Yesterday I was walking my dog on a long hike, catching up on scary news podcasts (the only setting where I can balance the doom with some tangible heaven), and I heard the New York Times interview with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. It was a great interview with all the right answers you’d expect from a thoughtful leader. But the most striking moment was when the interviewer asked what all the legal victories mean if the agency doesn’t seem affected by court orders it disagrees with. Frey was stunned, got emotional, and basically said he couldn’t answer that question because it’s too scary to answer. And he’s right. That question is too scary to answer.
Thank you for answering it anyway, Sharon. And for reminding me of the scariest constitutional crisis of them all: the mechanism of the courts requires some faith in the document that our current government doesn’t have. It’s as though everyone is on the verge of realizing the paper we use for cash doesn’t hold any inherent value without the trust we place in the system. We are engineers performing a stress test on a new bridge, except THIS IS NOT A TEST.
I’m currently drafting an article on several other places where ICE has exposed gaps in constitutional coverage. Places where many of us assumed we were already protected.
We thought racial profiling was illegal, even if common in practice, but SCOTUS ruled that white people shouldn’t have to suffer the inconvenience of “guilty until proven innocent” during ICE raids. We thought the government could be held accountable for rendering people to countries they’d never set foot in to be tortured. We thought the government would at least be embarrassed when caught using AI to manipulate images demonizing protesters, not defend their own fake news as “memes” that will “continue,” while framing anyone who questions the policy as protecting domestic terrorists. We thought that if the government used lethal force against protesters, they’d at least be constrained by what video evidence actually shows, not free to invent whatever story they wished was true to assassinate the character of the deceased. Each of these felt like bedrock protections. None of them have much constitutional basis, it seems.
Thank you for explaining not just how the system is cracking, but what glue we, as engineers of our own laws, can use to stop the bridge from collapsing. I love your three recommendations: the compliance protocol with chains of responsibility, the independent DOJ review, and congressional oversight of court order compliance. I think these could work better as constitutional rules with teeth rather than assuming the executive branch will suddenly hold itself accountable, repeating the error that got us into this mess. What if we enshrined mandatory public reporting on court order compliance, created an independent enforcement body outside executive control, and made agency funding contingent on certified compliance with judicial orders? What if we stopped depending on shame or good faith?
We need to protect ourselves from what this already means. And I think the midterms are our best shot at using our votes as leverage to elect candidates who pledge to amend the Constitution once in office. We haven’t meaningfully amended the Constitution in half a century, even though we used to do so more than once a decade on average. (I’m ignoring the 27th Amendment, since it was proposed two hundred years before it was ratified and didn’t change much of significance.) Amending the Constitution is difficult, and it should be. Any serious effort will require broad bipartisan consensus. But the beauty of reforms like banning gerrymandering, overturning Citizens United through campaign finance reform, and ratifying the ERA is that they already poll as widely popular across political backgrounds. It’s party leadership standing in the way, not the people. If we can organize voters outside of the party system, maybe we can save this country. And now, thanks to Sharon, I have a few more ideas for how the Constitution can order the president to do his or her job in following the oath of office: defend the rule of law and protect us.
president and not force these agencies to follow the judges orders. Otherwise they would have already done so. Not enough people to force it. So what to do then? What now? The protests aren’t making it happen. What to do now?!?!?
What I'm wondering also. While the majority of us are standing up against this authoritarian, grifting administration, nothing seems to stop the runaway train they are riding. Maybe we need bigger help: cancel American's hosting of the World Cup, change the summer Olympics from the US. What else? Congress seem happy to let fascism overtake us. Lies are good as long as they serve their purpose (e.g., Vance admits lying about eating the dogs and cats, but it's OK because he was making a point.). Most of all, we must have fair midterm elections, but I don't think we can count on that.
I am worried too but we the people who are fighting for justice, need to turn out and do the right thing to such a degree that it will overcome the cheating. By the time we vote so much more will have happened and I think the blue/independent wave will overcome, I have to still have hope
Actually, I don't think it's "OK" that Vance said that Haitian refugees were "eating dogs and cats." That was like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It was like pizzagate! Refugees and citizens both were harassed and Springfield, Ohio's mayor was pretty upset at the effect that had on their community.
These are the right questions! What do you think of this...
I'm thinking we need to organize voters outside of party organizations. Get people in competitive districts for the midterms to demand that the candidates (from both parties) pledge to make sincere efforts to reform the Constitution once in office, with reforms like the ones Sharon mentioned enshrined there, as well as the many that are already broadly popular.
Ask questions in town halls, tweet questions directly, comment on their substack, somehow make it clear that constitutional reform could be necessary to gain the support of "undecided" voters (even though in truth, most people aren't really undecided and will vote for the best candidate even if the effort fails to get their attention, but we might as well make them think there's a benefit to adopting some popular reforms for their platforms).
