“Democracy is on the ballot.” That mantra of President Joe Biden and other Democrats has suggested that “this may be our last election” if the Republicans win in 2024. A few of us have noted that the Democrats seem more keen on claiming the mantle of the defenders of democracy than actually practicing it. Democrats have sought to disqualify Donald Trump and dozens of Republicans from ballots; block third party candidates, censor and blacklist of those with opposing views; and weaponize the legal system against their opponents. Most recently, in California, democracy is truly on the ballot and the Democrats are on the wrong side.
California has always prided itself on the ability of citizens to vote on changes in the law directly through referenda and ballot measures. That is precisely what citizens are attempting to do with a measure that would require voter approval of any tax increase, including a two-thirds vote for some local taxes. It is called the Taxpayer Protection Act and it is a duly qualified statewide ballot measure slated for the November 2024 ballot.
The state Democrats are apoplectic over the prospect of citizen control over revenue and taxes. What was a quaint element of democratic empowerment is now challenging a core vehicle of Democratic power. So Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders have taken the issue to the state Supreme Court to demand that citizens be denied the right to decide the issue.
In oral arguments, the attorney supporting the challenge explained to the justices that citizens are simply not equipped to deal with the complexities of taxation and should not be allowed to render such a decision.
In a prior decision, Associate Justice Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar wrote that “Whether the context involves taxation or not, all of these cases underscore how courts preserve and liberally construe the public’s statewide and local initiative power. Indeed, we resolve doubts about the scope of the initiative power in its favor whenever possible and we narrowly construe provisions that would burden or limit the exercise of that power.”
Half of the Court seemed to be inclined to deny the public the right to decide the question.
“I think the real danger to the country is the progressive agenda.”
“A continuation of the Biden administration is national suicide.”
“I will vote the Republican ticket. I will support the Republican ticket.”
– Former Attorney General William Pelham Barr
Jonathan Turley
@JonathanTurley ~ May 29th 2024
…Merchan just delivered the coup de grace instruction. He said that there is no need to agree on what occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices. Thus, this means that they could split 4-4-4 and he will still treat them as unanimous…
https://x.com/JonathanTurley/status/1795829624502681688
Kyle Becker
@kylenabecker ~ May 29th 2024
BREAKING.🚨
Judge Merchan has instructed the jury they do not need to have a *UNANIMOUS* verdict in order to convict former President Donald J. Trump.
“One thing in particular that the judge said the jurors could do. He delivered what is being called really the pinnacle of all of this. There is no need to agree on what has occurred. They can disagree on what the crime was among the three choices.”
“This means they could split 4-4-4 and the judge would still treat them unanimously. What does that mean?”
“Outrageous. In a normal criminal case every statutory crime has what we call elements of the offense. Like in a bank robbery case you have to rob – it has to be a financial institution, you have to show intent,” said former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy.
“Those are the things the jury has to agree on unanimously that they were proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Here what we’re doing is taking the element that actually makes this a felony, because remember falsification of records is normally a misdemeanor in New York. What makes it a felony is that you are concealing or committing another crime.”
“And here the judge is telling them they don’t have to agree about what the other crime is under circumstances where that not only is what makes this a felony, makes it a four-year potential prison penalty rather than a year or less, but it is also what gets us into the courtroom.”
“If this had been a misdemeanor, the time to bring this case would have lapsed in 2019. The only reason they are still able to bring this case is because it’s a felony allegedly and yet now the judge is saying you know, you don’t have to agree on what the felony is.”
The jury has now gone to deliberations.
https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1795844798043095515
Video Link:
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1795843118454935552/pu/vid/avc1/720×406/fAKCrka4AE5EEMHP.mp4?tag=12
Read the jury instructions from Judge Juan Merchan in the Trump hush money trial
By: Antoinette Radford – CNN ~ May 29, 2024
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/29/politics/read-the-jury-instructions-from-judge-juan-merchan-in-the-trump-hush-money-trial/index.html
Judge Juan Merchan delivered his instructions to jurors before they began deliberations in former President Donald Trump’s hush money trial.
