Speaker Johnson: Meet the Constitution; Just Like the Two Presidents Johnson Did
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
Mike Johnson. So new to the national political stage, and so mild-mannered looking, that I could not find a caricature of him anywhere.
(Image by Gage Skidmore) Details DMCA
The United Sates has had two Presidents by the name of Johnson, Andrew (1865-69) and Lyndon (1963-69). Each had a major impact on The Constitution and U.S. Constitutional history. In my view, and that of many other historians, that impact was a negative one, and in each case shall be discussed briefly. The primary subject for this column is a Johnson who (heaven forbid) might become President. (By the way, if he does, we will then know politico-economic side God is on, or, if there is more than one of them, which side the God s are on). Speaker Mike is certainly "out there," and many of views (such as on Creationism) are known, especially on such matters as, that "God" (however that subject/concept might be defined) is very close to him personally.
Consider this report (Mike Johnson: 'Depraved' America Deserves God's Wrath ' Provided by Rolling Stone) on how this man thinks and feels, about God [in my terms "God"], and the nation, and indirectly the Constitution --- I'll get back to that):
"In an October prayer call hosted by a Christian-nationalist MAGA pastor, Rep. Mike Johnson was troubled that America's wickedness was inviting God's wrath. Talking to pastor Jim Garlow on a broadcast of the World Prayer Network, Johnson spoke ominously of America facing a 'civilizational moment.' He said, 'The only question is: Is God going to allow our nation to enter a time of judgment for our collective sins? " Or is he going to give us one more chance to restore the foundations and return to Him?'
"The segment was filmed Oct. 3, just weeks before Johnson's unexpected rise to become speaker of the House. Garlow pressed the clean-cut Louisiana congressman to say 'more about this "time of judgment" for America.' Johnson replied: 'The culture is so dark and depraved that it almost seems irredeemable.' He cited, as supposed evidence, the decline of national church attendance and the rise of LGBTQ youth - the fact, Johnson lamented, that 'one-in-four high school students identifies as something other than straight.
"Discussing the risk of divine retribution, Johnson invoked Sodom, the Old Testament city destroyed by God for its wickedness with a rain of burning sulfur. Johnson is a polished orator, but in a closing prayer with Garlow he grew tearful. Johnson intoned, 'We repent for our sins individually and collectively. And we ask that You not give us the judgment that we clearly deserve.' "
And, consider this exchange with a journalist:
"House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) explained the separation of church and state when cornered by CNBC co-anchor Andrew Ross Sorkin, calling it a 'misnomer' and emphasizing the influence of faith on public life. Johnson referenced historical figures such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and John Adams in support of his view. 'The separation of church and state is a misnomer [italics added] people misunderstand it,' Johnson pressed."
And further still, at the recent gala of the National Association of Christian Lawmakers, Speaker Johnson had this to say:
" 'The Lord impressed upon my heart a few weeks before this happened that something was going to occur,' Johnson said. 'And the Lord very specifically told me in my prayers to prepare, but to wait. . . . I had this sense that we were going to come to a Red Sea moment in our Republican conference and in the county at large,' he continued. '[God] had been speaking to me about this, and the Lord told me very clearly to prepare and be ready.' Johnson said that once Rep. Kevin McCarthy was removed as Speaker of the House, God began to wake him up in the middle of the night 'to speak to me, [telling me] to write things down; plans, procedures, and ideas on how we could pull the [Republican] conference together.'
" 'At the time, I assumed the Lord was going to choose a new Moses and thank you, Lord, you're going to allow me to be Aaron to Moses,' Johnson declared."
Speaker Johnson (and possible future President Johnson --- God forbid [using that term not literally but rather as a commonly used turn-of-phrase in the English language]), meet the Constitution, and the place of "God" and religion --- or not --- in it.
First of all, the word "God" does not appear in the Constitution, Speaker Johnson, not even once. As for the word "religion," it does appear, just once, as it happens, in the First Amendment, to wit:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion (italics added), or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The word "religious" also makes one appearance, at the end of Article VI: "but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
And so, Speaker Johnson, it matters not what Presidents Washington, Adams, and Jefferson had to say about religion and the separation of church and state (and without going into any details, Johnson's interpretation of their thoughts on the matters certainly represents a minority view). It matters what is actually in the Constitution, in terms of the role of government in respect of religion and the free exercise thereof, and on any religious qualification for office. What matters is that whatever your personal beliefs are about "God," and whether he, she, it, or they communicated with you in one form or another about matters of State in the United States, those beliefs are, under the terms of the Constitution, irrelevant to the making and implementation of law in these United States.
BUT, and this is a big BUT, should this man become President, regardless of the wording of the document (see Trump on Constitutional interpretation --- he just said to Sean Hannity that if re-elected he would be "dictator" for one day only --- a provision for Presidential power that is nowhere to be found in the Constitution --- but apparently Trump, or at least Hannity [who did not challenge that statement by Trump] thinks that it is in there somewhere [it isn't]), Mike Johnson could, for example, be "turning to God for guidance," and then imposing God's suggestions, or even "God's Will," as law on the rest of us. That would be a major impact of a President Johnson on Constitutional government in the United States --- that might, or might not (heaven help us), happen.
