May 18, 2021

When Christianity has the active support of the government, it declines.  When it faces competition from other religions, it grows.  When it faces persecution, it grows even more dramatically.

Those are the findings of a large-scale international study by Nilay Saiya and Stuti Manchanda, sociologists from the Nanyang Technological University in Singapore.  They have published their research in the journal Sociology of Religion in an article entitled  Paradoxes of Pluralism, Privilege, and Persecution: Explaining Christian Growth and Decline Worldwide.

Here is the abstract (my paragraphing and emphasis):

This article examines the effect of church–state relations on rates of Christian population growth or decline worldwide. It makes the paradoxical argument that contexts of both pluralism and persecution do not impede Christian growth rates.

In these environments, Christians do not have the luxury of becoming complacent. On one hand, pluralism means that Christianity must actively compete with other faith traditions in order to gain and maintain adherents. On the other hand, persecution can, paradoxically, sometimes strengthen Christianity by deepening attachments to faith and reinforcing solidarity among Christians.

Rather, it is a third type of relationship—privilege, or state support for Christianity—that corresponds to the greatest threat to growth in Christianity. Countries where Christianity is privileged by the state encourage apathy and the politicization of religion, resulting in a less dynamic faith and the overall decline of Christian populations.

We test these propositions using a cross-national, time-series analysis of a global sample of countries from 2010 to 2020. Our findings provide support for our theory that Christianity suffers in contexts of privilege but not in environments of pluralism or persecution. The finding is robust to a number of model specifications and statistical approaches.

Conversely, Christianity is growing fastest today in Asia and Africa, where religious pluralism is highest.  Prof. Saiya invokes free market economics in citing how competition in religion, as in business, makes for dynamism and success.  But I would argue that it is also true that, among religions, Christianity often has the strongest appeal.  I would also call attention to another corollary of the free marketplace principle, that just as government involvement tends to be a “dead hand” that harms economic growth, it also inhibits church growth.
When the government becomes identified with the religion, the religion becomes discredited.  Evidently, no one much likes their government.  According to Prof. Saiya, this also applies to religions getting involved with their governments, as in evangelicals becoming discredited in the United States because of their support for Donald Trump, though, as I have posted, that is a  misleading account of the data.  A religion’s support of a government is not the same thing as the government’s support of a religion.
But when the government opposes Christianity, the church really grows.  The article gives empirical data to support Tertullian’s observation that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.”  Iran has been ranked as one of the worst nations in the world to be a Christian, such is the “extreme” level of persecution that is taking place there.  And yet, its underground church is one of the fastest growing in the world.  An even worst place to be a Christian, according to one finding, is Afghanistan, where the church is also growing in leaps and bounds, as it has long been doing in China, despite all its anti-religious measures.
This research goes against the conventional wisdom and against the political theories of some conservative thinkers.  Cameron Hilditch in National Review discusses how this research  works against the claims of the Integralists, the mostly Catholic theorists who advocate the union of church and state and who are applauding the nations working towards that end, such as Hungary.  And yet Hungary is one of those nations where Christianity is declining the most.
The bottom line for American evangelicals and conservative Christians, given their current exile from the halls of power, the current government’s hostility to its moral and cultural teachings, and the growing prominence of non-Christian religions:  Get ready for a resurgence of church growth!
Image by Prawny from Pixabay 
May 13, 2021

For the fourth year in a row, Finland is ranked as the happiest country in the world.  So why do Finns and other Scandinavians rate so happy when they are also notoriously gloomy?

According to the World Happiness Report, an ambitious yearly study, in the plague year of 2020, here are the world’s 20 happiest countries:

  1. Finland
  2. Iceland
  3. Denmark
  4. Switzerland
  5. Netherlands
  6. Sweden
  7. Germany
  8. Norway
  9. New Zealand
  10. Austria
  11. Israel
  12. Australia
  13. Ireland
  14. United States
  15. Canada
  16. Czech Republic
  17. Belgium
  18. United Kingdom
  19. Taiwan
  20. France
  21. The list is interesting for lots of reasons.  (Such as why is Israel happier than the United States, despite having to live with the constant threat of terrorism, rocket attacks, and the opprobrium of much of the world?)