I have heard of the Forward Party, and I think if they resonate with you I think you should continue looking into them! Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily "centrist" in my POV, because I very much want to *undo* the chaos of what's happening instead of compromising with it, and make progress in the other direction. But when it comes to fixing some of these things it does seem like we need constitutional reform. And constitutional reform can't happen without appealing to people from all backgrounds, and focusing on what is already popular with everyone. So it's a weird project: there is a time-sensitive nature (we need to be making some moves now, before the primaries which are already in progress) and also we need to collaborate with people we disagree with, just to make it so that these reforms can be ratified by Congress and the states. Only then, once the rules of the game are fair, our elections can really mean something. Only then can we possibly make laws that reflect our conscience, instead of relying on executive orders that get wiped away every four years.
I’m going to start calling my representatives and demand congress use its oversight authority to ensure court order compliance. It would be helpful to see some verbiage to use on your website tool. It is so frustrating there does not appear to be outrage on this topic by either party.
As a former Case Manager for CASA I could write a book on the importance of court orders from multiple angles. I was present in Family Court every week. Recently, I was dismissed from a jury pool by a Public Defender. The States Attorney question: “Do you think court orders are important?” My answer was “Absolutely.” Opposing Counsel objected.
So, here’s the thing: what, exactly, can I do? Except stay informed and support the causes that I believe in. I mean, I can’t force the federal government to obey the law. Can I? If there’s something I’m missing, please let me know. This is terrifying. Of course ,as we all know.
Thank you for this, Sharon. Court orders are one of the only things we have left, if we have judges that are discerning and don't possess cognitive dissonance on the issues and with this administration. Still, the orders are often ignored which is a frustrating part of this corrupt mess we are in. Prayers for this judge and other judges whose jobs have turned into something far more ominous than they already were.
Yesterday I was walking my dog on a long hike, catching up on scary news podcasts (the only setting where I can balance the doom with some tangible heaven), and I heard the New York Times interview with Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey. It was a great interview with all the right answers you’d expect from a thoughtful leader. But the most striking moment was when the interviewer asked what all the legal victories mean if the agency doesn’t seem affected by court orders it disagrees with. Frey was stunned, got emotional, and basically said he couldn’t answer that question because it’s too scary to answer. And he’s right. That question is too scary to answer.
Thank you for answering it anyway, Sharon. And for reminding me of the scariest constitutional crisis of them all: the mechanism of the courts requires some faith in the document that our current government doesn’t have. It’s as though everyone is on the verge of realizing the paper we use for cash doesn’t hold any inherent value without the trust we place in the system. We are engineers performing a stress test on a new bridge, except THIS IS NOT A TEST.
I’m currently drafting an article on several other places where ICE has exposed gaps in constitutional coverage. Places where many of us assumed we were already protected.
We thought racial profiling was illegal, even if common in practice, but SCOTUS ruled that white people shouldn’t have to suffer the inconvenience of “guilty until proven innocent” during ICE raids. We thought the government could be held accountable for rendering people to countries they’d never set foot in to be tortured. We thought the government would at least be embarrassed when caught using AI to manipulate images demonizing protesters, not defend their own fake news as “memes” that will “continue,” while framing anyone who questions the policy as protecting domestic terrorists. We thought that if the government used lethal force against protesters, they’d at least be constrained by what video evidence actually shows, not free to invent whatever story they wished was true to assassinate the character of the deceased. Each of these felt like bedrock protections. None of them have much constitutional basis, it seems.
Thank you for explaining not just how the system is cracking, but what glue we, as engineers of our own laws, can use to stop the bridge from collapsing. I love your three recommendations: the compliance protocol with chains of responsibility, the independent DOJ review, and congressional oversight of court order compliance. I think these could work better as constitutional rules with teeth rather than assuming the executive branch will suddenly hold itself accountable, repeating the error that got us into this mess. What if we enshrined mandatory public reporting on court order compliance, created an independent enforcement body outside executive control, and made agency funding contingent on certified compliance with judicial orders? What if we stopped depending on shame or good faith?
We need to protect ourselves from what this already means. And I think the midterms are our best shot at using our votes as leverage to elect candidates who pledge to amend the Constitution once in office. We haven’t meaningfully amended the Constitution in half a century, even though we used to do so more than once a decade on average. (I’m ignoring the 27th Amendment, since it was proposed two hundred years before it was ratified and didn’t change much of significance.) Amending the Constitution is difficult, and it should be. Any serious effort will require broad bipartisan consensus. But the beauty of reforms like banning gerrymandering, overturning Citizens United through campaign finance reform, and ratifying the ERA is that they already poll as widely popular across political backgrounds. It’s party leadership standing in the way, not the people. If we can organize voters outside of the party system, maybe we can save this country. And now, thanks to Sharon, I have a few more ideas for how the Constitution can order the president to do his or her job in following the oath of office: defend the rule of law and protect us.
