Why a Sovereign Wealth Fund is a Very Bad Idea

by Rod Williams, Feb 7, 2025- With a new illegal, ill-advised, or nutty action or policy proposal every day from President Trump, it is hard to keep up. The Trump team is moving fast and breaking things. With the pardon of J6 thugs, the decapitation of the Justice Department, the amending the Constitution by executive order and all the rest, some things don't get the attention they deserve. One that deserves a lot of discussion and should cause concern but has gone by almost unnoticed is Trump's call for the creation of a sovereign wealth fund.

Trump supporters tend to just endorse every idea he has, so I am sure there are Trump supporters who have little knowledge of what a sovereign wealth fund does and what the risk are who think it must be just dandy if Trump proposes it. Please do this thought experiment: Understand what a sovereign wealth fund is and then ask yourself if you would have wanted the US to have such a program if Joe Biden or Hilary Clinton were president. If the answer is no, then you should not want it under a Trump presidency. One day Democrats will be back in office. 

A sovereign wealth fund is a license to steal, increases government influence over the economy and will increase the deficit which we should be attempting to reduce. 

In addition to just generally being a terrible idea, what Trump envisions doing with it is dangerous. He has said it could be used to buy Tic Tok. I do not want the US government owning a social media platform.  I don't even like the government funding for PBS and NPR. At a time when newspapers are shutting down and major news outlets are cautious about crossing Trump, do we really want a government owned outlet that shapes public opinion, and that people rely on for a source of information? I know I don't. 

The Wall Street Jornal published an editorial today in which they explain how a sovereign wealth fund operates and why they oppose the creation of one for the United States. I am posting excerpts below. I would like to post the full piece but try to be mindful of fair use regulations. Please follow the link to read it all. 

Now here’s an idea: Leverage federal assets to create a new investment fund for the political class to invest in whatever it pleases, including private companies. What could possibly go wrong?

The answer is plenty, which is why President Trump’s proposal Monday to create a new sovereign wealth fund deserves to die in Congress. 

... Why has no President done this before? One reason is the U.S. perennially runs budget deficits, projected at $1.9 trillion for this fiscal year. Countries with sovereign wealth funds typically invest surplus revenue from commodity sales or excess foreign exchange reserves from trade surpluses, e.g., China.

... Such funds typically enrich a country’s rulers and their friends far more than citizens. Foreign leaders use the funds to finance businesses and projects of political allies. Corruption is a constant temptation. Malaysia’s version, 1MDB, channeled billions of dollars to support the lifestyles of a Prime Minister and his cronies.

There’s also no need for such a U.S. fund since .... The biggest danger is that such a fund will be used to invest in private companies. Politicians would love a separate vehicle to direct capital without having to go through Congress. Mr. Trump gave the game away on Monday when he suggested such a fund could buy TikTok.

... with ownership comes political control. A sovereign wealth fund would give Mr. Trump and future Presidents more leverage to bully businesses. ... Government doesn’t create wealth, and a sovereign wealth fund would merely be one more way for the government to commandeer private wealth for political purposes. It will destroy more wealth than it creates.

Top Stories

Birthright Citizenship Isn’t Going Away Just Because Trump Said So

by Rod Williams, Feb. 5, 2025- With the rapidity by which Trump is proposing nutty or outrageous or unconstitutional policy proposal or issuing executive orders, there is hardly time to process one crazy thing before he has done another. There is little time to reflect on yesterday's outrage because there is a new one today.  The policy of "flood the zone" is certainly a good strategy.

It happened last week, which now seems months ago, but one of the most outrageous unconstitutional things Trump has attempted is to repeal by Executive Order birthright citizenship which is enshrining in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. 

You may recall that Joe Biden on his way out the door tried to add the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution by executive order. Conservatives were rightly outraged and that attempt to trample the Constitution was widely denounced. When it comes to respect for the Constitution, Trump and his supporters are not better than Democrats. On the Constitution and other issues, to many Trump supporters the outcome is all that matters, not how you achieve it. To me the constitution is close to sacred. The process of how we do things is as important as the things we do. As an example, whether it is building a border or paying off student loans, no president should be able to take money appropriated by Congress for one purpose and use it for another. If we abandon the Constitution, then our stable democracy will be doomed. 

On birthright citizenship, many Trump supporters are joyful that he is trying to end it by executive order. I am kind of ambivalent on the issue of whether or not it should be ended but if it is, it should be ended the right way. 

