CodyyyGardner Categories Government
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
The Hawley-Cruz faction & most House GOP are now "Bleeding Kansas" Republicans:
I've been thinking about Kansas 1854-59 for a while.
Let's be clear about what happens when political parties reject elections and democracy:
Violence & bloodshed.
Thread.
2/ The Compromise of 1850 & the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 undid the Missouri Compromise (see map), leaving the question of slave state/free state to voters in the territories, leading to local violence, disputed elections, & ultimately the Civil
3/ The Kansas-Nebraska Act opened what would become Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana to a territory-by-territory vote on slavery vs. freedom.
Pro-slavery Missourians moved west into Kansas to vote for the westward expansion of
4/ Soon after 1854, Kansas became a local preview and a microcosm of the coming Civil War. Violence, intimidation & murder preceded these slave v. free local elections, mostly from the pro-slavery side, and pro-slavery forces used fraud to win.
5/ Missouri organized pro-slavery "Border Ruffians" to cross into Kansas, use violence and vote illegally. One estimate is that they added 5,000 illegal votes to the pro-slavery side to swing the elections. Congress investigated and found massive vote fraud.
I've been thinking about Kansas 1854-59 for a while.
Let's be clear about what happens when political parties reject elections and democracy:
Violence & bloodshed.
Thread.
The die is cast for the Republican Party. It will be destroyed on January 6th in much the same way the Whig party was destroyed by the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. The act unraveled the Missouri compromise and allowed for the westward expansion of slavery. 1/
— Steve Schmidt (@SteveSchmidtSES) January 3, 2021
2/ The Compromise of 1850 & the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 undid the Missouri Compromise (see map), leaving the question of slave state/free state to voters in the territories, leading to local violence, disputed elections, & ultimately the Civil
3/ The Kansas-Nebraska Act opened what would become Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Montana to a territory-by-territory vote on slavery vs. freedom.
Pro-slavery Missourians moved west into Kansas to vote for the westward expansion of
4/ Soon after 1854, Kansas became a local preview and a microcosm of the coming Civil War. Violence, intimidation & murder preceded these slave v. free local elections, mostly from the pro-slavery side, and pro-slavery forces used fraud to win.
5/ Missouri organized pro-slavery "Border Ruffians" to cross into Kansas, use violence and vote illegally. One estimate is that they added 5,000 illegal votes to the pro-slavery side to swing the elections. Congress investigated and found massive vote fraud.
Yesterday I spent time (&far too many tweets) trying to defend @Keir_Starmer 's position in a Guardian article which angered & disappointed many who, like me, are passionate pro-Europeans. I will try to explain why (thread)
Starmer is like me a lawyer, not a trade specialist but he obviously took advice. He is also a committed pro-European. As a lawyer when looking at the TCA, I saw all the predicted negatives but also enormous potential for a pro-EU government which results from the
institutional structure of the deal. The TCA sets up 19 specialised committees (including on Customs Cooperation, SPS, Technical Barriers to Trade) dominated by an all powerful 50/50 Partnership Council (PC) which takes binding decisions with immediate direct effect by agreement.
These decisions do not have to be published or not in full. This is undemocratic but typical of FTAs and efficient. In my view there is huge potential to take big decisions, far from the emotional tone of the Brexit drama, decisions which will be crouched in technocratic language
"Removing the red tape" " Customs Simplifications Procedure" (a lesser form of CU), "mobility", "improving access for services (a lesser form of FoM): little by little, step by step, the most negative effects of the TCA will be undone out of the glare of the tabloid press until
Have you read what he said in the Guardian? He has made it clear he accepts Johnson's awful hard Brexit deal as the permanent settlement of the European issue. There is understandable outrage from pro-Europeans. You seem oblivious to all this.
— Charlie Kennaugh #FBPE #GTTO (@c_kennaugh) December 30, 2020
Starmer is like me a lawyer, not a trade specialist but he obviously took advice. He is also a committed pro-European. As a lawyer when looking at the TCA, I saw all the predicted negatives but also enormous potential for a pro-EU government which results from the
institutional structure of the deal. The TCA sets up 19 specialised committees (including on Customs Cooperation, SPS, Technical Barriers to Trade) dominated by an all powerful 50/50 Partnership Council (PC) which takes binding decisions with immediate direct effect by agreement.
These decisions do not have to be published or not in full. This is undemocratic but typical of FTAs and efficient. In my view there is huge potential to take big decisions, far from the emotional tone of the Brexit drama, decisions which will be crouched in technocratic language
"Removing the red tape" " Customs Simplifications Procedure" (a lesser form of CU), "mobility", "improving access for services (a lesser form of FoM): little by little, step by step, the most negative effects of the TCA will be undone out of the glare of the tabloid press until
Arizona Republican elected officials have reacted to the siege at the U.S. Capitol by blaming, and this is not a comprehensive list, Democrats, Doug Ducey, other Republicans, Antifa, and Congress.
Here's a look back at the last 24 hours in tweets...
In this tweet, @RepGosar repeats baseless allegations that the presidential election was stolen and hints that leftists maybe had a role in the mob?
.@RepGosar reaction to the mob varied, depending on what platform you follow him on. @nickmartin points out the discrepancy between Gosar on Twitter and Gosar on conservative-friendly
.@DebbieLesko condemned the violence at the
Then objected to the certified presidential election results from her home state, Arizona, claiming an extended voter registration deadline (that courts allowed) was
Here's a look back at the last 24 hours in tweets...
In this tweet, @RepGosar repeats baseless allegations that the presidential election was stolen and hints that leftists maybe had a role in the mob?