    But the biggest puzzle is why five of the top eight spots are occupied by Scandinavian countries?  That violates all stereotypes.  What about the “melancholy Dane”?  What about all of those jokes about the morose Norwegians of Minnesota?  As for Finland, I heard a joke about its famously introverted and reserved people and COVID, something about their reaction to the two-meter social distancing rule.  After COVID goes away, the Finns will be glad they won’t have to stand so close.

    A Finnish immigrant to the United States, Jukka Savolainen–who says that he moved to America in part because he likes to see people smile–has written an article that explains it all entitled The Grim Secret of Nordic Happiness.

    Nobody is more skeptical than the Finns about the notion that we are the world’s happiest people. To be fair, this is hardly the only global ranking we’ve topped recently. We are totally fine with our reputation of having the best educational system (not true), lowest levels of corruption (probably), most sustainable economy (meh), and so forth. But happiest country? Give us a break.

    He quotes approvingly a visitor’s description of Helsinki’s glum pedestrians:   “This is not a state of national mourning in Finland, these are Finns in their natural state; brooding and private; grimly in touch with no one but themselves; the shyest people on earth. Depressed and proud of it.”

    So why do they rank as the happiest people in the world?  Savolainen points out that the research behind the World Happiness Report asks respondents to rate their lives on a scale of one to ten, with ten representing “the best possible life for you,” and one representing the worst.  That is to say, the scale measures what people think is possible for themselves.  The Scandinavian countries are indeed prosperous and safe, with a welfare state that takes care of them.  But the key, says Savolainen, is their low expectations.  They don’t expect much, so they are highly satisfied, and, thus, very “happy.”

    Savolainen makes this observation, which makes this all of interest to this blog:  “Consistent with their Lutheran heritage, the Nordic countries are united in their embrace of curbed aspirations for the best possible life.”

    So Lutheranism is what makes Scandinavians both gloomy and satisfied?  I wonder about that.  True, Lutherans know themselves to be sinners.  They will be skeptical about any kind of earthly utopia.  They reject any “theology of glory” in favor of the “theology of the cross.”

    Then again, Lutherans believe they have been saved despite their sins by the grace of God, who justifies them freely by the sacrifice of Christ.  That takes the pressure off.  Lutherans also believe in vocation, that God is present and active in ordinary human work and relationships.  That gives meaning to ordinary life.

    Scandinavians today have a Lutheran “heritage,” but the Lutheran faith has faded considerably, with some notable exceptions.  Perhaps what remains is Lutheranism without faith, the devastations of the Law without the joy of the Gospel, the depressing parts with only a dim–but real–memory of the happy parts.  (But read this about confessional, evangelical Lutheranism in Finland.)

    And yet, there may be wisdom even in this secular version of Lutheranism.  Another word for satisfaction even in the face of low expectations is contentment.  The Word of God–another Lutheran emphasis–has much to say about this:

    I have learned in whatever situation I am to be content.  I know how to be brought low, and I know how to abound. In any and every circumstance, I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and need.  (Philippians 4:11-12)

    Godliness with contentment is great gain, for we brought nothing into the world, and we cannot take anything out of the world. But if we have food and clothing, with these we will be content. (1 Timothy 6:6-8)

    The Scandinavians have food and clothing and much more.  Why shouldn’t they be content?

    We Americans, by contrast, tend to want more than we have and be ambitious for ever-greater success, only to be miserable when we do not attain it.  We are restless, changeable, and dissatisfied.  Though we are still optimistic that a better life is just ahead.  This aspect of our national character is part of our strength and dynamism.  But it is also why we come in on the World Happiness Report at #14.