Andrew C. McCarthy writing in National Review examines the issue and concludes that it would probably take a constitutional amendment or, at a minimum, congressional legislation to end it. This is kind of a lengthy article and explores some of the nuances of the issue. I urge readers to read the full article at this link. I am posting some excerpts and summarizing some of it below. McCarthy writes:

.... Trump is unilaterally decreeing an end to birthright citizenship — only to have a Reagan-appointed judge in Washington, the Honorable John Coughenour, observe: “I’ve been on the bench for over four decades. I can’t remember another case where the question presented is as clear as this one. This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”

That is a pretty strong statement. It appeared to me as a "blatantly unconstitutional order" also but I'm not a credentialed Constitutional scholar. However, it seems that anyone with a little understanding of the Constitution would see it the same way Judge Coughenor sees it. Andrew McCarthy ask, is Judge Coughenour right? He says:

Probably, at least insofar as President Trump has tried unilaterally, by executive order, to change a provision of the Constitution that many solid scholars believe would require a constitutional amendment. 

"That said, it’s complicated," says McCarthy and then sites some other articles on the issue and discusses what viewpoints others have taken and how he has come to be more convinced than ever that birthright citizenship cannot simply be ended by executive order.  Executive orders, he says, "are for organizing the executive branch and exercising authority delegated to the executive branch by Congress; EOs can legitimately neither create new legal rights nor constrict existing legal rights." "The president executes the laws; he doesn’t make them," he says. 

McCarthy goes on to say that he is not pleased by his conclusion, that as a matter of policy he does not think people without legal residency status should automatically be citizens but concludes that is the current law, and the President does not have authority to just change it. "I would not approve of citizenship for the children of tourists or other aliens legally present on temporary visas," he says.  

One of the arguments that supporters of Trump's Executive Order banning birthright citizenship make is that the 14th Amendment’s references a person who is born in the United States “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Opponents of Birthright citizenship claim that illegal immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Here is what McCarthy says about that:

I see no contradiction in the happenstance that one can simultaneously be (a) subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation by virtue of his or her parents’ citizenship in that nation and (b) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States — in the sense of being required to obey our laws and benefiting from various legal protections — by virtue of his or her physical presence in the United States. 

He expounds on this concept of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," for several paragraphs exploring what that term has meant historically. 

Another argument that proponents of ending Birthright citizenship make is that in the original 1898 Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that the Court was dealing with a legal resident, not an illegal resident and therefore the ruling should not be extended to the parents of illegal aliens. McCarthy explores this. First of all, in 1898 there was not as much distinction between legal and illegal residents as there is now and anyway it is irrelevant. He explores the arguments as to why it is irrelevant. Here is an excerpt:

First, under the common law principles that the Court addressed, birthright citizenship was established for the children of foreigners born on American soil, subject to just two exceptions: (1) children of foreign diplomats, who were deemed to retain and thus confer on their children allegiance to their sovereign, and (2) children of alien enemies born during those enemies’ hostile occupation of the king’s dominions. ...

Much as I would like to analogize children born of illegal aliens to category 2, on the theory that their presence in our country in violation of our laws is a hostile act, I can’t in good conscience do that. Simply stated, there are salient differences between a hostile occupation by an alien enemy force and an illegal trespass by aliens who should not be here but are not contesting American sovereignty.

In conclusion, McCarthys says:

... it would probably take a constitutional amendment to end birthright citizenship. At a minimum, it would take congressional legislation and, when that action was inevitably challenged, a Supreme Court willing to reverse (or at least significantly revise) Wong Kim Ark. I do not believe a majority of the justices on the current Court would do that. In any event, birthright citizenship will not be repealed by President Trump’s executive order.

Top Stories

Take a Break: What Bro Country Sounds Like to People Who don't Like Bro Country

by Rod Williams, Feb. 4 2025-    All my life I have been a Country music fan. I like some of almost all kinds of music actually except for hip hop and certain kinds of jazz. County music, however, is what really speaks to me and what I listen to most of the time. Unfortunately, I seldom find much contemporary County music that I like. I find it soulless and formalistic, and I find that much of it sounds the same. 

When I came across this video, I thought this nails it. Bro Country sucks!

 

Top Stories

There are no good arguments for tariffs.

by W. H. Bernstein, Feb. 4, 2024-The amazing thing about recent news and commentary is that there is any discussion at all.  On the topic of trade and tariffs the vast majority of economists agree.  And have agreed for almost 200 years.  And where they disagree it is over politics, not their field at all.

