Fog. . . Breach of the Capitol. . . Blood Bath

In one episode of The Crown (Netflix) a killer fog envelopes London and thousands perish or are hospitalized. It overwhelms the system. Thought to be partly from sulfuric acid particles as a byproduct of burning coal, meteorologists knew in advance something serious was developing. Instead of getting this information to the Prime Minister immediately, various bureaucrats decided to “snail mail” it to appropriate decision-makers knowing the information would be received too late to do any good and quietly hoping no one would think they had any responsibility. Nothing, of course, could have been done about the killer fog at that point but early information might have helped hospitals and other health-care providers prepare for the avalanche of the sick and dying. It seemed to be the perfect storm of a stationary dense fog that, along with coal-burning, created a unique air-borne particle that poisoned the air. Miss Constitution thinks we are experiencing a similar deadly fog of the brain in the United States. Dark, filthy acid has settled on cells that should be firing on all cylinders.

First, Congress is in charge of security at the Capitol. This is an important separation of powers issue. The President is Commander in Chief of our military forces in defense of the nation, but Congress is in charge of security of the home of the Legislative branch. This power needs to reside there and not with the Mayor of Washington, DC or anywhere else as protective of the integrity of the institution. The Speaker of the House and the Leader of the Senate are ultimately responsible. Neither was up to the task of securing Congress on January 6, 2021. The executive branch through its investigative arm, the FBI, is in charge of briefing the leadership of Congress regarding intelligence of any possible security issues. Either neither leader was briefed or both leaders had a fog of the brain. Following the lead of our meteorologists in London in 1952, the Speaker of the House tried to deflect responsibility from herself onto the President of the United States. He is not in charge of security at the Capitol. If he were briefed regarding imminent threats to members of Congress, his only action would have been to call the riot a national security event and enlist help from the military. Because half of the population thinks the Presidential election was not valid one would have thought that security would be an issue for a crowd size that large. Surely the breach was not hoped for or planned as a way to discredit political rivals. Miss Constitution looks forward to a full fact-finding investigation. The response of 25,000 troops and barbed wire after the fact is a bit of overkill, in Miss Constitution’s opinion, and discredits the Republic.

Second, rushing to Impeach the President for inciting the riot in the Capitol is the equivalent of the navigation officer on the Titanic blaming the Captain for hitting the iceberg — another fog of the brain. The charge in the House of Representatives, where the Impeachment process starts, is that the President “incited” the crowd to move to commit the federal crime of insurrection. It is a federal crime to resist the lawful authority of the State or to incite, assist, or engage in a rebellion or insurrection against the United States. It is true that President Trump asked that the rally be held; he spoke at the rally and asked that rally-goers follow him to the Capitol to peacefully and patriotically encourage the rejection of contested Electoral votes in several states. That, in fact, is what was going on at the very moment the Capitol was illegally breached. At the very moment of the breach the Electoral votes had not been certified and, in fact, a Commission was proposed by Senator Cruz to investigate election fraud within a ten-day period so that the public could be certain of the true winner. Instead of a hearing in the House with proper Due Process available to the President, the Speaker just whipped the votes to Impeach. The exercise is an unconstitutional attempt to deflect responsibility for the lack of security at the Capitol. In addition, a Senate conviction after President Trump has left office and is a private citizen is a legislative punishment without a judicial trial and is expressly forbidden in Article I, section 9 of the Constitution as a Bill of Attainder. Miss Constitution assumes that the Speaker of the House knows that this exercise is unconstitutional in both the House and Senate but hopes the public does not.

Third, Miss Constitution is concerned that there is a misunderstanding about Constitutionally protected speech and protest. Our 1st Amendment protects hateful and ugly political speech and certainly speech that may or may not be true, factually. As Supreme Court Associate Justice Harlan has told us, what is hateful to one group is not hateful to another. In large gatherings when a speaker says, “We have to fight for our rights” or “Pigs in a blanket, fry’um like bacon” or “The President is a racist” or “Stop killing babies” or “No justice, no peace”, it is not the equivalent of incitement to rebel against the State. If the speaker says “Go home and get your guns and bombs and go blow up the White House” the speaker has crossed the line. It must be specific, and it must be a clear admonition to rebel against the government. Otherwise, in America, we protect all manner of offensive political speech as long as the speakers have met time, place, and manner restrictions. Violence of any kind, or arson, or looting, or destruction of private or public property is illegal and all of it should be swiftly prosecuted. That some public servants have contributed financially to bailing out those who commit violent offenses should be disqualifying for any position of public trust. We do not protect obscene speech and we do not protect rude speech directed at an individual person. These fine distinctions should be known by all Americans from their civics classes and certainly by those elected to public office. Perhaps the fog of the brain regarding protected political speech from government interference is but a hope that the public does not know the difference. Miss Constitution would enhance our civics education immediately.

So, this is where we are. We are in the middle of a deadly fog that has given rise to a Reign of Terror, Purge, and Bloodbath of anyone who thinks the Constitution should be followed and who still has functioning brain cells. Miss Constitution thinks some of the latest unrest could have been settled by an evidentiary Court hearing regarding the validity of the Presidential election. She hopes the fog of the brain will lift soon just as it did sixty-nine years ago for Winston Churchill. Also, Miss Constitution highly recommends The Crown if only for the nostalgia.