     

    Photo:  Hamlet [the Melancholy Dane] by Nawe97, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons.  With the following caption:  Sam Gregory, left, will portray the Ghost of John Barrymore and Alex Esola will portray Andy in the Colorado Shakespeare Festival’s I Hate Hamlet play this summer at the University of Colorado Boulder. (Photo by Casey A. Cass/University of Colorado) .

April 6, 2021

The first COVID stimulus bill a year ago from President Trump that paid most of us $1200 cost some $2 trillion.  The second stimulus bill passed at the end of last year that gave us $600 cost $1 trillion.  The third stimulus bill passed recently that gave us another $1400 cost $2 trillion.

Now President Biden is proposing an infrastructure bill that will cost another $2 trillion.  After that, he reportedly has plans to spend an additional $2 trillion on education and health care.  The regular spending of the federal government for 2021 is projected to be just under $5 trillion.

All of this so far comes to $16 trillion.

The gross domestic product in 2020 was about $21 trillion.

So the government is spending the equivalent of 76% of the entire economy, the sum of everyone in the nation’s income and the total value of what they produce.

The national debt incurred by the federal government is $28 trillion.  That means we already owe 25% more than what our entire economy is worth.

President Biden says that he wants to “go big” in order to solve our nation’s problems.  But the even-more progressive wing of his party wants to go even bigger.  Instead of spending $2 trillion on infrastructure, they want to spend $10 trillion.  In addition to giving $1400 to every American, they want to give $1400 to every American every month.  They also want to pass the Green New Deal (some of whose provisions Biden is including in his infrastructure program), which would cost between $5 trillion and $9.3 trillion for ten years.  They would also like Medicare for All, which would cost between $3 trillion and $4 trillion every year.

So if they have their way, they would spend as much as $23 trillion more, for a total government expenditure per year of $39 trillion.  They would have the government spend twice as much as the value of the entire American economy.

Is there any limit to what the government can and will spend?

Back in February, 2019, we had a post on this blog entitled “Modern Monetary Theory:  Deficits Don’t Matter.”  (The numbers we were so alarmed with at that time  are chicken feed compared to what they are now.)  The idea is that money is a creation of the government, so it can create however much it wants.  (Notice the postmodernist assumptions of constructivism, that truths of all kinds are cultural constructions rather than being grounded in objective reality.)  But even that theory admits that at some point inflation would become a problem, but that can be brought under control by the Federal Reserve raising interest rates and the government raising taxes.

What if the Fed doesn’t raise interest rates?  What if the government, for political reasons, cannot or will not raise taxes nearly enough?

The current experiment in unlimited spending has another unprecedented wild card.  The major economic theory favored by liberals as an alternative to totally free market economics is Keynesian economics, which emphasizes the government’s role in the economy. According  to Keynesian theory, that government should increase spending in times of economic downturns. That was certainly the case with the COVID shutdown of 2020.  You can make a good case that at least the initial stimulus packages helped a great deal.

But Biden now is pouring all of this money into an economy that, due to pent up economic demand due to the COVID shutdown, is set to go into overdrive, as economic data is already showing.  He is applying Depression-scale stimulus in what will almost certainly be a time of economic growth, to what may well be a booming economy.  What will that do?

A very pro-Biden news story (aren’t they all?) has the headline  Even as debt soars, Biden faces few spending constraints.

And, indeed, there are few constraints.  Not Republicans.  They can’t slow things down, what with the budget reconciliation tactic, which allows the Democrats to pass budget-related legislation without worrying about a filibuster in the Senate, something they might decide to throw out anyway by a simple majority-vote rules change.  Besides, under the influence of President Trump, fiscal discipline is no longer a defining principle of the conservative playbook.

Not big business.  The big corporations seem happy to have all of this money in circulation to buy their products, and the stock market is soaring.

Not the public.  We like all of this free money we are getting.

The one constraint that will surely kick in is reality.

The stimulus money is all from deficit spending, but President Biden wants to fund his infrastructure plan by raising taxes on corporations, increasing the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%.  Corporations don’t really mind that.  They can simply pass that expense on to their customers by cost by raising prices.  Already housing prices are shooting up.  As is the price of gasoline, which will also hike the cost of everything shipped in trucks.  The classic description of inflation is  “Too much money chasing too few goods.”