Here’s what Merchan told the jury:
• They must not make a decision based on biases or stereotypes;
• They must set aside personal differences;
• They must not speculate about how long a potential sentence may be or what the punishment might be – that’s up to the judge;
• They can’t hold it against Trump for not testifying;
• The “people must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the crime.” He reminds the jury it must not rest its verdict on speculation;
• They can consider whether a witness hopes to receive a benefit related to the trial, or if they have an interest in how the case ends;
• They cannot convict Trump on Michael Cohen’s testimony alone because he’s an accomplice, but they can use his evidence if corroborated with other evidence;
• The jury must be unanimous if they find Trump guilty on each count – on whether he committed the crime personally, acted in concert with others or both;
• They must determine if Trump conspired to promote someone or prevent them from public office by unlawful means;
• They should deliberate with a view toward reaching an agreement, without surrendering individual judgment;
• Jurors’ notes cannot be used in place of evidence;
• The foreperson will deliver the verdict for each count after deliberations are over;
• Jurors must surrender their phones and can only discuss the case when all 12 of them are together.
Merchan explained some key laws in the case:
On the law applicable to falsifying business records, Merchan told the jury:
“You must find beyond a reasonable doubt first that he solicited, requested, commanded, importuned or intentionally aided that person to engage in that conduct, and second, that he did so with the state of mind required with the commission of the offense.”
He also explained what makes a person guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree – explaining that they must have the intent to defraud – including the intent to commit another crime or conceal the commission of one.
On what constitutes a violation of the Federal Election Campaign Act: It is unlawful for an individual to willfully make a contribution to any candidate running for office, including the presidency, exceeding certain limits which in the relevant years was $2,700, Merchan tells the jury.
He also walked the jury through what they must find in the different counts levelled against Trump. Merchan explained what tax law violations were and said it was unlawful for a person to willfully produce a tax statement or document that’s false.
Read the full jury instructions here [PDF].
https://www.nycourts.gov/LegacyPDFS/press/PDFs/People%20v.%20DJT%20Jury%20Instructions%20and%20Charges%20FINAL%205-23-24.pdf
Much of this is standard NY Jury instructions – that said there are numerous problems and conflicts within the jury instructions.
I suspect the instruction regarding inferences is standard. It is also wrong. The instruction says that an infernece is a plausible conclusion from the available facts – that correct – BUT NOT for a criminal trial. A permissible inference must be the ONLY plausible conclusion.
Only plausible is consistent with beyond a reasonable doubt. Plausible is not.
There are several similar errors like this or conflicts within the jury instructions.
The Jury instruction regarding Fraud has been publicly sidcussed already – it appears to be a standard instruction in NY, and it is unconstitutional. SCOTUS has already reuled in more than one case – including overtuning cases related to politics and election law That Fraud is a PROPERTY crime. There must be a specific attempt to deprive a person or entity of something tangible that is theirs.
I have been arguing that the elements of Fraud REQUIRE the potential for “Actual Harm” SCOTUS’s classification of Fraud as a property crime, is even narrower. I would not that is not just something made up by SCOTUS, it comes from the constitution and the social countract, but it also comes from hundreds of years of common law.
This is very important – in this case as well as the EnMoron case and it is a major error in NYC law – a FUNDIMENTAL UNCONSTITUIONAL ERROR.
Government can not craft law that makes conduct that they do not like a crime. All crimes require the potential for ACTUAL HARM.
The language of the NY Jury instruction on Fraud goes WAY beyond that and is unconstitutional for NUMEROUS reasons.
The “Intent to commit a Crime” Jury instruction appears to be one of Merchan’s constrution – I am guessing that because it is both wrong and poorly written and conflicts with other jury instruction.
First – though not correctly the jury instruction on Fraud it limits it, Merchan’s instruction limits the business records fraud to fruad that actually conceals a crime. That does narrow Fraud from the nebulous nonsense of the NY unconstitutional fraud law – probably not enough to save this, but still limits it.
The definition of intent is correct – but the instruction if confusing.
You do not have to find that a crime occured to find criminal intent. But criminal intent is NOT alone sufficient to convict someone of anything.
As a rule once defendants set in motion a criminal scheme that absent some intervening factor will result in the commission of a crime – it is not necessary for the crime to actually take place. The FBI does not have to wait for the bomb to go off to charge someone with terrorism.
There are other complexities, but they are not relevant to this case.
My point is that a finding of Criminal intent is NOT sufficient to convict for ANY crime.