But the DOJ and congress will not stand up to the
president and not force these agencies to follow the judges orders. Otherwise they would have already done so. Not enough people to force it. So what to do then? What now? The protests aren’t making it happen. What to do now?!?!?
What I'm wondering also. While the majority of us are standing up against this authoritarian, grifting administration, nothing seems to stop the runaway train they are riding. Maybe we need bigger help: cancel American's hosting of the World Cup, change the summer Olympics from the US. What else? Congress seem happy to let fascism overtake us. Lies are good as long as they serve their purpose (e.g., Vance admits lying about eating the dogs and cats, but it's OK because he was making a point.). Most of all, we must have fair midterm elections, but I don't think we can count on that.
Yes I’m concerned about midterms! I don’t trust this administration. Why should I?
I am worried too but we the people who are fighting for justice, need to turn out and do the right thing to such a degree that it will overcome the cheating. By the time we vote so much more will have happened and I think the blue/independent wave will overcome, I have to still have hope
Actually, I don't think it's "OK" that Vance said that Haitian refugees were "eating dogs and cats." That was like yelling "fire" in a crowded theater. It was like pizzagate! Refugees and citizens both were harassed and Springfield, Ohio's mayor was pretty upset at the effect that had on their community.
Definitely NOT OK!! Hate mongering, lying, and untrustworthy (an understatement!).
These are the right questions! What do you think of this...
I'm thinking we need to organize voters outside of party organizations. Get people in competitive districts for the midterms to demand that the candidates (from both parties) pledge to make sincere efforts to reform the Constitution once in office, with reforms like the ones Sharon mentioned enshrined there, as well as the many that are already broadly popular.
Ask questions in town halls, tweet questions directly, comment on their substack, somehow make it clear that constitutional reform could be necessary to gain the support of "undecided" voters (even though in truth, most people aren't really undecided and will vote for the best candidate even if the effort fails to get their attention, but we might as well make them think there's a benefit to adopting some popular reforms for their platforms).
I’ve been reading a lot about the “Forward Party”. Heard of it anyone?Their tag line is “ not left not right but forward” It sounds promising.
Sharon, have you heard of it?
Opinion?
I agree the goals are great but am concerned about NOW.
I have heard of the Forward Party, and I think if they resonate with you I think you should continue looking into them! Just to clarify, I'm not necessarily "centrist" in my POV, because I very much want to *undo* the chaos of what's happening instead of compromising with it, and make progress in the other direction. But when it comes to fixing some of these things it does seem like we need constitutional reform. And constitutional reform can't happen without appealing to people from all backgrounds, and focusing on what is already popular with everyone. So it's a weird project: there is a time-sensitive nature (we need to be making some moves now, before the primaries which are already in progress) and also we need to collaborate with people we disagree with, just to make it so that these reforms can be ratified by Congress and the states. Only then, once the rules of the game are fair, our elections can really mean something. Only then can we possibly make laws that reflect our conscience, instead of relying on executive orders that get wiped away every four years.
Thank you for this. I hope the people who need to read this will.
“*Once* court orders become optional…” ? They already ostensibly *are* optional.
🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
This is excellent. Thank you, Sharon. 👏👏👏
I’m going to start calling my representatives and demand congress use its oversight authority to ensure court order compliance. It would be helpful to see some verbiage to use on your website tool. It is so frustrating there does not appear to be outrage on this topic by either party.
As a former Case Manager for CASA I could write a book on the importance of court orders from multiple angles. I was present in Family Court every week. Recently, I was dismissed from a jury pool by a Public Defender. The States Attorney question: “Do you think court orders are important?” My answer was “Absolutely.” Opposing Counsel objected.
Thank you for that work.
So, here’s the thing: what, exactly, can I do? Except stay informed and support the causes that I believe in. I mean, I can’t force the federal government to obey the law. Can I? If there’s something I’m missing, please let me know. This is terrifying. Of course ,as we all know.
Thank you for this, Sharon. Court orders are one of the only things we have left, if we have judges that are discerning and don't possess cognitive dissonance on the issues and with this administration. Still, the orders are often ignored which is a frustrating part of this corrupt mess we are in. Prayers for this judge and other judges whose jobs have turned into something far more ominous than they already were.
96 court orders that have gone unheeded by the Trump Administration and they don't seem to be fazed by it !
This must stop now and the orders complied with to show the rest of us that we still have a country that is run by the rule of law.
Clear-eyed, educational, not alarmist. So grateful for your endlessly well-researched work. Thank you Sharon.