Observations During The Late Republic
Lawfare Part Deux
A few weeks back, I started a series of posts on The Late Republic, drawing comparisons between the experience of The Late Roman Republic (roughly 133 BC to 31 BC) and our modern American Republic. I contrasted the lawfare currently occurring against what occurred with Julius Caesar, including that he knew he would be arrested, tried, convicted, and (likely) executed for crimes he was accused of by the Senate. This ultimately led Caesar to launch a civil war to take control of the Republic. And was the end of the Republic and the beginning of the Empire.
Don’t go too far with this comparison. I am not saying that Trump is Julius Caesar. I’m not even saying we are in the Triumvirate, whether First or Second. If anything, I think Trump could be compared to The Gracchi reasonably well. Although Biden, personally, reminds me of Nerva. And, if that is his role, then the era after him may well resemble the Empire at its zenith.
Regardless, and I’m getting to my point, I promise, we are experiencing yet more of this crazy lawfare that characterized The Late Republic.
What has happened is that the Supreme Court recently held that the President of the United States has immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken that are official acts within the President’s duties and powers in the Constitution. You can’t prosecute Trump for talking to his Attorney General about whether there was fraud committed in the 2020 election or asking the AG to investigate or even prosecute that. If you are interested in that decision, the ins and outs of it, and the many nuances of it, this isn’t the blog post for you LOL. I may tackle that at another time.
What was important on a broad scale, grand scheme of things perspective, is that the Supreme Court was clearly trying to head off the Late Republic style lawfare with a formal decision that instantiates the precedent and practice of 240 years of the American Republic. And Chuck Schumer, Senate Majority Leader, is having none of it.
Aside from the above points about lawfare at this level being very bad for the Republic, what Schumer is trying to do has major problems.
I cannot see how it is Constitutional to pass legislation that changes a President’s actions from official to unofficial. I really cannot imagine the Supreme Court allowing that to stand.
This is almost certainly an Ex Post Facto law, which is absolutely not Constitutional. This is established in Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3 of the Constitution: “No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
Since it seems to be directed against one specific person, it may also be a Bill of Attainder, where you punish a specific person or group of people. This is as opposed to laws which apply to everyone, equally.
Aside from all of this, of course, it’s not going anywhere in the House of Representatives. But, if it did, the consequences for the Democrats would be dire. As well as for the Republic.
If Schumer achieves what he is trying to do and is able to override the Constitution, punish one specific person by law, and then put him in jail, it is 100% certain that the Republicans will do the same when they control the Senate and House. Most likely after the November, 2024 election. They will go after Biden and Obama without any doubt. And maybe Bill Clinton.
And this will continue on until a President realizes that the way to prevent it is to Cross the Rubicon.
Personally, I prefer to not have another Civil War. Especially not one that leads to dictatorship and empire. I prefer we find a way to restore the Republic.
But I am most certainly preparing in case the all too thinkable happens. And so should you.
A very wise friend of mine who's a seasoned politician once told me that his #1 rule was to never grant power to political allies that you wouldn't grant to political enemies. What goes around, comes around.
Democrats have never been able to understand second and third order effects. Mostly because they never even understand first order effects.