We haven’t seen anything yet.

This massive spending also has major policy implications, which we’ll discuss next time.

 

Illustration:  “Government Spending” by Damian Gadal via Flickr, Creative Commons 2.0 License

 

March 26, 2021

Yesterday I blogged about the proposed “model curriculum” for public schools in California that has students chant prayers to Aztec gods.  Among many other reasons why this is a bad idea, I said that this exemplifies the intellectual bankruptcy of a particular technique favored by  progressive education.

The assumption that students can learn from “experiential learning activities” apart from also teaching objective knowledge just doesn’t work.  Students learn nothing about the Aztecs or their religion–which are actually  fascinating topics–from praying modern-day petitions to their idols.  These particular Aztec deities were actually worshipped by offering human sacrifices.

I wondered how education shaped by critical theory would handle that fact, which is the subject of this post.  I speculated that critical theorists would deny that the Aztecs practiced human sacrifice, and that they would blame the “narrative” to the contrary on their colonial oppressors, who were trying to discredit the native culture and to justify their destruction of that culture and their imposition of Christianity.

Sure enough, this is what I found.  But the blatant scholarly dishonesty in making these claims, despite superabundant evidence to the contrary, was beyond anything that I expected.

Just reading the Wikipedia article Human Sacrifice in Aztec Culture and attending to its documentation shows that the practice is extraordinarily well-attested.  Historians, anthropologists, archaeologists, and other specialists know a great deal about the custom of human sacrifice.  This is based not only on the testimony of conquistadors and other colonial sources.  There are native accounts, Aztec manuscripts, sculptures that depict the sacrifices, and actual drawings by Aztecs that show how the sacrifices were carried out.  The famous Aztec stone calendar depicts the cycles of sacrifices required throughout the year.  Archaeologists have uncovered hundreds of skeletal remains, with some of the bones showing the abrasions from obsidian knives that cut out the victim’s heart.

A Wikipedia editor, however, added the information that some scholars believe that the Aztecs did not, in fact, practice human sacrifice.  No details were given, but a footnote was provided, linking to an article by Dr. Elizabeth Graham, Senior Lecturer in the Archaeology of Latin America at University College London, entitled “There is no such thing as ‘Human Sacrifice’.”

She does not deny that people were killed–how could she, with all of the drawings and skeletons?  But she says that Aztec warriors did not want to kill in battle, as Western colonialists do.  Rather, they wanted to just take captives.  Yes, some of these captives were killed later.  But most were not.  Probably fewer people died in Aztec wars than die in our Western wars, so the native people are still morally superior.

But what about all of the religious connections documented by so many scholars?  Well, she says, wars are always being justified by religions.  The West does that too.

Surely, she argues, if we are going to have wars–not that she’s in favor of them–it’s better to wage them as the Aztecs did.  “Even though they wound up killing very few of their enemies compared to all the people who actually fought in the war,” she writes, “we think of them as more bloodthirsty than we are.” But they weren’t.  The Aztecs fought wars for the same reason we do–for “resources, wealth, power”–but “delayed killing” is actually more humane.

The stories to the contrary, all of those lurid descriptions of Aztec cruelty, were made up by Spanish “friars” seeking to justify their colonialism.

It is true that the mass sacrifices offered at the great pyramid were captives.  In fact, the motive of Aztec wars–instead of being for resources, wealth, and power–is said to be the seizing of enough captives to offer the gods, something attested to by the indigenous people of other tribes who were so oppressed by the Aztecs that they often supported the Spanish in their war against them.

But other sacrifices were not of captives at all.  “Virtually all child sacrifices were locals of noble lineage,” says the Wikipedia article, with three footnotes to scholarly sources, “offered by their own parents.”  Sometimes devout Aztecs would offer themselves as sacrifices to the gods.  Sometimes young men and women would be specially chosen for the honor of being sacrificed.