SO here are 9 fallacies on trade and tariffs:

1) Foreign countries pay US tariffs.  This one should be obvious.  Tariffs are taxes imposed when an item reaches US port.  It is paid by the importer.  Like literally every other business tax it is passed on to the buyer--the ultimate buyer, the consumer--in the form of higher prices.

2) We need to shield our industries from "unfair competition" from abroad.  This gem has been used for decades, if not centuries.  If you come up with a better way to produce, market, or sell a product is that "unfair competition"? Or is that competition?  To the buyer it makes no difference as lower prices are lower prices.  Shielding domestic industries results only in inefficient outmoded industries, as happened to the steel industry in the 1970s, which had received decades of government support.

3) Foreign countries "dump" their products on American markets to gain advantage.  First, I doubt this is true.  The U.S. has made claims about dumping for years but never won a case in an international court.  Second, even if that is true it means that taxpayers in some other country, like China, are subsidizing products Americans are buying. Wouldn't you like someone to subsidize the products you buy?  I sure would.  Given how much aid the US has sent countries, it's the least they can do to give some of it back in the form of subsidized products.  But as I say, I doubt this happens in reality.

4) The US would be better off if we made everything at home.  I don't know why anyone would believe this.  There was a time when that was true individually for most people.  Everyone made all the goods they consumed on their own farms.  People were poor and limited in what they could buy.  Specialization meant each person concentrating on what he did best, selling the results of his labor, and buying the things he was not good at making.  Standards of living improved the more this happened.  It holds true for countries too: when we buy abroad goods that are cheaper than we can make at home we have more money left over for other things.

5) Trade deficits mean we lose money.  Maybe the most pernicious lie in the bunch.  When we buy something from another country we give them dollars and we get cool stuff like steel and solar panels. That country must eventually take those dollars and buy U.S. products.  Eventually the trade evens out.  This fallacy comes from the old days of mercantilism, where deficits were settled in gold.  But the US has not settled accounts in gold since 1971.

6) If other countries impose tariffs on us, we need to do that to them.  A weird argument from "fairness."  Recall tariffs are taxes imposed on the importing country.  If Japan wants to charge its citizens more for products that isn't our problem.  We should not want to charge our own citizens more for foreign products.  And if someone objects that we'll "lose" some market or other, there are always countries looking to buy American products based on whatever advantages American products offer.  People like bargains.

7) IF we don't protect "X" industry we'll have trouble in war time.  This has been the argument from the steel industry probably since just after WW2 when they began facing foreign competition.  It wasn't true then and it isn't now.  First, the likelihood we will fight a war like WW2 again is slim to none.  Second, both Canada and Mexico are major steel producers, to say nothing of Brazil.  Even a trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific cutoff of trade would not affect our ability to get steel from Canada or Mexico.  In any case subsidizing domestic industries, paid for by US taxpayers and consumers, is a bad deal.

We can increase employment by "buying American."  In the 1950s the percent of American workers in manufacturing peaked at about 43%.  Today it's just under 10%.  But America produces more manufactured goods than we ever did before.  It is efficiencies in the manufacturing process that have reduced labor needs. One estimate had it that every manufacturing job off shored resulted in 3 new American jobs.  Spending more on labor than we have to by substituting expensive American labor for inexpensive foreign labor makes no more sense than heating your factory with dollar bills.  GDP increases in two ways: larger population, or greater efficiency.  American workers have added to their efficiency tremendously in the last 20 years, especially compared to workers in Europe.  It's why our living standards are higher.

And in any case there are no "American products" beyond some very low tech cottage items.  An American car contains about 40% components from Mexico and 20% components from Canada.  It has crossed some border about 12 times before final assembly.  This is done because it is the most efficient way to do it, keeping costs down.

9) We can fund the government entirely through tariffs and eliminate income taxes.  True, only if you're bad at math.  The US imports about $3.5T worth of goods a year.  The federal government takes in about $2.2T in individual income taxes.  What percent of $3.5T is 2.2T?  That is the tax that would need to be applied to imports to replace the individual tax.  That's about 62%.  If you increased taxes on imports by 63% you won't be importing 3.5T worth any more either.  You'd be lucky to import $1T.  States imposing enormous taxes on cigarettes discovered this truism: raise the price of something even as addictive as cigarettes and you'll sell much less of it.

There are no good arguments for tariffs.  And no country ever became wealthy imposing them.