Next the S17-152 jury instrctions are unconstitutional error and MUST be struct.
S17-152 was not indicted, it was not charged, it is a violation of the constitution – the 6th amendment and others to introduce evidence of crimes not charged. Bragg can not argue S17-152 without indicting and charging it.
I would note that S17-152 is itself unconstitutionally overbroad – there is no such thing as the crime of acting unlawfully in some context.
For something to be a crime – it must be statutorially defined and have clear elements – unlawfully is not sufficient.
A parking ticket is unlawful conduct. S17-152 as written would make inconsequetial unlawful conduct into a felony in the context of elections.
Separately Merchan’s instruction that the Jury needs not be unanimous regarding the specific unlawful means – if again error.
Every element of a crime must be found by a jury unanimously. Here we have a judge improperly allowing an uncharged crime to to be an element is the charged crime, Aleady a major constitutional problem and having this very mudy instruction.
The ONLY correct process would be to charge 17-152, to require the Jury to find ALL the elements of 17-152 – than as 17-152 itself required another CRIME – because “unlawful act” is unconstitutionally vague and converts non-criminal acts into felonies.
Because !7-152 requires ANOTHER Crime -= that crime must be charged, and the jury must find ALL the elements of that crime.
To the extent Merchan is correct – Bragg could have indicted and charged multiple different crimes and then Merchan could have instructed the Jury that Unanimously finding Trump guilty of ONE of them was sufficient to also find him guilty of the 17-152 uncharged crime and the records garbage.
Regardless a statutory crime – particularly a felony can not be any unlawful act in some legislatively specified context.
!7-152 is unconstitutional under the US constitution and severaql have noted that it is even more unconstitutional under the NY State constitution.
Everything regarding the Federal Campaign act should be struct – it is judicial error.
NYC Courts have no jurisdiction at all. Had Trump been convicted of a federal campaign act violation – that is admissible as a predicate crime, but he was not, he was not even fined. Worse still this is a violation of the supremecay clause of the constitution.
Worse still – states have no power to enforce or even determine violations of federal law.
Worse still the FECA incredibly narrowly tailors jurisdiction – specifically because there are massive constitutional and first amendment issues with election law and particular FECA.
It has been noted that Trump can contribute as much as he wants to his own campaign. Further he can do so without reporting it.
That is not something congress decided. Nor the FEC. It is what SCOTUS decades ago decided was necescary for the FECA to not violate the first amendment.
Finally I would note that Judge Merchan is a NY State judge. He littlerally is NOT legally qualified to state what federal law is.
He can not provide Jury instructions to a scate jury on Federal Law.
Mrdchan was likely correct in excluding Trump’s expert witness – but NOT because he is not expertt and NOT because the law is the province of the judge – but because absent an actual Federal conviction of Trump – FECA can not be admitted to a state court.
With respect to the alleged falsification of other business records – ignoring the FACT that there is no evidence those records are false,
there is not any testimony at all that Trump was aware of those interactions.
This claim CAN NOT be brought to a jury.
With respect to the 1099-Misc. Again there is no evidence that Trump produced it or was directly aware of it, and separately it is as a matter of law correct. All it says is that Micheal Cohen received non-employee compensation.
I would further note – we AGAIN have Bragg and MErchan barging in Federal law – where they have no business.
There is no Federal charge related to taxes and a 1099-MISC is a federal tax form.
The only thing that a 1099-MISC means is that Micheal Cohen was paid money in 2017 for reasons other than W2 employment by Trump.
I would further note that this entire case has a MASSIVE logical timeline problem.
the S17-152 and the FECA claims are all claims of efforts to “illegally” influence the 2016 election.
But all the ACTS performed prior to the election were LEGAL – NDA’s are legal. There is no charge, there is no evidence there is not even a claim by Bragg or Merchan of an actual illegal act in 2016.
Bragg’s “case” is that in 2017 AFTER the election Trump committed Fraud by “Covering up” his legal actions in 2016.
You litterally need a time machine to get a crime here.
FEC Commissioner Smith actually manage to testify to part of this.
Not only isn’t hush money illegal, but The reports on campaign expenditures are not done until AFTER the election.
You can not commit fraud to cover the legal expenditure of campaign funds to influence the election AFTER the election.