The article gives the sacrifices required according to the Aztec calendar.  On some days a child is required.  Sometimes a woman.  Sometimes captives.  Sometimes “a maid.”  Sometimes the sacrifice is not by extraction of the heart but by drowning or burning or flaying or starving.  Sometimes the rite includes cannibalism. Sometimes not.

Interestingly and significantly, the deity being prayed to in the model ethnic studies curriculum, Tezcatlipoca, received a special sacrifice.  According to a much more scholarly online article,

To Tezcatlipoca was dedicated one of the most ostentatious and imposing ceremonies of the Aztec religious calendar year. This was the Toxcatl or One Drought sacrifice, which was celebrated at the height of the dry season in May and involved the sacrifice of a boy. A young man was chosen at the festival among the most physically perfect prisoners. For the next year, the young man personified Tezcatlipoca, traveling through the Aztec capital city of Tenochtitlan attended by servants, fed with delicious food, wearing the finest clothing, and being trained in music and religion. About 20 days before the final ceremony he was married to four virgins who entertained him with songs and dances; together they wandered Tenochtitlan’s streets.

The final sacrifice took place at Toxcatl’s May celebrations. The young man and his entourage traveled to the Templo Mayor in Tenochtitlan, and as he walked up the stairs of the temple he played music with four flutes that represented the world’s directions; he would destroy the four flutes on his way up the stairs. When he reached the top, a group of priests carried out his sacrifice. As soon as this happened, a new boy was chosen for the following year.

The best-looking youth–a teenager–is chosen.  For a year, he lives a life of luxury and indulgence, culminating in a sexual fantasy.  He is treated like the god himself.  And then he is sacrificed.

Read the article denying that the Aztecs committed human sacrifice, and then read the Wikipedia article that surveys the research.  Then read the article about Tezcatlipoca.  Doesn’t the denial article seem rather thin in its evidence (to put it kindly)?  Doesn’t the author make an exceedingly weak case?  And yet, I suspect that her view carries more weight in the contemporary academic world.  Not just primary education but higher education are corrupted by the current regnant ideology.

One more point:  The charge will be made that you Christians too believe in human sacrifice!  All this about Jesus dying on the cross for your sins!  Well, Jesus was human and He is also God.  The whole point of Christianity is that we don’t have to sacrifice ourselves or other people to God.  Rather, He sacrifices Himself for us.

That Aztecs and other people of the world throughout history practiced human sacrifice is a testimony to our brokenness and our fallen nature.  There is an instinct that says we must pay for our sin, and we must placate the divine.  Some people throughout history and many cultures have been so desperate that out of their misplaced piety they sacrifice what is most precious to them, their own children.

But the Bible forbids that.  All religions are not the same.  Abraham was willing to sacrifice his own son, as his Canaanite neighbors would have, but God not only stopped him, He provided a substitute:  A thorn-encircled lamb.

And so He does for us.

 

Illustration:  Human Sacrifice, by Unknown author – Extract of Codex Magliabechiano [a collection of Aztec manuscripts] (cf. FAMSI (Foundation for the Advancement of Mesoamerican Studies, Inc.), Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=7828418

February 9, 2021

Trump supporters used to be portrayed as nationalists, as extreme patriots whose desire to “make America great again” was too laudatory of the U.S.A.  Now they are being portrayed as insurrectionists and terrorists who are trying to destroy America.

The January 6 attack on the Capitol by some five hundred Trump supporters has given rise to a new narrative about conservatives in general.

Jonathan S. Tobin discusses this new rhetorical framing:

The rhetorical inflation of a dangerous riot by a mob to a full-blown “insurrection” is more than political hyperbole.

By retroactively transforming the riot at the Capitol into an armed rebellion conducted by white supremacists and then linking it to not just Trump but to everyone who attended his Jan. 6 rally, supported his questioning of the 2020 election results or even those who voted for him, the goal to the exercise is more far-reaching than most GOP officeholders still seem to understand.

