Is a 2nd Civil War Coming? No. It's Already Here (less the shooting --- so far)
"Either this nation shall kill racism, or racism shall kill this nation." (S. Jonas, August, 2018)
USS Constitution is underway during Chief Petty Officer Heritage Weeks.
(Image by Official U.S. Navy Imagery) Details DMCA
The U.S.S. Constitution which, if you like sailing vessels, is a beautiful one, underway.
Before I get to the argument that I am putting forth in this column, just a couple of comments on the Biden candidacy (or not), from Tweets that I posted recently (after "The Debate," which was on June 27). On June 29, I posted: "Biden has a choice. Does he want to be remembered as the man who beat Trump or the one who ushered in Trump-Republo-Fascism." And then on June 30, I posted: "One person, with the initials J. B., will be making the decision about whether the President will the Democratic candidate for the position in the next election. That person's first name is not 'Joe'."
And now to the topic of the column (which happens to entwined with the Biden candidacy). Civil Wars, that is wars within a nation over the matter of who controls the levers of governmental power, or just which political forces within a nation make policy for the whole nation, have been, compared to wars between nations (over a variety of issues), not that common. But they certainly have occurred.
The English "Wars of the Roses" in the 15th century were between two Royal Houses over which one would succeed to the throne next. (Actually, a third House, the Tudors, sneaked in to win that one.) The English Civil War of the 1640s, the first of its type in history, was over the issue of whether England would continue as a monarch, or that form of government would be replaced by what we now call a republic. The U.S Civil War occurred because in a democratic election the candidate from one section of the nation lost, and by that loss that section had the door closed to a major policy goal --- that is the ability to export the institution of slavery to the Western territories that were in process of being incorporated into the nation. That section was also concerned that the winning section/party might try, over time, to eliminate slavery in the states which it then presently existed, even though the candidate of the winning party had made it very clear during the Presidential campaign that he had no interest in contesting the institution of Black slavery in the states in which it already existed.
The Russian Civil War (1917-21) was over whether the Royal House of the Romanovs, would remain-in/be-restored-to power following the Russian Revolution of 1917, in which a socialist party laid claim to control of the government. The Spanish Civil War was between a democratically elected republican government and a military force which wanted to overthrow that government and, among other things, return the monarchy to the throne.
Our nation now faces a political force which has made it quite clear that if it is returned to power in 2025 (whether by actually winning the 2024 election or by some other manner --- say the one for which it had a dress rehearsal in 2020-21) it will make fundamental changes to the Constitutional system under which the United States has been governed since 1789, either by political-force or some sort of military one, but certainly not by going through the very cumbersome means of amending the document according to the rules laid out in it.
Consider the following. These Trumpo-fascist changes are laid out in great detail in a document entitled Project 2025, on which I and now many others have commented. They include, for example, the Repeal of the Civil Service Act of 1883 [as amended] without having the bother of going through the amendment process in the Congress once again, or even putting it up to Congress.
Article II of the Constitution sets forth the powers of the President. After Section I of that Article, which lays out in great detail just how the President shall be elected and how that election shall be confirmed, Section 2 makes the President the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, sets forth the President's treaty-making powers and how vacancies in various branches of the government (including the Supreme Court) shall be "filled-up," shall (Sect. 3) from time-to-time make "State of the Union" addresses and then, in Section 4: "The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." And that's it for the Section describing Presidential powers and responsibilities.
But now, as it happened on its own authority, ignoring the Amendment Clause of the Constitution (Article V) this current Supreme Court has gone ahead and amended the Constitution on its own, so that in addition to what is in the original, Section 4 of Constitution's Article II reads:
"The President, Vice-President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, except when such a crime (of any sort) shall be committed whilst [an 18th century formulation] the President is carrying out an 'official act', the nature of the latter to be decided upon by the Supreme Court [at its leisure]."
Oh my. If you don't think that we are already in a (non-shooting-so-far) civil war over the question of the Constitutionality of a Supreme Court's amending the Constitution on its own authority, then you've got another think coming.
OK. You still think that we are not already in the Second Civil War? Well, listen to one Kevin Roberts, President of the Heritage Foundation, as reported in the New York Times: "The president of the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank that has developed a prominent series of policy plans to overhaul the federal government under a Republican president, said on Tuesday that the country was 'in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.' "
Historically, revolutions of all sorts, say the English Revolution of 1649, the American Revolution of 1776, the French Revolution of 1789, the Russian Revolution of 1917, the German Revolution of 1919, the Chinese Civil War/Revolution (1927-49), the Vietnamese Civil War/Revolution (1954-75) have always been aimed at making major changes in the form and function of the government of the nation in which they have occurred.
Roberts (that's Kevin, not John) is talking about "Revolution." That word by itself contains another word: "violence." To my knowledge, there has not been one revolution in history that did not involve violence. That is, he suggesting (but not himself threatening) that if they attempt to institute what they are proposing --- that is a vast expansion of Presidential authority above what is presently granted by Article II, without Constitutional Amendment or at least legislation --- there will be violence, coming from one place or another (but not, of course, themselves. Another "Jan.6?" Perish the thought.)
As to the contribution of the Supreme Court to the stew-of-being that we are already in, a civil war? Well, take a look again at what all of the previous civil wars in history (going back to the Romans) have been about: that is what kind of government will the nation in which they occur have, and/or who/which-powers shall make-those-decisions, be-in-control of the government. This Supreme Court is led by John Roberts (a former staffer to Ronald Reagan). Don't let his mild appearance and supposed concern about the "legacy of the Court" fool you. From his decision which gutted the Voting Rights Act, through "Citizens United," right up to "Dobbs," with his mild demeanor (and with no upside-down-flag-flying by his house and without-a-wife-said-to-be-part-of-the-Insurrection), he has led the overturning of many of the bases of modern liberal/civil government.
And now the Roberts Court, by a 6-3 vote, has gone further than it has ever before. It has amended the Constitution --- as noted without, however, following the Constitutionally defined Amendment process. That is, the Court, under Roberts' lead, has added the following clause (set forth just below, with commentary inserted) to the Constitution's Article II.
"The President of the United States is above the law and can commit acts that at least most people (and most judicial institutions in this country) would consider to be crimes, and get away with them, if such acts are performed in somewise to be considered an "official duty." And if a President commits such an act, and is challenged by some institution/individual on whether or not that particular crime is claimed to be within the brand-new-not-to-be-found-anywhere-in-the-Constitution-so-far "Presidential Exception Rule" (see Article II), why the Supreme Court, acting with all the deliberate speed with which it usually acts, would do so."
Of course, for this Court, with its Trump-appointed members creating a Republican (not by the way republican) super-majority, so far has been shown to r-e-a-l-l-y take its time in making any decisions in reference to Trump and criminal actions he is facing.
This Amendment will significantly change the means-of-government in this country (to say nothing of what Project 2025 will do to governance at all levels). If you don't think that a non-violent-only-so-far civil war is already underway in this country, you've got another think coming.