There is only One claim by Bragg of ANY activity that could interfere with the 2016 election. That is the payment for the NDA.
Something that is legal.
All other actions here took place AFTER the election and therefore could not have interfered with the election.
The entirety of the FACE nonsense – not only is out of Merchan’s jurisdiction – even if the reporting laws WERE violated – they were violeated in 2017 – and therefore the whole 17-152 nonsense is out the window.
“Tax laws”
The key word is MATERIALLY – any allegation of misrepresentation on Tax records that does not alter one’s tax liability is NOT MATERIAL as a matter of law.
Trump is not charged with violating any tax laws, evidence of violations of tax laws would therefore be inadmissible, and even in Merchan world where anything is admissible that harms Trump there is absolutely no evidence presented in this trial of a tax law violation.
A judge can not present an allegation to a jury where no evidence of any kind at all has been produced.
In the remained of the instructions MErchan repeats the errors he made above.
@John Say,
“ The Jury instruction regarding Fraud has been publicly sidcussed already – it appears to be a standard instruction in NY, and it is unconstitutional.”
It’s not unconstitutional. The definition of fraud is specific to NY and that does not make it unconstitutional. You don’t specify why exactly it is. The rest of your dissemination of the instruction rely on this flawed notion that because YOU believe the NY definition of fraud is unconstitutional without precisely defining why everything else is wrong with the instructions.
Every state has their own particular legal quirks that are not directly attached to the constitution. It’s obvious that you are not applying NY law to your description of the definitions spelled out in Merchan’s instructions. You want to apply the narrowest possible interpretation applicable to a national standard. The problem with your argument is that spelled out in the constitution ironically.
Specifically the 10th amendment,
“ The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
That’s why states have varying definitions of fraud, intent, motive, etc. that are specific to states legal frameworks. You want to apply strict narrow definitions that are not delegated by the United States to the states, in this particular issue NY. That’s why your claim that the definition of “fraud” in NY is unconstitutional is flawed.
Anonymous – thank you for the link to the actual jury instructions.
I have ignored your recitation of them as the EXACT instructions given to the jury word for word are what matters.
Not your reinterpretation of them – no inuslt intended.
Though your summary does CAPTURE some of Merchan’s errors.
There ar emany reasons as an example that Merchan is NOT qualified to state the law regarding Federal election law.
One clear one of those is that both you and he got it WRONG.
There is no cap on the contributions of a candidate to their own campaign.
There is no reporting requirement for contributions of an individual to their own campaign.
Brad Smith was not allowed to explain FECA and Merchan got it fundimentally wrong.
And that all ignores the fact that no FECA convictions or charges exist, and that Bregg/Merchan have no FECA jurisdiction.
If you didn’t get the exact wording of the jury instructions but relied on an interpretation to claim they were erroneous then you can’t say they were erroneous with certainty. You’re still relying on interpretation that you deemed wrong based on what?
Merchan was extremely detailed with the instructions because he made sure jurors understood everything they would have to consider. What many fail to consider is the fact that many of these instructions are based on NY law. Not just general procedures common for any jury around the country. NY laws have their quirks and the judge walked through them in detail for the jury. Keep in mind that it is customary for the defense to be last in closing arguments, but in NY the it’s the prosecution. That’s the law in NY. Just because Merchan is instructing jurors about the distinctions of NY law does not mean his actions are unconstitutional or require his recusal.
This is frightening.
“Acting judge” Merchan the Marxist instructed the jury to find Trump: Guilty of Something.
The actual jury instructions are a massive self contradictory mess.
Interestingly the jury instructions them-self establish why the case should have been dismissed.
There is no evidence at all of many of the elements of the crimes that are alleged by not charged that The jury must decide, and yet, can not constitutionally.
@John Say,
“ There is no evidence at all of many of the elements of the crimes that are alleged …”
Yes, there is evidence. Just because you choose to ignore it does not mean it’s absent from the record.
The jury instructions were long because they were extremely detailed. The judge made sure the jury understood the distinctions between the various definitions of intent, unlawful, intent to defraud, etc. All according to NY law.
A lot of folks here never bothered to follow the case as it progressed which left them with huge gaping holes in their understanding of the proceedings and evidence presented.