What Trump’s opponents have done is to launch a campaign that seeks to treat the “insurrection” as not just the fitting culmination of the Trump administration but the prism through which to view the Republican Party as disloyal, authoritarian, and violent.

As an example of this “rhetorical inflation,” consider Casey Michel’s article in Politico What Ulysses Grant Can Teach Joe Biden About Putting Down Violent Insurrections.  He compares the January 6 rioters to the “white terrorists” who arose in the South after the Civil War, particularly the Ku Klux Klan, an “insurrection” that President Grant crushed with federal troops.  And while admitting that the scale of the uprisings is not really equivalent, Michel nevertheless recommends Grant’s tactics:

Grant’s approach relied on a combination of brute military force and a drastic curtailment of civil liberties, yet it nevertheless has relevance for the current moment and contains lessons for lawmakers who fear that January 6 might have been only the first of widespread attacks on the government and elected officials at all levels, across large swaths of the nation. Officials in our current era have many more legal tools at their disposal to combat such terrorism. But as Grant’s experience shows, it’s not just the tools that count; rather, it’s the willingness to persist in the fight that will likely decide whether these counter-terrorism efforts actually succeed.

Then there are the claims that religious Trump supporters are the equivalent of Islamic terrorists.  Robert

J. D. Tuccille, in his article for Reason Magazine entitled Americans Shouldn’t Be Treated Like ISIS Insurgents, quotes intelligence operatives in Iraq and Afghanistan who are drawing those parallels and urging the use of similar counterinsurgency measures:

“The challenge facing us now is one of counterinsurgency,” Robert Grenier, former CIA station chief for Pakistan and Afghanistan and later director of the CIA Counterterrorism Center, insists in The New York Times. “Though one may recoil at the thought, it provides the most useful template for action.”

The danger, Grenier adds, lies in “a large, religiously conservative segment of the population, disproportionately (though not entirely) rural and culturally marginalized.” He doesn’t believe that the entire segment is violent, but it constitutes “a mass of citizens—sullen, angry and nursing their grudges—among whom the truly violent minority will be able to live undetectably, attracting new adherents to their cause.” . . .

Days earlier, former CIA director John Brennan had similarly claimed that the Biden administration is focusing on “what looks very similar to insurgency movements that we’ve seen overseas,” consisting of “an unholy alliance” of “religious extremists, authoritarians, fascists, bigots, racists, Nativists, even libertarians.”

“Even libertarians!”

Meanwhile, New York Times technology columnist Kevin Roose has a solution for dealing with America’s “misinformation crisis” that has given rise to all of these extremists:  “Several experts I spoke with recommended that the Biden administration put together a cross-agency task force to tackle disinformation and domestic extremism, which would be led by something like a ‘reality czar.’”

The Spectator columnist with the nom de plume Cockburn summarizes what Roose has in mind in “All Hail the ‘Reality Czar’!“:

Roose proposes that his reality autocrat be empowered to ‘push for structural changes’ that will ‘help’ tech companies fix ‘misinformation problems.’ Roose also suggests giving tech companies special legal exemptions from privacy law so they can share information about conspiracy theorists without violating pesky privacy laws. And if tech companies aren’t interested, that’s no biggie. Roose points out that many companies are worried about antitrust investigations from Democrats, so they might be amenable to a ‘nudge’ in the direction of transparency.

Cockburn comments on the “Reality Czar” designation, “Just call it ‘minister of propaganda.’ Everybody will already know that’s what it means.”

Certainly the January 6 riot was a disgrace, and there are some bad people on the far right.  Any one who marched shoulder to shoulder with fellow protesters wearing Nazi regalia–representing an ideology that Americans in our Greatest Generation fought to the point of sacrificing their lives–forfeits any claim to be patriotic or Christian or conservative.  But to hear most of the protesters telling it, they were not attempting an insurrection; rather, they were under the impression that they were opposing an insurrection on the part of anti-democratic forces who had stolen the election.