Bill Bernstein, formerly of Nashville where he was owner of Eastside Gun Shop, now lives in Sumter, South Carolina. He is a scholar with a BA degree from Vanderbilt University and degrees in Classics from Corpus Christi College, Oxford, UNC-Chapel Hill, and University of Pennsylvania.

Top Stories

Are Trump's Cabinet Picks Qualified?

W. H. Bernstein

by W. H. Bernstein, Reposted from Facebook, Feb. 4, 2024- A feature of revolutionary regimes is that language changes from its ordinary meaning.  That Trump represents a revolution in American politics should not be especially controversial.  The unprecedented changes in how we are governed--from laws passed by Congress to EOs signed by the President--should indicate this.

One of the biggest language changes is the term "qualified" to describe a job applicant.  In normal terms "qualified" means "possessing the knowledge, skills, and experience to carry out the job successfully."

But in Trump speak that is not what qualified means.  Under Trump qualified means "utters the slogans, cliches, and phrases that people approve of."  

Consider Pete Hegseth, not the worst Trump nominee only because the bar is low.  For a Secretary of Defense qualifications might include overseeing a large complex organization, experience commanding a large military unit, and knowledge of current Pentagon weapons' systems and priorities.

Hegseth has none of that. He is a part-time soldier who reached major and a commentator in the media.  Additionally, he has a personality disorder that manifests itself in an inability to self-control, chiefly with alcohol and women. In normal parlance Hegseth is unqualified, both by experience and personality, to oversee the Defense Department.

But in Trumpspeak none of that matters.  Hegseth is against DEI.  He opposes transgenderism. He wants no sissies in the Army.  He voices all the attitudes and opinions that support the Trump agenda.  What is his view on how many Navy ships we need?  Who knows?  What is his view on new low tech weapons systems like drones versus traditional systems like fighters and bombers?  Who knows?  Hegseth talks the talk.  That's all that matters.

As anyone who has observed authoritarian regimes that fill out their ranks with loyalists rather than professionals, this will not go well.  Competency means something.

Bill Bernstein, formerly of Nashville where he was owner of Eastside Gun Shop, now lives in Sumter, South Carolina. He is a scholar with a BA degree from Vanderbilt University and degrees in Classics from Corpus Christi College, Oxford, UNC-Chapel Hill, and University of Pennsylvania.

Top Stories

Andy Ogles gets by with it. Sucking up Pays Off.

 Career prosecutors withdraw from investigation of GOP Congressman Andy Ogles

Top Stories

Trump Administration Orders Federal Employees to Remove Pronouns from Email Signatures

by Rod Williams, Feb. 2, 2025- I approve of this action. As a private citizen or Chair of the Tennessee Democratic Party, one may engage in this conspicuous virtue-signally as much as one wants, but I support banning this silliness by government employees.

Top Stories

Chattanooga's Rachel Campbell To Lead Tennessee Democratic Party. What I Want to Know is .....

 Nutty Tennessee Dem's proudly showcase their
gender fluidity ideology with every communication.

by Rod Williams, Jan. 31, 2025- What I want to know is if the new Chair will feel compelled to identify herself (himself, themself, itself) with a pronoun accompanying the closing signature with each email communication. 

I will await the first email from the new chair (chairman, chairwomen, chair). Outgoing Chair Hendrel  Remas always had to end his emails with a "he/him" until about March of last year when he suddenly stopped the practice. There was never an explanation of why he stopped with the gender identification, it just suddenly stopped. 

There are a lot reasons Democrats lost to Trump in the recent election. Considering Trump is an authoritarian, is cruel, mocking, rude, constantly lies, and attempted a coup, Dems should have won easily. I know that immigration and the economy are the reasons most often attributed to a Trump win, but I think it was due to wokeness, and all that goes with it. 

Two days in a row, the Tennessee Democratic
 Party sent me an email without stating
the sender's preferred pronoun.

People were sick, I think, of DEI, of inability of Democrats to say what a woman is, of forcing schools to allow boys who think they are girls to compete in girls' sports, of cancel culture, of tampons in boys' bathrooms, of murdering the language by using terms like "birthing parent," instead of "mothers," and a whole bunch of other stuff.  People were also sick of hectoring self-riotous progressives looking down their noses at normal people who wouldn't participate in their delusion. 

In some of the post-mortems, I have seen a few Democrats, not many- but a few, identify this wokeness and related issues as a factor in their loss. While I still consider myself a Republican, I cannot be part of the Trump cult. I wish there was an alternative I could embrace.  I think we need two viable political parties, so when one becomes a cult, there is an alternative. Unfortunately, if Democrats remain in this out-of-touch, elitist. snobbish, self-righteous mode, I think the Trump cult will continue to win. I don't think the politically correct identity fluidity ideology cult can trump the Trump cult. 