“Merchan is a corrupt apparatchik who belongs in prison. It would be nice if prosecutors treated his own courtroom antics as a conspiracy to violate rights and as undisclosed in-kind campaign contributions to Joe Biden.” @seanmdav
From history, we learn the voters passed one law – the Constitution.
Voters DELEGATED representation.
We did not GIVE away our rights!
The American Founders adopted the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Naturalization Act of 1790—the borders, the law, and the population of the United States of America.
The American Founders severely restricted the vote through State legislatures, the qualifications being generally male, European, 21, and 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
Turnout was 11.6% in 1788.
Never was America intended to be a one-man, one-vote “democracy,” the very “democracy’ that had been of the restricted-vote variety since its inception in Greece.
To wit,
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
_____________________________________________________
“[We gave you] a republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
citizens are simply not equipped to deal with the complexities of taxation and should not be allowed to render such a decision.
Given the fact the state’s Department of Finance overestimated future tax revenues for FY 2022-2025 by $165 billion, it’s clearly not the citizens that are ill-equipped at understanding taxation. The citizens also understand the basics of budgeting. So when these asshats in Sacramento combine incompetent taxation policy with their progressive/communist ideology, we go from a $97 billion surplus to a $56 billion deficit in a blink of an eye. What’s next, prohibit us from filling out our own W-4?
“… citizens are simply not equipped to deal with the complexities of taxation…”
I can’t speak for all states, but after living in California for nearly 30 years (thankfully gone now), this belief can be held for nearly all ballot measures. But if you trust voters on all the other measures then you should on this one as well.
Government, particularly Big Government, relies wholly on what it is able to forcibly extract from workers. Of course it does not want workers to have any say in the matter.
https://youtu.be/Uin5bs_htNo
no comment
Alas, there is a fine line between direct democracy and populism. We are as Jonathan well knows a “republic,” specifically a “democratic republic,” but the democracy refers to electing leaders, not to populism, which is in essence what “direct democracy” of the California sort that has screwed up my Arizona is all about.
More important than the form of the government is its adherence to “the rule of law”
If you do not like the way your state is governed – change the law or as necessary the constitution.
Californians are trying to do so using a lawful and constitutional process. If Californians decide they wish to restrict that lawful and constitutional process they can change the ballot initiative process to be more limited or get rid of it altogether.
Personally I think requiring voter approval for tax increases is an excellent idea that should exist everywhere.
JAJ the details of the form of government are just about the least consequential aspect of government.
While most in the west prefer republics and democracies and explicit self government – ultimately all forms of government including monarchies and dictatorships are self government – because without the consent of the governed, governments cease. We saw that in action in 1989 with the collapse of the Berlin wall and the USSR.
As Adam Smith noted 250 years ago
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
A few decades later John Stuart Mill correctly noted than the most tyranical govenrment of all was of each of us over our neighbors – democracy, as trying to morally object to chains on liberty imposed by the majority is near impossible while we all chaffe and revolt at the same constraints imposed by a monarch.
The reason this ballot initiative is near certain to pass is that California is badly governed.
In their latest display of manipulation of voting procedures, it now appears that Democrats are going to nominate Joe Biden for President NOW via zoom in order to qualify for the Ohio ballot. That will nullify the nomination process at the convention. In a sense, the Convention delegates will be “fake delegates.” The good thing about this gambit is that removes Trump’s greatest fear: that the Dems would nominate a living candidate at the last minute.
edwardmahl,
I think this is a two fold move.
They get to keep him on the Ohio ballot.
They can cancel the Chicago DNC and claim security fears. Which, based off reports, I do not find unfounded. Saw a video of a group of some 300 avowed anarchists and communists planning on rioting and general chaos.
Biden also needs to accelerate the nomination to reduce the risk of the convention dumping him.
Ohio House agrees to Biden ballot fix compromise if ‘anti-democratic’ Senate provisions removed
Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine wants Ohio lawmakers to get it together and has called a special session Tuesday to get them to do their jobs — fix an obscure law so President Joe Biden can be on the November ballot. Now, the two chambers must scramble to compromise on each of their proposals. The House, which has been holding up the progress, said it will compromise with the Senate, but only if the “anti-democratic” provisions are taken out of the bill.
