Taking Your Morning Constitutional...

Over the weekend, former President Barack Obama said that dangerous attacks on government by the extreme right required terminating the Constitution temporarily.  Republicans were united in their outrage at th…
 
Well, no, of course, Barack Obama never said such a thing.  Though, yes, Republicans would have certainly risen as one to scream to the heavens and vigorously condemn such an assault on democracy.  As well they should have.  And Democrats would have, as well.  Even Barack Obama, being a constitutional scholar, would have condemned his words had they ever inconceivably occurred.
 
But the breathtaking silence by most of the Republican Party officials at what Trump wrote on his social platform on Saturday (and the refusal by the few who spoke to say it disqualifies him from leading their party) is almost as ghastly as what Trump said.
 
How unthinkable would the words have been if Barack Obama had actually said them?  I suspect most people reading that above knew instantly that he never would have said – or even thought – them.  However, I'm sure that it was not even remotely a surprise to most people, whatever their political beliefs, when hearing them from Trump.
 
And to anyone even still trying to defend Trump as not being an authoritarian fascist, their lives were made even more difficult on Saturday. When Trump called "for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution," he not only put his name and picture in the dictionary next to “fascist,” he signed the page and had it notarized.
 
For those who might have missed the story, no, that's not paraphrasing him, that's a quote from what Trump wrote, calling to overturn the 2020 election and either declare the "RIGHTFUL WINNER" (which apparently, contrary to losing 60 lawsuits -- and the election, he somehow thinks is him) or have a "NEW ELECTION."
 
But to put it in full, because the sheer lunacy and evil of what he wrote on Trump Social (and yes, I know that’s not exactly its official name, but to use the word “truth” when describing anything to do with Trump is not a canard I plan to participate in – unless it’s “the total and utter lack of…”) deserves to be seen in its total and utter manic and infantile fervor.
 
"So, with the revelation of MASSIVE & WIDESPREAD FRAUD & DECEPTION in working closely with Big Tech Companies, the DNC, & the Democrat Party, do you throw the Presidential Election Results of 2020 OUT and declare the RIGHTFUL WINNER, or do you have a NEW ELECTION? A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution. Our great 'Founders' did not want, and would not condone, False & Fraudulent Elections!"
 
Using the phrase “Imagine if Barack Obama had said this” is valid almost every time Trump speaks, and using it regularly at the beginning of his time in office was appropriate.  And remained appropriate to give the fascism and lies context.  But because it became so regular, virtually daily, such an admonition would have worn out its impact by the hundredth time after just three months with 45 more to go.  So, the expression has had to be used expeditiously when most significantly called for.  And calling for the termination of the U.S. Constitution is one of those times.
 
Seriously, can you imagine the Republican reaction if Barack Obama had called for terminating the Constitution.  It would have registered in California on the Richter scale.  There would have been wall-to-wall screaming non-stop on Fox “News” and Newsmax and OAN and across the Internet.  It would have transcended outrage.  And should have.
 
And as I noted above, it would have been equaled by Democrats.  And we know this because, for just one example, when Al Franken took a joke photo in immature taste when he was a comedian coming home from entertaining U.S. troops years before he was elected a senator, Democrats (wisely or not) united to push him out of office.  And that wasn’t for sedition, just a bad joke.
 
By the way, whatever adjectives others want to use about Trump’s authoritarian, manic, whining, fascist rantings, they were also problematically counter-productive for him, and yet another self-inflicted error.  That’s because his public statement risks being used against him in any of the many criminal court cases he's facing.  If he’s ever under oath, he can be asked, "Did you write on your social media platform that the Constitution should be terminated to make you president?"  He likely would answer “No” or take the Fifth, in which case those words would just be hearsay – but to not say he didn’t write that under his own name undermines his long-standing position that has driven his supporters, and would be humiliating.  (Actually, I'll go a step further: while I'm not certain, I believe he couldn't even take the Fifth, because of an "exception to hearsay," when something isn't against interest.  After all, there is nothing incriminating about merely stating your opinion on something that isn't a crime for just thinking it. So, that would leave his only defensive answer as "No, I didn't write that," which risks perjury.)  The only alternative then would be to answer “Yes,” which really isn’t a good luck when being prosecuted for stealing secret government documents or inciting an Insurrection. (Further, if it’s ever allowed to be brought up in a civil case, taking the Fifth can be used by a jury as an assumption of assertion.)
 
But the thing is, as always, this isn’t just about Trump – though admittedly a ton of it is – but it’s also about the officials of the Republican Party who enable him, and have generally be offensively silent about this.   But the question every one of them should be asked (if they can be found from hiding…) and should all answer directly is that, regardless of who wrote the words, would they support a candidate for any political office in the country, who says we should terminate the Constitution?
 
And just criticizing what Trump said about terminating the Constitution (if you can even get most Republican officials to do only that!!) isn’t enough.  Because to be president – to be any federal government official, to serve in the military – you have to swear an oath to God to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.  Trump himself had to swear that when he was in office.  Trump wants to be president again and would have to swear it, by law, if he’s ever elected again.  So, every Republican official should be asked if they think it is disqualifying for a candidate for president to call for terminating the Constitution that he must swear an oath to God defend.  And if they say, no, they should have to explain why not.  Especially given that they themselves had to swear the same oath.

And to be clear:  if a political official is unwilling to condemn a presidential candidate for saying the Constitution should be terminated, it is foolhardy to think they will suddenly gain new-found morals and personal courage to condemn it should that candidate actually get elected.  No matter how much they might possibly say in private how wrong and wrong it is and roll their eyes and go "tsk-tsk," not criticizing it in public not only knowingly enables the viewpoint, but speaks to precisely who they are, as well.  This isn't merely "silence," this is acceptance.
 
For that matter, anyone who is interviewed and said they’d vote for Trump should be asked the same question
 
But further, anyone who says nothing more than they’d just vote for Trump should, at the very least, also ask themselves that same question.  And if they answer to themselves, no, it's not disqualifying, I’m okay voting for someone as president who wants to terminate the Constitution he swore an oath to God to defend, then they can no longer complain and whine and moan when they are described as a fascist.

​Like today's Republican Party is described, and properly so.