I am looking forward to my first email from Rachel Campbell. 

Top Stories

Facing FBI investigation that Trump could halt, Andy Ogles proposes allowing third term for president

 Facing FBI investigation that Trump could halt, Andy Ogles proposes allowing third term for president

Top Stories

Andy Ogles Seeks to be Trump's Number One Suck-up.

 Rep. Andy Ogles

by Rod Williams, Jan. 28, 2025- We know that Andy Ogles is ethically challenged. From his raising money for a burial garden for children which was never built, to his fraudulent campaign finance reports, to his enhanced resume, he has demonstrated a lack of character and problems with the truth. We also know Ogles is somewhat of a Trump suck-up. It looks like Ogles is trying to earn the title of Trump's Number One Suck-up. Andy Ogles has introduced a bill to amend the Constitution to remove the two-term limit for a president. 

Franklin D. Roosevelt was the first person to serve more than two terms. Up until then it was a norm that no one serve more than two terms but not a law. A few had considered it and a few tried it, Teddy Rosevelt being the most prominent. Teddy attempted a third term but was unsuccessful. After FDR was elected to an unprecedented four terms in a row, especially after he died not long into his fourth term the public supported restricting a president to two terms. Congress created what is now the 22nd Amendment restricting a president to two terms and it was ratified by the States. Now Andy Ogles wants to make changes to the 22nd.

The Constitutional amendment Ogles is proposing is drafted in such a way to only apply to a situation like that of Trump's. It would not simply allow for a president to serve more than two terms. So, while Trump could serve a third term, should Ogles' amendment pass, it would not open the door for an Obama or Clinton to seek a third term.  

Passing such an amendment will take some effort. First of all, a proposed amendment would have to pass both houses of Congress by a two-thirds vote. Republicans only have a three-vote margin in the House and hold only 53 of the 100 seats in the Senate. There is no way an amendment to allow Trump to run for a third term could get a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress. If by some miracle it did, then it would be sent to the states to be ratified and would have to be approved by 38 of the states. 

Trump only won 31 states in the recent election. Having won the state in a presidential election does not mean that state will necessarily ratify an amendment giving President Trump the right to seek a third term. To be ratified, the governor of the state submits the amendment to the state legislature for its consideration or convenes a state ratifying convention. In many of these states, the legislature is not dominated by Republicans and the governors of these states are not all Republicans. Also, should a governor attempt to go the ratifying convention route, it would be difficult to motivate low-information voters to turn out to vote for convention delegates. I would put the chance of this proposal by Ogles leading to a Constitutional amendment at almost zero. I don't believe the House, Senate, States or the American people would support it.  I don't think even the majority of people who voted for Trump would support it. 

Some in Trump world have been hinting that Trump may serve a third term. That would require amending the Constitution or circumventing it.  I don't think Trump would have any qualms about subverting or suspending the Constitution to serve a third term. After all, in 2020 he attempted to stay in office despite losing the election and he has publicly stated that at times it may be necessary to suspend the Constitution. 

While I don't think Trump would have any qualms about subverting the Constitution to stay in office, I am not very worried about it. If he attempts it, I won't be shocked, however. There is not much Trump could do that would shock me. I am not too concerned about Trump seeking to stay in office past this term, simply because he is old. On January 20, 2029, he will be 82 years old if he is still living. I doubt he will want a third term at that age. He may want to retire and play golf. Also, I suspect that Americans will be sick of him by then and will want to make America normal again. I suspect that Trump is at his most popular now and expect his popularity to decline. In four years, I don't expect there to be a groundswell of public support for Trump, demanding he be given a third term.

So why is Ogles doing this? Maybe there is some grand strategy to plant the seed in the public's mind of Trump serving a third term, so that if Trump does decide to stay in office after the end of this term and Trump does declare a national emergency and suspend the next election, that the public will already have been softened up to the possibility of Trump staying in office past the end of this term. I think that may be a possibility, but I don't think so. I think this is simply Ogles trying to curry favor with Trump. I think it is simply Ogles trying to be the number one suck up. 

Below is the press release from Ogles office announcing his resolution to amend the Constitution to allow Trump to serve a third term.  

Press Release from Andy Ogles, January 23, 2025- Congressman Andy Ogles introduced a House Joint Resolution to amend the Constitution of the United States to allow a President to be elected for up to but no more than three terms. The language of the proposed amendment reads as follows:

No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than three times, nor be elected to any additional term after being elected to two consecutive terms, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.