By: Morgan Trau – May 28, 2024
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/05/28/ohio-house-agrees-to-biden-ballot-fix-compromise-if-anti-democratic-senate-provisions-removed/
“0bscure law”? It is a filing deadline.
I expect Biden is driving this – MORE than the Ohio ballot problem as there is a real fear that by August Democrats may revolt at the convention and replace him.
This is also why the earliest debates ever – Biden needs to demonstrate to voters – especially democrats that he can still fog glass while he still can.
The image is a giant fatman , buttons popping , top hat and money falling from his pockets, dollar bills stuffed in every pocket spilling over and huge toothy smile, giant cigar in hand telling the tiny cowering people —> I’m here to help.
Last election?
Count on liberal projection.
It reminds me of Blazing Saddles when Hedly Lamar and Gov. Lapetimain (Harvey Korman and Mel Brooks) decide to steal thousands of acres of Indian land “for their own safety,” noting “They’re such children.”
For the sake of transparency, the Democrats have adopted a new name: “The Anti-democratic Party.” The second choice was “The National Socialist Party”.
How quickly the trolls change the subject.
Professor Turley,
The November ballot measure inhibits the democratic process by requiring local taxes to garner two-thirds voter approval, rather than the simple majority currently needed. In what world is a two-thirds majority requirement MORE democratic than a simple majority?
Imposing supermajority thresholds is patently anti-democratic.
Imposing supermajority thresholds is patently anti-democratic.
It is VERY MUCH a feature of a Representative Republic. Let us not forget, these are the rules put in place by the People. They can be modified just as easily.
Yes, I agree. But Turley is arguing that Democratic opposition to the ballot initiative is anti-democratic, not anti-republican.
That argument is tough to understand, as the result would take power AWAY from the citizenry by imposing a supermajority vote requirement for local taxes.
Turley’s argument here makes no sense.
I’m not sure how solid your thesis is, that any time a super-majority of votes is required, that is by definition anti-democratic. We know that super-majorities are needed for various things in Congress, for example, overriding a veto or convicting after impeachment. We know that to amend the Constitution we need 2/3 of each house of Congress plus 3/4 of state legislatures to agree.
The point is that even in a democratic republic, there are certain things the people choose to make more difficult than others. If a simple majority of California voters choose to make raising local taxes more difficult, does that ipso facto mean the measure is anti-democratic? I see your answer is “yes” but I’m not yet convinced. I guess it may come down to a difference in definitions of the word “democratic”. I learned long ago that someone who wants to put forth an argument should first define their terms. Perhaps you could supply us with the definition you are using?
Turley didn’t define “democratic” here, but the only reasonable assumption is that he views any majoritarian ballot initiative in California as “democratic” regardless of its purpose. Thus, if a ballot initiative asked Californians to decide whether Gov. Newsome should become the authoritarian king of California, that would be a democratic decision.
This is, of course, ridiculous. A democracy must have procedures in place to maintain the democratic (aka majoritarian) process. Thus, a popular vote to remove the majoritarian democratic process cannot be viewed as democratic.
This is not a normative discussion of whether majoritarian democracy (vs. a representative democratic republic) is good or bad. It is just pointing out that Turley’s article – praising the anti-tax folks for upholding democracy – is a ridiculous take.
The initiative is not “anti-majoritarian”. Your using a series of defnitions that only work ONE way.
Democracy is government by the people
All that is being addressed here is the threshold at which some of the people can impose their will on others.
As a whole those on the left favor the broad exercise of power over others when THEY control even a small portion of the power to govern and all efforts to exercise power no matter how broad their support when they do not have control.
The views on the left over issues of law, constitution and structure are always driven by whatever the underlying issue is.
In this instance the left correctly views the power to tax as constraint on their agenda – therefor constraints on the power to tax are evil.
If however the ballot initiative as an example said that a 2/3 popular vote was needed to rescind climate initiaitves – all those on the left would be telling us how wonderful that is.
The concepts of the rule of law, or due process are foreign to the left.
This is not a normative argument regarding the merits of the ballot initiative. Increasing a simple majority requirement to a two-thirds majority requirement is anti-democratic in the anti-majoritarian sense, which is the understanding a reader must give to the meaning of small-d democracy in the absence of provided definition. Turley did not provide an alternative definition.
