James Madison Disagrees with the Wall Street Journal

The word of the day is 'perfidy.'

By
57

There are days when one wishes that James Madison was still alive—and on Twitter. Today is one of those days. Also, absurd-looking Second Amendment cosplay could be costly in the battle for hearts and minds. And, finally, a confusing transcript leads NPR’s legal affairs correspondent to make an important religious liberty mistake. Today’s French Press:

  1. Yes, of course, Congress should be able to impeach (and remove) presidents who commit even lawful acts with a “corrupt purpose.”

  1. Open carry is almost always rude, and fake-soldier versions of open carry harm the gun rights movement.

  1. No, the Supreme Court won’t force states to spend “billions” on religious schools.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
57
By
Comments (57)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Boomer Bob

    Honest question re gun rights. So, as I understand the argument, citizens need assault rifles because they’re a more effective means of defense (against whomever). Shouldn’t we then allow citizens to own fully automatic machine guns? Where’s the constitutional argument for ‘drawing the line’ between full auto and semi auto?

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Michael Cochrane

    David, it's no secret that you would prefer an impeachment outcome in which the president is removed from office. But you've also been very clear that you do not support any of the Democratic presidential candidates. So, what is your best-case scenario moving forward if Trump is convicted in the Senate and removed from office before the election?

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Linda Fritts

    David, you are being too charitable to Nina Totenberg. She did not misread the Court transcript. She was in the Court for the oral argument (as was I). Breyer’s question was so cockeyed and poorly worded (and he somehow did not seem to realize that charter schools are public schools) that it initially confused Mr. Wall. But as the argument proceeded, it became crystal clear both from Justice Alito and DIck Komer (who argued on behalf of the mothers) that funding of religious schools would not be required if the Court ruled for the mothers (unless of course a state decided to fund private schools). In addition, Ericka Smith from the Institute for Justice had an extensive interview with Ms. Totenberg,, and there is no way that she could have been confused on this point. Nina Totenberg wrote that completely overwrought nonsense because she is Nina Totenberg.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kevin Durant?

      This is the best comment in the history of comments sections in my humble opinion. My bias against ‘reporters’ weighs heavily but still
      👍👍👍

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      David French

      You are likely correct, but the key part of the transcript was confusing, so I thought I'd give her the benefit of the doubt.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Grandpatom

    Where does the WSJ's insistence that there must be a "specific action" that is an abuse of power or violation of law come from? Any criminal or reprehensible act can be broken down into specific acts that, by themselves, are neutral. It is not illegal to ask for money. It is not illegal to squeeze the trigger of a gun. A constellation of actions must be viewed in their entirely in order to determine their intent and their consequences, both of which are important.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    Props to Mr. French for putting the cosplay army man hobbyists in their place. Arguments in favor of gun rights can be self defense, hunting, collecting, and even... cosplay. To each their own. But to elevate their hobby to a political statement cheapens the whole debate.

    However, Mr. French ought to take care he is not part of the problem. In the heat of battle, gun rights warriors in the intellectual realm often pick up a child's toy: the idea that individuals can overthrow the US government (i.e. defeat the US armed forces) with their personal weapons.

    Citing documents written when wars were fought with muskets and travel limited to horseback, they keep these abstractions floating in midair for the sake of argument. In the modern context, it's retarded even from the basic standpoint of military technology, let alone the absurdity of American citizens fighting their own army.

    Keeping the arguments real would help people on both sides of it.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kevin Durant?

      Please tell Jerry Nadler you want him to stop citing the ‘muskets and horseback document’

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        The 2A is the only amendment in the US Constitution that references a piece of specific human technology (besides 18 & 21 which cancel each other out).

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Kevin Durant?

          “Arms” is not a specific technology unless you are the Six Million Dollar Man

          So your take on 4A is that illegal search and seizure is fine as long as “papers” and a “house” aren’t involved?

          Okie dokie

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            And, "their persons, houses, papers, and effects," is a phrase that is taken together to describe a very general concept, not taken as an exhaustive list of just those four things. It obviously covers your iPhone or brain implant or whatever. The 4A on the other hand covers a specific, and now militarily irrelevant bit of specific technology.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            So how come you can't own a nuclear sub?

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      JonathanRRogers

      The idea that the US government could never be overthrown by ordinary Americans because the US military is so powerful ignores the fact that the military is made up of ordinary Americans. If we reach the point where armed revolution is necessary again, many members of our own army will be sympathetic with the revolutionaries. I think that point is very far in the future and I hope it never comes, but it would be naive to assume revolution will never be necessary. The individual right to have weapons is no guarantee against tyranny, but it is an impediment.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Pat Riot

        I agree that the US military could put up a good fight against the US military since they would have weapons that would match them. Armed civilians in this fight would be meaningless.

