I am going to take off for a week and spend it with good friends and our past memories of growing up and through college. One of them is a member ofCongress, and we are all pretty much progressives with the same bent on life. There is a lot to talk about, laugh about, and feel good about. In themeantime, I am dumping two articles on you to ponder; the Slate piece on the increased defiance of how the Constitution works relative to ignoringwhat laws the Congress passes, and the approaching event when elections are cancelled along with the Constitutional transfer of power. So, takethe articles seriously and we can all think about them later, if not sooner.
| Sep 26, 2025, 2:18 PM (16 hours ago) | |||
| ||||
What Happens When Trump Tries to Cancel the Election?Here's how we stop it from happening.
Bottom Line Up Front (B.L.U.F.) States need to pass these laws immediately, before it's too late. If Trump runs for a third term in violation of the 22nd Amendment, or if he attempts to cancel or indefinitely postpone elections, your state needs laws already on the books that automatically ban not just him but any political party that nominates or supports a constitutionally ineligible candidate from your state's ballot. Don't wait for the crisis to hit. A party that backs someone who violates the Constitution's term limits or attempts to prevent the constitutional transfer of power has forfeited its legitimacy. States control their own ballot access laws. Pass these laws preemptively. Make it automatic. Make them choose between Trump and appearing on the ballot at all. That's how you enforce the Constitution when federal systems won't. Call, email, and shout this at your state legislators today. The Justice Department now openly pursues cases against the President's political opponents. The Supreme Court has embraced unitary executive theory. Protesters are officially labeled as terrorists. These are observable facts. Given this reality, I have a simple question. If Trump and Republicans decided to cancel the next election, who would stop them? In a literal sense, what would the mechanism be? Is the hope of elected officials growing a spine the only thing between us and the final stage of an autocratic takeover. We need to stop pretending the old safeguards still exist. When the President controls who gets prosecuted and the Supreme Court affirms his authority to do so, we're watching the end stages of democratic collapse. The question now is whether anyone can physically stop it. Let me be precise. In America today, practically every single person who could arrest corrupt federal officials for federal crimes ultimately reports to those same officials. State prosecutors can charge state crimes, but they cannot enter federal property to make arrests. The White House, federal courthouses, military bases remain off limits without federal permission. Given recent Supreme Court rulings on executive authority, this has become a central challenge to accountability. So we need to examine the real question. Who, specifically, arrests a President who refuses to leave office when the people with federal authority to do so answer to him? Who arrests the FBI Director if he refuses an illegal order? The Inspector General can investigate but cannot arrest. The Deputy Director? Same problem. The entire FBI structure, over 37,000 personnel including 13,623 special agents, ultimately answer to one person. Title 28, Section 533 of the U.S. Code makes this explicit. The Attorney General, appointed by the President, controls all FBI functions. The U.S. Marshals Service enforces federal law. They protect judges. They track fugitives. They have approximately 3,900 deputies. But the Director of the U.S. Marshals is appointed by the President. The Marshals operate under the Attorney General. Every Marshal's authority flows from the executive branch they would need to hold accountable. The Capitol Police have arrest authority and more than 2,300 officers. They report to Congress, not the President. But to arrest the President, they'd need to enter the White House grounds. The Secret Service controls those grounds and reports to the President. The Supreme Court? Federal law enforcement could theoretically arrest a Justice. In 1969, Justice Abe Fortas resigned under threat of criminal investigation. But who would order that arrest today? The Attorney General who serves at the President's pleasure. State law enforcement has no federal jurisdiction. Even for state crimes, they cannot enter federal property without permission. The White House, federal courthouses, military bases are all off limits. Permission comes from federal authorities who report to the President. The military? The Posse Comitatus Act explicitly prevents military involvement in domestic law enforcement, though Trump has repeatedly violated this restriction despite court rulings against him. Soldiers swear both to "support and defend the Constitution" and to "obey the orders of the President." When those conflict, they're supposed to refuse unlawful orders. But we've already seen the military follow legally questionable directives. Article II, Section 2 makes him Commander in Chief, and in practice, that's been the oath that wins. History shows us what happens when power actually changes hands, and the pattern is surprisingly consistent. In South Korea in 2017, President Park Geun-hye controlled the government but not the Office of the Prosecutor General, a deliberately independent institution created after dictatorship. When Prosecutor