.@RepGosar reaction to the mob varied, depending on what platform you follow him on. @nickmartin points out the discrepancy between Gosar on Twitter and Gosar on conservative-friendly
His main His alt pic.twitter.com/iS7TqNuhlr
— Nick Martin (@nickmartin) January 7, 2021
.@DebbieLesko condemned the violence at the
Violence and breaking into the U. S. Capitol is dangerous and totally unacceptable.
— Debbie Lesko (@DebbieLesko) January 6, 2021
Then objected to the certified presidential election results from her home state, Arizona, claiming an extended voter registration deadline (that courts allowed) was
I voted to uphold the U.S. Constitution by objecting to Arizona's electors. The U.S. Constitution says that states need to follow their state's election laws in presidential elections. Since AZ's voter registration deadline law was violated, the U.S. Constitution was violated.
— Debbie Lesko (@DebbieLesko) January 7, 2021
The joint congressional session just started. Pence had already issued a statement rejecting the Trump “theory” that a VP can unilaterally ignore certified electors, consistent with @maggieNYT reporting.
But Pence didn’t read it live
Here is Pence’s statement rejecting the crazy coup theory, but stretching to “both sides” this debate with a strawman: “Others believe that electoral votes should never be challenged in a joint session... Neither view is correct.”
Who says “never”? Sincerely I have no idea.
3/ As the states are called alphabetically, @amyklobuchar recognizes Arizona's electors for Biden as valid.
Far-right nut from Arizona @DrPaulGosar rises to challenge the Arizona electors, and cheers and applause erupt from the nut gallery.
Shame on them.
4/ @SteveScalise speaks first with a failing grade on con law. He says Article II gives the electoral vote process only to state legislatures.
He ignores that state legislatures PASS LAWS THAT CREATE A PROCESS FOR RUNNING ELECTIONS.
This is so insulting to basic literacy.
5/ Article II: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors"
What does Scalise think Article II requires? That state legislators do all the counting of all votes? That the Framers did not know about legislation?
Idiocy.
But Pence didn’t read it live
Here is Pence’s statement rejecting the crazy coup theory, but stretching to “both sides” this debate with a strawman: “Others believe that electoral votes should never be challenged in a joint session... Neither view is correct.”
Who says “never”? Sincerely I have no idea.
NEW FROM MIKE PENCE: pic.twitter.com/RkDCmD0Lk4
— Kelly O'Donnell (@KellyO) January 6, 2021
3/ As the states are called alphabetically, @amyklobuchar recognizes Arizona's electors for Biden as valid.
Far-right nut from Arizona @DrPaulGosar rises to challenge the Arizona electors, and cheers and applause erupt from the nut gallery.
Shame on them.
4/ @SteveScalise speaks first with a failing grade on con law. He says Article II gives the electoral vote process only to state legislatures.
He ignores that state legislatures PASS LAWS THAT CREATE A PROCESS FOR RUNNING ELECTIONS.
This is so insulting to basic literacy.
5/ Article II: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors"
What does Scalise think Article II requires? That state legislators do all the counting of all votes? That the Framers did not know about legislation?
Idiocy.
https://t.co/Tkp9HqAvmK
As background to tweets I am about to post, you should read this article carefully. I ask that you read each of my tweets carefully & decide if the information conveyed demands that Patriots rise up so that every lie will be revealed.@realDonaldTrumphttps://t.co/9KIX4DEtha
— Lin Wood (@LLinWood) January 4, 2021
1. In light of this @RonanFarrow story about Larry Rendall Brock, Jr., an Air Force veteran, here's a quick #thread about the complicated, confusing, and evolving state of the law regarding when the military can (and cannot) court-martial retired servicemembers.
2. First, an important distinction: The military can *recall* most retirees to active duty. But that's not the same thing as whether they can be tried by court-martial for offenses committed *while* retired (and before being recalled).
That's where things get complicated.
3. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authorizes courts-martial for *any* offense committed by those who have retired from a "regular component" and are receiving pay, along with members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve (who are effectively retirees).
4. But the UCMJ authorizes courts-martial for offenses committed by those who have retired from *reserve* components only while "receiving hospitalization from an armed force." And #SCOTUS held in 1955 that the military cannot try those who have *separated* from the armed forces.
5. So whether Brock can be tried by court-martial — under current law, anyway — for his role in Wednesday's attacks depends upon his *exact* status as of Wednesday, i.e., whether he is separated from the Air Force, retired from active duty, or retired from the reserves.
But...
One of the men photographed carrying zip-tie handcuffs on the Senate floor unmasked as a decorated Air Force veteran. My latest for @newyorker: https://t.co/6gt0wVAOTt
— Ronan Farrow (@RonanFarrow) January 9, 2021
2. First, an important distinction: The military can *recall* most retirees to active duty. But that's not the same thing as whether they can be tried by court-martial for offenses committed *while* retired (and before being recalled).
That's where things get complicated.
3. The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) authorizes courts-martial for *any* offense committed by those who have retired from a "regular component" and are receiving pay, along with members of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve (who are effectively retirees).
4. But the UCMJ authorizes courts-martial for offenses committed by those who have retired from *reserve* components only while "receiving hospitalization from an armed force." And #SCOTUS held in 1955 that the military cannot try those who have *separated* from the armed forces.
5. So whether Brock can be tried by court-martial — under current law, anyway — for his role in Wednesday's attacks depends upon his *exact* status as of Wednesday, i.e., whether he is separated from the Air Force, retired from active duty, or retired from the reserves.
But...