        And for that matter, even if such arms were relevant, armed individual citizens could just as well be fighting for the *government* side as well. This scenario is ridiculous.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          JonathanRRogers

          I didn't describe any specific scenario. I'm simply saying that the scenario of "US military vs. all other Americans" is extremely unlikely. I can imagine scenarios in which civilian weapons would be irrelevant and those in which they would be relevant. Nobody knows what a US civil war today would look like. The right to self-defense includes the right to defend oneself against government, a principle that technological advancement doesn't change.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Pat Riot

            I can't imagine where they would be relevant. Not a single realistic scenario. I would look to Hollywood to help us create a fantasy and the closest they ever came was Red Dawn and it was pretty corny.

            Collapse
  6. B Johnson

    Well done on the issue of Open Carry. A lifelong gun owner and serious defender, I have not understood the reasoning for frightening and offending others. While possessing a carry permit, I rarely do. My life is not typically at risk. My key reason is so that I do not unknowingly run afoul of laws on carry. For example, the requirements to have any type of gun in the vehicle are greatly relaxed by the permit. The images of the demonstrations in Virginia were troubling in the least. That is not what I want to be associated with. Such only assists such as Hillary Clinton in her disregard for us in middle America, geographically, financially and politically.

    Abraham Lincoln spoke well on the ability to assert our rights.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Todd Baker

      I have always disagreed with this line of discussion WRT open carry for two basic reasons.

      First: I carry for one reason and one reason only, to protect my life and property and that of my family. While I prefer to carry concealed, I equally prefer to see those around me who are carrying openly. There are two elements to this: the open carrying of any firearm visually discourages any ne'er-do-wells from acting out and, if they do, I want to maintain an element of surprise and ensure any potential "wolf" doesn't key in on me because I'm overtly armed an active shooter scenario.

      Second, I have very little interest letting the terminally-offended drive our discourse. This is purely subjective but there is nothing inherently disturbing with someone open carrying an AR vs a 1911, or open-carrying at all. If you think it is, the onus is on you to internally address that discomfort or to remove yourself from the scene. Not demand that everyone else bend to your will.

      This is not to say we should go around needlessly offending people with any device, rhetorical or physical, just that the idea of being offended is a two-way street.

      No, the Richmond rally was a much-needed event to show the Hillary "deplorable" meme for the nonsense it is. It may take some time to become evident, but that large group of Americans did more to educate the public on the true nature of the gun-owning public than has been accomplished in recent memory.

      Good on them.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Jenny

        As I wrote to Stephanie, I own guns, but I don't carry. I'm no NRA member but nor do I think we should ban guns.

        While I get why it is annoying to overly worry about people looking to be offended, have you thought about how seeing people open carry comes across to the public? Why should they think an armed person is a good guy and not a threat? By carrying openly, the person signals that they have the potential to be a threat. That is going to be distracting to those around them.

        Second, I don't think open carry is going to help to bring more people over to the pro-gun side. There are plenty of people out there that might realize they like guns with proper exposure. I think open carry makes it harder to reach these people. So while I agree that being offended is a two-way street, consider the long game. Every day more and more young people are deciding guns are a problem that need to be taken care of.

        Collapse
      2. Ann G

        I too am out to protect my life, property, and those I love. Since I don't know your mental state, if you open carry, I will alert the authorities to your presence.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Jenny

          Great point! I don't carry, but I do own guns.

          I simply don't understand why people who open carry expect us to presume they are on the up and up.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kevin Durant?

            If you see someone carrying legally and call the cops on them isn’t that the same thing as ‘swatting’ except with a greater chance the cops will shoot them?

            Seems like having someone assassinated because they made you feel weird at El Pollo Loco is a disproportionate response LOL

            I have seen one person open carry in my entire life. It was a black guy in his 20s at a Walgreens in Las Vegas with a pistol in a holster. At first I was like “oh that’s weird, um..” but in the end I left thinking it was kinda cool

            Either way this is one of those issues we worry about for fun because we never actually encounter it

            (I was carjacked in downtown Seattle 15 years ago but I don’t count that one as open carry 😂😂)

            Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Kevin Durant?

        I generally agree with David that if you open carry a rifle you are being a douche bag. I still believe that

        But then I thought about it this particular situation for a bit

        AR-15s are not practical for protecting yourself at the mall. Just bring a pistol. However they are necessary for protecting your home, and people are trying to ban them

        Given the effort to ban them, I can’t think of any better way to PROVE that these guns are not in themselves dangerous, than to have 20,000 of them in the same place and have nothing happen

        If you don’t want these guns banned and you want to change the minds of rational people, this rally went a long way toward that end

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          David French

          First, Kevin, I love that you're taking time from rehabbing your achilles to post at The Dispatch :)

          Second, I can see your point on this time/place (though I still think it's on balance counterproductive), but the cosplay dudes were still way over the top.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kevin Durant?