We should support the police and other law enforcement agencies in bringing rioters and terrorists foreign and domestic–no matter where they fit on the ideological spectrum–to justice.  But the number of Trump supporters, conservatives, and Republicans prone to violence is vanishingly low.  As is the number that believe in weird conspiracy theories.  (See John Daniel Davidson’s The QAnon Takeover Of The GOP Is A Fantasy Of Corporate Media And Democrats.)

Historically, small-scale uprisings have often been used as pretexts for wide-ranging crackdowns against civil liberties.  That would be a greater threat to our democracy than these current alleged “insurrections.”

 

Photo:  “United States Capitol: Outside Protesters with U.S. Flag,” by Tyler Merbler from USA, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

 

January 28, 2021

Donald Trump has been impeached a second time, even though he has already left office.  The House charged him with “Insurrection” for his role in allegedly inciting his supporters to attack the Capitol on January 6 in an effort to prevent Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s election.  The Senate trial will begin on February 8.

But is it possible to impeach someone who no longer holds office?  Some experts say, yes, pointing to a couple of precedents of office holders who were impeached after they were expelled or resigned.  But other experts say that impeaching a private citizen is impossible, pointing out that those who were impeached after leaving office were not convicted, in part because the senators doubted that the proceedings were legal.  (Read this for the legal case against impeaching a former office holder.)

It seems to me that impeaching someone who has already left office is contrary to reason and to the clear meaning of the Constitution.  Read what that document says about the process (my bolds):

Article I.  Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article I. Section 3.

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II.  Section. 2.

[The President] shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Article II.  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.

Impeachment is described as a process for removing someone from office.  And the person being removed is someone who holds that office, not someone who used to hold it.

The person who has been impeached and removed from office may then be prosecuted for the high crimes or misdemeanors according to the normal judicial procedures.  It would follow that someone who is no longer in that office may be indicted and tried for those crimes. But the impeachment would no longer be necessary.

If prosecutors genuinely believe that Trump committed “insurrection,” let them take their case to a grand jury.  But there is absolutely no reason to involve the House and Senate, which can impose no further punishment other than removal from office, which in this case is a moot point, or, significantly, disqualifying from further office.

That is the reason being given for impeaching Trump after leaving office:  to prevent him from running again.  I agree with Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), “Who are we to tell voters who they can vote for in the future?”  But if this is the purpose and if the crime as charged is “insurrection,” there is another Constitutional remedy:  the 14th Amendment (my bolds):

Amendment XIV. 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, remove such disability.

This amendment was designed to prevent office holders who fought against the union in the Civil War from holding office.  Whether what Trump did constitutes “insurrection” on that scale is questionable, but here is a way to prevent someone from running for office–assuming that this is a legitimate role of government, which is also questionable–other than impeachment.

The motives for an impeachment trial for Trump seem to be the desire on the part of Democrats to punish him for his rabble rousing on January 6, as well as a broader impulse to somehow purify the office that they believe he tainted.  There are Republicans too that want to cleanse him from the party and to purge his influence.  Another motive is that quite a few Republicans want to run for president themselves and believe they cannot as long as Trump runs again to support of his adoring rank and file.  But those are self-interested motivations, not objective constitutional considerations.

I would suggest that before the impeachment trial gets underway, the Supreme Court rule on whether or not it is Constitutional.  It is telling that the chief justice, John Roberts, declined to preside, as Article I. Section 3 requires in the case of presidential trials, apparently reasoning that a president is not on trial.  But this needs to be settled before things go any further.

The whole exercise reminds me of what happened to Oliver Cromwell, the Puritan head of state after the English Civil War, which overthrew and executed the king.  After Cromwell’s death, the monarchy was restored.  To satisfy the new regime’s zeal for punishment, Cromwell’s corpse was dug up, put on trial, and then his dead body was hanged and beheaded.  Impeaching someone who is no longer in office is the equivalent of executing someone after he is dead.

 

Illustration:  Drawing of Oliver Cromwell’s head by Unknown author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons


Browse Our Archives