Park Young-soo issued the arrest warrant, he needed one thing. Military neutrality. The military refused to intervene. Without military backing, President Park surrendered. Four hours from warrant to custody. The Existential Republic is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Romania in 1989 tells a similar story. Nicolae Ceaușescu ruled for 24 years through the Securitate. On December 21, crowds turned hostile during his speech. He ordered the military to fire. Defense Minister Vasile Milea refused and was found dead. The military switched sides. By December 25, Ceaușescu was executed. Four days from speech to execution. Peru in 2000 demonstrated another path. Alberto Fujimori controlled courts, congress, and the military. His mistake was leaving the country. Once in Japan, he faxed his resignation. Without physical presence, control evaporated. When he attempted to return via Chile in 2005, Chilean police arrested him. Twenty-five years in prison. These stories show the process of how power actually changes hands and these stories don't generally involve inspiring tales of democracy prevailing. In every case, the military or security forces had to switch sides or stay neutral. The American system presents unique paradoxes that make these best case scenarios unlikely. The FBI Director serves at the pleasure of the President. No tenure protection, no for-cause requirement. In 2017, James Comey learned this during an FBI recruitment speech from television news. The military oath contains a contradiction. Soldiers swear to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic." They also swear to "obey the orders of the President." When the President becomes the domestic enemy, which oath wins? The military's consistent answer is that they follow the chain of command. The smart observer may think to ask about State prosecutors role in preventing full blown autocratic election theft. The fact is that while State prosecutors can charge state crimes, they cannot arrest federal officials on federal property. A New York prosecutor with a valid warrant cannot enter the White House. The Secret Service would stop them at the gate. This is protocol. The inspector general system supposedly provides oversight. Seventy-three inspectors general across the federal government. In 2020, five were fired in six weeks. The rest understood the message. IGs write reports; they cannot make arrests. Even if Democrats somehow win the House in 2026 midterms, despite Republican states and the federal government having a blank check to gerrymander districts, suppress votes, and intimidate voters, impeachment means nothing without conviction. Conviction requires two-thirds of the Senate. That's 67 senators. Democrats would need such an overwhelming, unprecedented victory that it's essentially impossible. The facts alone make removal through impeachment an oligarch backed fantasy. Here's the bureaucratic reality. A U.S. Marshal with a lawful arrest warrant for the President walks to the White House gates. The Secret Service denies entry. Their job is protecting the President from all threats, including legal ones. Two federal agents, both following lawful orders, facing each other. The one inside wins. Given this reality, we need to forget waiting for federal salvation and recognize that states have actual power. State attorneys general can prosecute state crimes including tax fraud, money laundering, and state RICO violations. State convictions survive federal pardons. Georgia, New York, Michigan, any state with jurisdiction can act. States control banking licenses, insurance regulations, and business charters. New York regulates Wall Street. Delaware controls 67% of Fortune 500 companies. California regulates Silicon Valley. States can investigate, suspend, and revoke. No federal override exists for state banking regulations. Enforce the laws that exist and penalize corruption; things will get better. Even more ambitiously, ban corporate backed candidates from having their names printed on ballots and make them run as write ins. Corruption is the problem and we can doggedly pursue it to reclaim our nation. States can form binding interstate compacts without federal approval. Twenty states could coordinate simultaneous prosecutions, share intelligence, and freeze assets together. We have multiple models for legal interstate compacts, now we just apply them to prosecutorial coordination. Governors command their National Guard until federalized. The President needs specific legal justification to federalize. Multiple governors refusing simultaneously creates a legitimacy crisis no signature solves. The Guard has weapons, training, and state constitutional authority. For this to work, Governors must be proactive in their actions. Make it impossible to activate your states national guard for illegal and unconstitutional purposes. States retain their own constitutions, courts, and enforcement power. When federal systems are captured, coordinated state resistance becomes crucial. Twenty-three states acting simultaneously creates an enforcement crisis no federal government can easily resolve. Republican states have ignored federal authority for years without consequence. Democratic states must be equally willing to act first and litigate later, daring the federal government to try enforcing its will against half the country at once. If you're waiting for "the system" to stop this, you're waiting for something that doesn't exist. Your state can act. Make it. |
No comments:
Post a Comment