons on the suspect lists even when such laws include due process remedies for those who dispute the propriety of their listing.
So, for example, Professor Jeffrey Kahn, in his op-ed piece in the New York Times (" A 'No Buy' List For Guns Is a Bad Idea", July 1, 2016) rejects the claim that search and wiretap warrants procedures would adequately protect the rights of persons unjustly included on a watch list. Even if such procedures would require a court to find reasonable cause, as is now required before a search or seizure may be made, Kahn argues that a suspected terrorist would not enjoy equivalent protection. That is because persons whose property has been seized with judicial approval would be entitled to a follow up trial at which their guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt whereas suspected terrorists, even if accorded such a procedure, would be unable to prove that they are unjustly under suspicion.
Professor Kahn's arguments are fundamentally flawed in several respects. First, an approved search which results in the seizure of contraband (eg; illegal guns or drugs) has performed an important function even if the accused is not subsequently found guilty at trial. The dangerous contraband has been taken out of circulation and great harm has likely been prevented, just as a warrant that prevents the immediate sale of an assault rifle to a suspected terrorist and defer such sale until the suspect's status can be resolved at a hearing, is likely to provide an important measure of protection to the public.
A law which gives a listed person the right to challenge his suspect status at a hearing or trial would not be a meaningless remedy, as Kahn suggests, because the burden of proving  a reasonable basis for the listing would presumably be placed upon the government, not the challenger. Thus, someone put on a terrorist watch list would be able to test the reasonableness of such suspicion and gain adequate relief from the court if the government fails to make its case.
Finally, it simply seems offensive to commonsense to equate the constitutional right to be free of unreasonable searches and seizures by the government with the recently court-expanded right to bear arms. Even the slim majority of the Supreme Court which found that right to be granted to individuals, recognized that it was subject to regulation.

Supreme Court Deadlock on Immigration Reform

TO THE EDITOR:
 By voting to affirm the 2-1 decision of the lower appellate court, the four conservative members of the Supreme Court have created a deadlock which has the effect of blocking the President's attempt to assure stability to millions of immigrants who are the parents of American born or resident children and effectively prevents them from getting work permits and drivers' licenses.
To reach that impasse, the conservatives accepted the outlandish notion that the State of Texas had standing because it would incur some costs associated with the issuance of drivers' licenses, a cost it has visited upon itself, and, further, bought the State's tenuous argument that the President's unquestioned right to establish priorities for deportation is, somehow, lost when he exercises that right on a broad scale.
This result condemns millions to life in the shadows, insures family disruption and highlights the need to fill the vacant Supreme Court seat, hopefully with someone more inclined to respect human rights and executive privilege.

Supreme Court Choice and Sen. Hatch

Senator Orrin Hatch's defense of Republican intransigence, about acting upon the President's Supreme Court nomination, is rife with misstatements, misleading pronouncements and illogical argument.

The Senate has never before refused to, or ever declared  in advance of a nomination that it will not, act upon any proposed nominee. In the past every nominee has been accorded a hearing and an up or down vote (unless the nomination was withdrawn). The assertion that the Senate has never acted upon a nomination this late in a president's final term is simply false.

Sen. Hatch ignores the plain fact that the people have spoken by electing the President, who has a constitutional duty to fill judicial vacancies, just as the senators have a duty to consider and act upon his nominees. If Supreme Court vacancies may only be filled during times of political serenity, as Sen. Hatch implies, the Court's membership may never be made whole.

How to Read the Polls

The latest polls show that Clinton and Trump are now in a statistical dead heat with a small edge to Trump. The polls also indicate that Sanders would defeat Trump handily, by as much as 15 percent points. I am not a statistician but it would seem the obvious explanation for this anomalous projection is that many Sanders supporters when polled, are either not expressing a preference as between Clinton and Trump or are favoring Trump in order to enhance the status of their own candidate in his head to head match up with Trump. If that is so, the compelling conclusion is that a large number of these Sanders supporters will ultimately vote for Clinton in the general election (if they vote at all) rather than risk a Trump presidency. Thus, Trump's apparent strength in the polls, vis a vis Clinton, is probably illusory. Of course, things may turn out very differently if the Libertarian Party ticket includes William Weld, a candidate likely to have strong appeal to socially progressive and fiscally conservative voters.

A Flexible Constitution

The single most urgent and overriding function of our Constitution is to insure that the rights of those who lack the votes to enact policy are not wrongfully diminished or debased because of their minority status. That protective imperative is timeless and should not be subject to changing mores, concepts or language.

But to the extent that the Constitution also serves as a blueprint for governance, it is foolish and unhelpful to worship words or concepts crafted in another time to deal with a very different world. Many of the Founders had perspectives about slavery, race, punishment, women's rights and social relationships that are completely out of step with modern thought and philosophy. Because they knew change was inevitable, and necessary, they bequeathed to their posterity a document that can live, breathe and adapt.

To insist that today's legal and moral issues must be resolved only by reference to the Constitution's 18th century language, or to the meaning attributed to such language by its contemporary populace, is neither justified nor forward looking. Such an approach merely straitjackets our society and inhibits its continued growth and world leadership