ON SPEAKER MIKE JOHNSON AND “GOD” IN THE CONSTITUTION: TO HERE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But now let us look at what impact on U.S. Constitutional government the two previous Presidents-in-office named Johnson, actually had. Before the Civil War, Andrew Johnson was a Unionist Democratic Senator from Tennessee. He remained such during the Civil War, even though Tennessee had joined the CSA. (As it happened, the hill country of Eastern Tennessee was home to many unionists, during the Civil War.) With the election of 1864 approaching, President Lincoln was looking to "balance" his ticket. And so, he discarded the abolitionist/Republican Hannibal Hamlin and certainly not anticipating just how short his second term would be, he chose this pro-Union "War" Democrat to be his Vice-President. Describing Johnson's policies, this entry from the Encyclopedia Britannica briefly put it this way:
"In March 1867 the new Congress passed, over Johnson's veto, the first of the Reconstruction acts, providing for suffrage for male freedmen and military administration of the Southern states. With Reconstruction virtually taken out of his hands, the president, by exercising his veto and by narrowly interpreting the law, managed to delay the program so seriously that he contributed materially to its failure."
Andrew Johnson certainly held Reconstruction back, and in the view of many significantly contributed to its ultimate failure. Prime among his actions that would have favored freed slaves was his dumping of General William Tecumseh Sherman's proposed "40 acres and a mule" to be provided for certain freed slaves. At the same time (negative) actions of his did contribute to the eventual passage of the 14th (the citizenship and insurrection/dis-qualification) and 15th (civil rights) amendments (see the end of this column for their full texts. Of course, no one could have ever foreseen the application of the insurrection clause, 150 years later to a former President, but that is another story.) So, it can be said that the first President Johnson had a significant impact on the U.S. Constitutional law.
The second Pres. Johnson, Lyndon, of course was a major leader in the expansion of Constitutional rights for African-Americans, with passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Ever since, Southern legislators in general and (after the institution of Nixon's "Southern Strategy") Republicans in particular, have been trying, with increasing degrees of success, to cut back on both the provisions of both Acts (see, e.g., a recent lower Federal Court decision). But this President Johnson also led a major attack on U.S. Constitutional law and its war-making powers are defined in practice. Following up on similar, but nearly as wide-spread policies undertaken by both President Eisenhower and President Kennedy in dealing Viet Nam, Johnson, using the "Gulf of Tonkin" incident, the details of which are still a matter of major dispute, to launch, with "Congressional Resolutions," what became a full-scale War on Vietnam, without, however, a specific, Constitutional, Declaration of War.
So, both previous Presidents Johnson have had, shall we say, somewhat dicey relationships to the U.S. Constitution, and U.S. Constitutional law. And both sets of relationships have had major impacts on the history of the United States. And now we have come to a Johnson, who is second-in-line to the Presidency should an ill of one type or another befall the present occupant of the office, who could also have a major impact on U.S. Constitutional law.
The first Pres. Johnson had a major impact on the Constitution because certain actions of his had major negative impacts on Reconstruction (which failure led directly to the Lost Cause/Jim Crow Era in the South and indirectly to the continuing struggles over racial equality-and-discrimination that have lasted down to this very day). The second Pres. Johnson took to himself (certainly with the cooperation of certain members of Congress) war powers which on paper would seem to be the prerogative of Congress (on the authorization-for-action side. But they have been used ever-since by Presidents to go ahead, on what amounts in practice to a Declaration of War, launch the country into one. (See: Carter and Afghanistan, Ronald Reagan and Nicaragua, G.H.W. Bush and Kuwait, G.W. Bush and Iraq, G.W. Bush, and Afghanistan.)
And so, a third President Johnson might also have a long-term impact on Constitutional law in the U.S.: making the nation into a partial theocracy (that is one in which a President seeks "guidance from God" on policy and decision-making, and then, God forbid, uses it) that in the long run could have an even more negative impact on U.S. Constitutional Democracy that any actions of the first two have had.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum I:
"This week, CNN reported [see link below] on a foreword that Johnson wrote for a right-wing manifesto [italics added]. The content of the book outlines how to use 'Black Lives Matter' to start a race war by 'pandering,' and spins the Pizzagate conspiracy as legitimate. Johnson hasn't clarified if he believes the hoax. It also trashes poor voters as 'unsophisticated and susceptible to government dependency.' But when asked about it, Johnson's office said in a statement that he only wrote the foreword because the author was a friend. He didn't really read it and certainly doesn't endorse it. The problem, however, John Oliver (the host of 'Last Week Tonight') explained, is that Johnson himself would disagree with that. [And here comes a big OOOPS!] In his podcast with his wife Kelly Johnson, the now-speaker says, 'I obviously believe in the product, or I wouldn't have written the foreword. So, I endorse the work. Look, I love the book ... Everybody can go and get the book. I highly recommend it.' " click here
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum II
AMENDMENT XIV
(Adopted July 21, 1868)
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of per sons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of each State, being twenty one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, re move such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid or insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
AMENDMENT XV
(Adopted March 30, 1870)
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.