As we head into the holiday season, looking back on the past year, I cannot help but look back much further, like to 1787 when the Framers of our Constitution debated the merits of the document they produced that was to last as long as our great democratic-republic existed.  In doing so, I can only think those brave men that established our nation would think we must have lost our collective minds based upon the treatment of a president that has clearly turned his back on the once revered notion of a democracy based upon a system of  with three distinct branches with separation of powers of inherent checks and balances.  Why?  Because I believe they would have never predicted that the American people would tolerate individuals in positions to distort the Constitution in such a way as to render their work moot.  How?  
           Last night the Majority Leader of the Senate, Mitch McConnell told the public that he is working diligently with the President's defense attorneys in designing how an impeachment trial of the president will be conducted.  You read that right.  The most powerful person in the Senate, vested with the authority to conduct a trial to potentially remove a siting president, has openly admitted to determining the outcome of a trial, once designed to be a real trial into a rigged circus so that not only will the accused president be seriously tried for crimes alleged by the house, but so that any such trial can further that president's efforts to be re-elected.  And the "Fourth Estate", the public's watchdog actively participating in this scam simply promotes it as somehow being ideal amazes not only me, but insults everything our Founders and Framers stood for.  A president accountable to the People, not just at election time, but throughout their term of office.
         By Mitch McConnell saying that he will ignore his oath to the Constitution and his special oath as it relates to conducting an impeachment trial. (See: www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/impeachment-mcconnell-vows-total-coordination-team-trump).  (See: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/13/mcconnells-awful-hannity-interview-shows-power-fox-news-disinformation/).  In doing so, he not only has rendered the legislative branch subservient to the Executive Branch, he has irrevocably changed the course of history to allow a sitting president to be accountable to no one except the electorate - despite the opportunities for that sitting president to corrupt the elections in ways only witnessed by third world countries and dictatorships.  Free and fair election?  Forget about it.  Use media to distort and manipulate - that's the "new America" under the current GOP.  As long as they hold the levers of power, then why bother ever allowing the opposition any chance to take those reins over?  If you think I am acting "over the top", please consider what Senate action contemplated by McConnell really means.  It means that lawfully issued subpoenas issued by Congress can be unilaterally ignored by the Executive Branch anytime that Executive deems them illegitimate.  Sure, they could go to the Court for their opinion, but what if the Executive then says the opinion of the court is illegitimate?  If he can't be impeached for obstructing Congress now, under what standard could he be impeached and removed if he/she ignores the ruling from the Courts.  On top of this, consider the number of justices Trump and McConnell are flooding the Federal judiciary with.  Many appointees approved by McConnell and the GOP-led Senate have no actual legal expertise to render them qualified to the District or Appellate benches.  (See: news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/trump-picks-more-not-qualified-judges-1).  So are they relying on a future judiciary that will side with whatever they claim, regardless of what the law actually requires under Stare Decisis.  Ironic isn't it that the GOP always stood against "activist judges" except when they rule in their favor, then "activism" is the soup de jour. 
         Look at the GOP members of Congress falling all over themselves to portray the Democrats as "less American" because they do not blindly worship the GOP President.  Now we have had partisanship throughout our nation's history but we have never ceded control of the Congress over to one party like the GOP has.  And that party is no longer the GOP, its become the Party of Trump.  Who will be the next president after Trump if he wins in 2020?  Even though population demographics disfavor the Party of Trump, those in power today continue to gerrymander and use their authority to suppress voters so they never really have a chance to elect agents of political change and worse yet, will never be in a position to hold elected officials accountable for their actions even if the electorate disagrees.  Safe Seats due to gerrymandering allow those officials to pursue political objectives that not only do not mirror the interests of the public, but actually go against public wishes.  Case in point - an overwhelming majority of Americans want some sensible gun reform legislation.  So why care when no elected officials are accountable to them.  An overwhelming majority of Americans want to ensure our air and water is clean and that pollution is checked by regulations.  Who cares if the elected officials use money from the polluters deep pockets for re-election? 
         Now we have the Supreme Court granting Trump's appeal to question whether Congress has the right to demand his tax returns (established law exists allowing Congress to demand all tax returns of any individual the Ways and Means Committee demands).  Of course, Trump's most recent nominees to the High Court (Gorsuch and Kavanaugh) agreed to hear the case (they have previously stated they disagreed with a president complying with any oversight efforts that could be viewed as "illegitimate", ie., political).  Good luck arguing this the next time the IRS wants to audit you.  Even though the president is under impeachment, the High Court will not issue a ruling until next June, just months before our next presidential election.  (See: www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-will-take-up-trumps-broad-claims-of-protection-from-investigation/2019/12/13/1de84cd6-1d19-11ea-8d58-5ac3600967a1_story.html). 