Increasing a simple majority requirement to a two-thirds majority requirement is anti-democratic
See there again, I’m not convinced. You still have people voting, but you need 67% instead of 51%. That is not at all comparable to your example of making Newsom the forever king.
“That argument is tough to understand, as the result would take power AWAY from the citizenry by imposing a supermajority vote requirement for local taxes.”
Does not take any power away for the citizenry. All it does is raises the threshold that must be met to steal from the minority.
What are you talking about? Would raising the threshold to 100% also not take power away from the citizenry?
Of course it would. By definition, a supermajority threshold is anti-majoritarian.
So, it’s anti-majoritarian. Where did you get the idea that the majority has the right to impose their will on the minority. This country was founded as a democratic republic to ensure that the minority was defended from the dictatorship of the majority. That is the reason why, when the Constitution went into effect, the only officials elected by the people were the members of the House of Representatives. Of course, since each representative represented a congressional district, it was the only feasible way to elect them.
“. So Gov. Gavin Newsom and other Democratic leaders have taken the issue to the state Supreme Court to demand that citizens be denied the right to decide the issue.”
your comment is a mess of ambiguity.
Democrats are seeking Judicial interference of the People placing a referendum on the ballot. Democrats should be working to change the Constitution, concerning Referendum ballot measures.
Democrats have been using the courts, and not the legislature, to advance their agenda. Democrat agenda items that do not have the support of the people.
It is because it eliminates the possibility of the “Two wolves and a sheep voting to decide what’s for dinner” scenario.
The patent number please?
I fear for our children, who must grow up in an education system that does not prepare them with an adequate vocabulary.
“Patently” means obviously or overtly. This used to be a upper elementary (or maybe middle school) level term.
“In what world is a two-thirds majority requirement MORE democratic than a simple majority?”
In ALL worlds. The legitimacy of ALL government rests on the consent of the governed.
The larger that consent the more legitimate the govenrment regardless of the form.
You think it is democratic to steal other peoples money because you can get 50% of your freinds to agree ?
What if 50% of us agree that you do not get a vote ? Is that “democratic” ?
“The larger that consent the more legitimate the govenrment (sp) regardless of the form.”
What? This is a non-sequitur. This discussion has nothing to do with what is the most “legitimate” form of government.
I said it multiple times above that this has nothing to do with the merits of a simple majoritarian system.
Any process that takes power away from a simple majority is anti-democratic. Whether that is good or bad is a completely different discussion. I tend to agree the tyranny of the majority is a problem and that certain anti-democratic checks are a good thing. But, I’ll repeat, the focus of Turley’s argument (and hence my response) was that the big-D Democrats were small-d anti-democratic by advocating against an initiative that would take power away from a simple majority by increasing the threshold to a two-thirds majority.
Do you understand the difference?
Our corrupt elections don’t help. An unpopulated new waste of money was dragged over the finish line by the use of “signature curing”. Total radio silence on the process.
But sending 22 million ballots to “last known address” like junk mail and 7.7 million cast. The rest vanished. In a ballot harvesting state. The supine California media is largely silent.
This kind of elitist power grab is bi-partisan. Republican elites are just as eager to wrest decisionmaking power away from ordinary citizens. We heard it in the Supreme Court oral arguments over Presidential Immunity. The once independent power of Grand Juries to throw out a case brought for political warfare, described now as impotent to return a “no bill” to an accused ham sandwich, failed to raise any hackles among the robed 9. A couple of Justices even proposed a convoluted “pre-trial” proceeding — to be decided exclusively by lawyers and Judges — whether the Presidential misconduct should be classified as an exercise of office vs. self-promotion — before any fact-finding by a Jury has taken place. We saw it in the Colorado Supreme Court deciding if Trump should be disqualified for insurrection, in which a lawyers-only “trial” was conducted — again, no jury involved in a huge decision.
Juries are the finders-of-fact — and deciders of guilt (and liability) vs. innocence — under our system design.
But you can see in the attitude of Harvey Weinstein, Rudy Giuliani, Donald Trump, Sean Combs and other big shots: jury verdicts are just a bump in the road. You put the case in front of fellow elites during appeal, and a more sympathetic audience with superior decisionmaking powers has no problem overruling a jury of commoners. Elites have a hard time accepting a Jury as their “peers”.