            Yeah the major flaw in my argument is that it relies on this rally changing minds of rational people as to the supposed inherent danger of AR-15s

            Your “on balance counterproductive” argument is probably going to prove correct in the end because the ‘rational people’ demographic is very small and not influential

            Bring back my Sonics :)

            Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Paul Britton

    If Trump actually BELIEVED in those nutty Ukrainian conspiracy theories — and apparently he did — doesn’t that undercut the notion that his intent was “corrupt”? If the conspiracy theories had been true, then American interests would genuinely have been implicated and Trump’s motives would not have been purely personal. Stupidity and gullibility don’t equate to corruption.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David French

      I think he believed the nutty conspiracy theory, which demonstrates his unfitness, and he had corrupt intent regarding investigating the Bidens. It's not either/or, it's both/and.

      Collapse
    2. Ann G

      If we get rid of this sad and sorry unfit president, we won't have to waste our time on these questions.

      Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      There's clear evidence Trump did *not* believe the conspiracy theories themselves, only that the announcement of an investigation would help his reelection prospects.

      Trump clearly asked for an *announcement* of an investigation and his people made it clear that nothing after that was necessary to obtain the aid. If an *actual* investigation happened, it would run the risk of *concluding* before the election and clearing Biden completely, negating the entire point of the Drug Deal (as Bolton called it).

      So no, it's apparent that Trump did *not* believe them...

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kevin Durant?

        The theory that Trump doesn’t actually want Democrats investigated is utterly insane. Especially since Giuliani was literally doing an investigation

        You can argue that the announcement was requested to shame Biden

        You can argue that the announcement was requested to verify Zelensky’s sincerity about investigating corruption

        None of the things you say are “clear” are actually clear. If you can verify that Trump did not suspect Biden of corruption, then you’ve got him

        The other problem you’ve got is that you are claiming that Trump hasn’t actually been fooled by conspiracy theories about Biden that are all, according to you, Russian disinformation. An assertion that torpedoes every other claim you have made about Trump

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Also: I have never asserted that Trump has been fooled by anything. Nominally *acting* on a conspiracy theory that just-so-happens to be perfectly aligned with your political goals is not the same thing as *believing* it.

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          "Sondland testified that the White House visit was conditioned on a public Ukrainian announcement of investigation into Burisma and the 2016 election, which he described as a quid pro quo."

          "Taylor quoted Sondland stating "everything" including military aid and a Trump–Zelensky meeting was contingent on that announcement."

          "Morrison testified that in his September 1, 2019, conversation with Sondland, he learned that Sondland had proposed to Ukrainian presidential advisor Andriy Yermak that military aid to Ukraine was "conditioned on a public statement" by the new Ukrainian prosecutor general reopening an investigation into Burisma (Taylor's testimony was that Zelensky should make the announcement)."

          And again, context: if a *real* investigation took place, it would be a *disaster* for Trump if Biden were investigated and then found out to have done no wrong doing.

          Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Kevin Durant?

      We just spent 3 years investigating whether or not Trump was a Russian spy, so yes, you can investigate conspiracy theories

      If Trump knew Biden did nothing wrong then it’s impeachable, otherwise no

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Kevin Durant?

    “But the jury doesn’t have to buy it, and the jury shouldn’t buy it. Donald Trump conducted diplomacy for personal gain—and not for public benefit. That’s corrupt conduct. That’s perfidy.”

    ————————————-

    Don’t forget, according to yesterday’s arguments by the Schiff Boat Veterans For Truth, Trump is also responsible for the death of 15,000 Ukrainians. So maybe add genocide to the articles

    As someone who earnestly believes that crack cocaine + oligarch = ‘articulable suspicion’, I will admit that I would prefer if Trump had used the proper legal channels

    However, these rigorous ‘proper legal channels’ would have required Rudy Giuliani to begin a romantic relationship with Bruce Ohr which I don’t think was in the cards. In this case it was probably better to bypass institutional procedure and have Giuliani just give his dossier directly to DOJ

    Also, whatever documents the Schiff Boat Veterans For Truth want to subpoena, Trump should just wait until the request totals 30,000 documents, destroy the subpoenaed documents, and then say “What? Is there an issue?”

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      Adam Schiff made no such argument.

      People who purport to execute justice using *improper* channels (be it Larry the Legbreaker or a foreign government) are also known as "criminals".

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Kevin Durant?

        I fight you in the comments section so that I don’t have to fight you at home
        😂😂

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Michael Carpenter

    In everyday interactions, I agree with you that open carry in most areas is a "bad look" and hurts the cause of those who support the 2nd Amendment. I would argue that visibility of the arms serves a purpose in the Virginia protest. Tens of thousands showed up carrying the very types of firearms that the Governor and General Assembly of Virginia would like to regulate, confiscate, or ban. No one was hurt. That said, some guy who gets all gussied up in tacticool with an AR-15 slung across his back to get his morning coffee at Starbucks is not helping the cause. Open carry should remain legal for various reasons, but please, people, exercise judgement.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      David French

      "Tacticool." I love that word :)

      Collapse