        Americans have long been apathetic about elections - hence the large numbers who don't vote because they feel their voices no longer matter.  Unfortunately, if they don't vote for change in 2020, all of our collective voices will no longer matter.  In today's Sarasota Herald-Tribune, one letter writer put it succinctly. "If the country is running so well without the Democrats, then who needs them in any city or town."  In other words, who needs any opposition when the majority power in control has absolute control and dictate everything for us?  Who needs democracy any longer?  The only result of such thinking is the preference towards a dictator that you support - until you don't - and by then, it will far too late to care. 
         The election of 2020 is an election that may seriously determine the fate of our democracy.  I fear Trumpism, if allowed to continue beyond 2020, will replace democracy forever.  It's that serious.  Try to have a great holiday season.  Please seriously consider ensuring our great American experiment in democracy continues beyond November 2020 by voting for a president that actually cares that our institutions continue operating under the Constitutionally founded system of checks and balances.  

       As we welcome the Impeachment Inquiry heading to the House Judiciary Committee, it has been reported that at least four Constitutional scholars will be called to testify as to the basis for the role Congress has in proceeding with an impeachment and potential removal of a President.  As part of this process, Americans will be informed as to what the Framers actually had in mind that would elevate the wrongdoing of the Executive to the point that investigation, indictment and and trial must be held on whether that president should be removed from office.  Many Trump supporters refuse to acknowledge that seeking a foreign power's interference in our elections amounts to an impeachable offense, yet they ignore the very reason provisions were written into the Constitution availing this remedy to Congress in the first place.  Despite many of Trump's "legal" opinion writers, they simply ignore a truism found throughout our nation's fight for independence - to avoid having any one single person have the unchecked power an autocrat, dictator or a monarch may possess.  
          I am hopeful that when the hearings conclude, Americans will know that Presidents must abide by the Rule of Law, and they are not immune from its long reach.  No matter how many pundits and sycophants Trump pushed out in front of the media for us all to evaluate, keep in mind that no matter how much they try, they can not erase the fact that our Founders and Framers possessed an inherent mistrust of an Executive that wields an unchecked power or ignores the oversight authority provided to Congress in the Constitution.
       Without a run down of each basis for this fact, I think it is easier to simply point out (and remind Americans) that although we became a fighting nation, independent from England in 1776, we did not have our current Constitution in place until 1787.  In fact, the first document controlling how our government was established and the rules in which it operated, was found in the 1777 document known as the Articles of Confederation.  Should one ponder where all of the powers arose giving Congress the absolute right to confront, investigate and remove a rogue president, one need not look further than the Articles of Confederation.  Why?  Because the Founders feared a unitary Executive so much, they didn't even provide for a president in that document.  All powers were reserved to the States with a Congress convened to act on its behalf.  Execution of law was not vested in a president, but in a committee representing at least nine of the the original states.  Why - because the very same reason they placed checks and balances in the Constitution against a strong Executive - they had no faith or any desire to grant such an individual such vast powers and authorities.  So when Trump tweets that Impeachment is unfair and that he may seek the intervention of the Supreme Court, he fails to recognize that no one can overrule express authorities originating in the Constitution.  To rule otherwise would be to ignore the very document itself (which would render each justice voting in favor of such action subject to impeachment themselves). 
      Under Article III of the Constitution, the High Court is limited in its jurisdiction to hear cases that pose a constitutional question - typically whether a law passed by Congress meets "Constitutional muster."  They do not have authority to rule something "Unconstitutional" or "unfair" if it is expressly written in the Constitution itself.  So when Trump says he might "take it all the way to the Supreme Court", he is making up a remedy that simply does not exist. 
      So before anyone tells you the President (under a debunked Unitary Executive Theory) has no obligation to recognize Congressional oversight and/or impeachment, remind them that the Founders and Framers specifically understood this as a possibility and gave Congress alone the power necessary to put that Executive not only in check, but also in a position to be removed  And when you hear a claim impeachment efforts are an attempt to overturn an election, remind them that elections do not guarantee the right of a rogue Executive to ignore the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Mr Trump, allow me to introduce you to the United States Constitution - you know, the one you swore to uphold and defend.  Have a great week.