We’ve seen it in the bizarre Jury Instructions negotiated by the Judge and litigating lawyers, which attempt to dictate the thought process of jurors, taking away common sense judgment and replacing it with a narrow, mechanical decision algorithm.
Beware the onslaught of law-degreed judicial elites determined to whittle down the centrality and independence of Grand Juries and Trial Juries by 1000 cuts. At some point, it will be too late to restore people power over the 3rd branch of government. Justice will suffer. Criminal deterrence will be eviscerated for the powerful.
I am currently rereading Barnaby Rudge by Dickens and we should, also, keep in mind the Gordon Riots of 1780’s in London and how quickly a whipped up mob can overwhelm a city when those in charge of law and order shirk their duties out of intimidation. It is a lesson that was partially give in the riots of antifa and blm just a few years ago and we had better prepare for societal chaos no matter which side wins in November. The seeds have already been sown for rebellion…
Seems strange that the same party endlessly screaming “Democracy is on the ballot!” and “If Orange Man is elected this will be the last election ever!” stands by in silent support and approval when Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s term expired and — without any election whatsoever — just continues to hold on to the presidency.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn007p39zdzo
Ukraine is by no means a perfect democracy. It is riddled with corruption. That, however does not deter the critical importance of driving back a neighboring dictatorship from engaging in a war of territorial conquest through a combination of military action and insane wild eyed threats and claims that anyone who speaks their language is theirs to rule.
Critical importance??? Not to me. The West screwed with Russia, and Russia decided to do something about it. I am on Russia’s side.
“driving back a neighboring dictatorship from engaging in a war of territorial conquest” Is that not what hamas did on Oct 7? How can we have citizens defending hamas and also supporting Ukraine, it is hypocrisy at its height. hamas did exactly what Russia did, only with far more egregious crimes against humanity and we hapless prog tools supporting those thugs in the near east yet screaming about Russia at the same time.
Democracy is literally on the ballot in California.
The initiative would replace a simple majority requirement with a two-thirds majority requirement. This is an anti-democratic change. How does that not make sense to the readers of this blog?
You keep saying it is anti-democratic – but that is a stupid claim. Is it ONLY democracy if decisions require 51% of the vote ?
Can 51% disenfranchise the other 49 recursively until only one person rules ?
Supremajority requirements preserve democracy they do not hinder it.
I find it highly ironic and hypocritical that the progs are screaming, continually and irrationally, that Trump is the end of democracy all the while they are subverting that very oncept at each and every opportunity in attempts to maintain their autocratic control.
Democrats Dystopian Ingsoc World
Lol. Texas is trying to make it so small rural counties have veto over the majority of the population. Republicans hate democracy…cause of the whole attempted coup thing.
Sammy,
We are a representative republic. We are not a majority takes all system. Or rather mob rule
When you consider that prospect “small rural counties have veto over the majority of the population” it is not far fetched.
Rural Illinois suffers from Chicago’s rule, there was a time when Rural Michigan suffered from Detroit’s rule, Rural New York suffers from NYC’s rule, and Rural Californians suffer from L.A.\S.F.\Sac Rules – and the Rulers push deficits that put the State upside-down in debt, hence the small rural counties are strapped to pay for it. Pretty much every major metropolitan city has it’s whipping-post – the small rural counties.
It’s not just about the Budget Money, its Land and resources (Water/Electrical Power/etc.) to.
Revealed: the rural Californians who can’t sell their businesses – because LA is their landlord
By: AfroLA | Guardian US ~ May 29th 2024
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/29/la-dwp-owens-valley-land-ownership
But hey – Isn’t the Electoral College type system supposed to neutralize that? – Uh Haa, yeah right.
Countries that have to tell you they’re democratic – usually aren’t.
People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste, Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Federal Democratic Republic of Nepal, Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka
“Texas is trying to make it so small rural counties have veto over the majority of the population.”
How so – rather than making vague claims – can you state what you mean clearly so we can understand it ?
“Republicans hate democracy” The loathing of actual democracy seems to be most prominent in the left.
Regardless, Democracy is a possibly the worst form of government. There is no limit to what constraints each of us are willing to impose upon our neighbor.
As John Stuart Mill noted two centuries ago – democracies infringe on the rights of citizens in ways that tyrants can not get away with.