"President Trump’s decisive leadership stands in stark contrast to the chaos, suffering, and economic decline Americans have endured over the past four years. He has proven himself to be the only figure in modern history capable of reversing our nation’s decay and restoring America to greatness, and he must be given the time necessary to accomplish that goal. To that end, I am proposing an amendment to the Constitution to revise the limitations imposed by the 22nd Amendment on presidential terms. This amendment would allow President Trump to serve three terms, ensuring that we can sustain the bold leadership our nation so desperately needs," said Congressman Ogles. 

“It is imperative that we provide President Trump with every resource necessary to correct the disastrous course set by the Biden administration. President Trump has shown time and time again that his loyalty lies with the American people and our great nation above all else. He is dedicated to restoring the republic and saving our country, and we, as legislators and as states, must do everything in our power to support him.” 

"In just a few short days, President Trump has already taken action to undo the catastrophic policies of the Biden Administration and put the United States back on the path to strength and prosperity. He has tackled the crisis at our Southern border by declaring a national emergency, deploying additional troops and resources to curb illegal crossings, and expediting the completion of the border wall. In a similar vein, he issued an order to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal aliens. Placing American safety as his top priority, President Trump designated Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations, empowering law enforcement to dismantle these violent networks with greater force. Aside from the border, he has set American energy free by declaring a national emergency to lift the Biden Administration’s oil and gas drilling restrictions. President Trump has also broken the chains of DEI by eliminating federal programs and reaffirming legally that there are only two genders, male and female. He has also initiated the process to withdraw the United States from the World Health Organization, a decision I am personally very excited about following the Biden Administration’s disastrous COVID pandemic response,” said Congressman Ogles.

“Compared to the prosperity and protection offered under President Trump, the Biden Administration has subjected Americans to relentless abuses that will take a decade to correct. Small towns and major cities alike have been overrun by millions of illegal immigrants trafficked across the border, fueling a surge in drug overdoses and violent crime. Soaring gas and groceries costs have crushed countless families' financial security. Radical LGBTQ+ agendas have infiltrated schools and workplaces, while DEI mandates have destroyed small businesses, wasted taxpayer dollars, and corrupted hiring practices. Social media platforms were coerced into censoring free speech and suppressing vital medical information. Meanwhile, servicemembers have been stripped of their pay and rank for refusing a hastily-approved experimental vaccine. The list of this administration’s failures is as long as it is egregious," said Congressman Ogles.

Top Stories

Egg Watch, Week One.

 

by Rod Williams, Jan. 28, 2024- Trump has been in office for one week. Look what has happened to the price of eggs!

Top Stories

I Have Never Been More Concerned about the Rule of Law in the United States

David French

By David French, New York Times, Jan. 26, 2025- I have never been more concerned about the rule of law in the United States.

I was born in 1969 — five years after the Civil Rights Act was passed — and I have no memory of the legal system operated in the Jim Crow South, when there was one code of justice for white Americans and a different set of laws for Black Americans. The very idea of justice in the old Confederacy was a sad joke. The white establishment took care of its own.

There was a distinct moment on Monday night when I stopped taking various legal notes on President Trump’s executive orders and realized that we may well be facing a different game entirely — one far more reminiscent of the Old South than any system of American justice I’ve experienced in my lifetime.

We’re still far from those dark days, but we’re walking in that direction. Trump’s mass pardons and commutations of Jan. 6 insurrectionists and his revocation of John Bolton’s security detail have changed the calculus. 

... He pardoned the seditious shock troops of an attempted coup. ... Oppose Trump — as Bolton did — and he’ll leave you exposed. The domestic enemy has to pay the price, even if it means the foreign enemy may have greater access to an American target.

 .... Trump’s birthright citizenship order. It’s extraordinarily broad. It doesn’t just block citizenship for children of illegal immigrants, it also blocks citizenship for children whose parents are legally present in the United States if they don’t have permanent status when their child is born.

This contradicts the language of the 14th Amendment, a controlling federal statute and Supreme Court precedent. The 14th Amendment says, “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.” (read it all)

David French is an opinion columnist for the New York Times. He was previously a staff writer for National Review. He writes about law, culture, religion and armed conflict. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator who has litigated numerous cases involving religious liberty. He is a visiting professor at David Lipscomb University and is a resident of Franklin, Tennessee. 

Top Stories