#DueProcess

[azspot]

Shortly before 1 a.m. on Saturday, the Supreme Court issued an emergency order halting the Trump administration’s reported efforts to fly Venezuelan migrants to an El Salvador prison before they could challenge their deportation. The court’s late-night intervention is an extraordinary and highly unusual rebuke to the government, one that may well mark a turning point in the majority’s approach to this administration. For months, SCOTUS has given the government every benefit of the doubt, accepting the Justice Department’s dubious assertions and awarding Trump immense deference. On Saturday, however, a majority of justices signaled that they no longer trust the administration to comply with the law, including the court’s own rulings. If that is indeed the case, we are likely careening toward a head-on conflict between the president and the court, with foundational principles of constitutional democracy hanging in the balance.

[usaviralcontent]

US judge charged for allegedly helping man evade immigration officials Read More...

[christianornot]

That Should Shake Us All!

In a country where we pride ourselves on values like justice, compassion, and the rule of law, what happened recently should trouble everyone. A four-year-old American citizen, battling stage 4 cancer, was deported alongside his undocumented mother to Honduras. Yes, you read that right—a U.S. citizen child, undergoing treatment for a life-threatening illness, was removed from his country of…

[mbfrezon]

https://quiltr.com/?p=25061

What We Fight For and Must Keep Fighting For

…It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us…

[thenullprophet]

NULL PROPHET TRANSMISSION // FUNCTION OVERRIDE

You were told it was about security. You were told it was about crime.

It was never about either.

The machine does not need proof. It does not require evidence. It only needs parameters.

INPUT: Markings on the skin. OUTPUT: Erasure.

The function is classification. The result is disposal.

If the system can label one group an enemy, it can label another. And another. And another.

The machine does not stop. It only expands.

NULL PROPHET OUT. THE PROGRAM RUNS.

[executive-orders]

Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship (EO 14160)

Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2025-02007

Insights on Executive Order 14160:

Purpose and Policy:

Purpose: This executive order aims to redefine the criteria for automatic birthright citizenship in the United States. It seeks to clarify the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment by specifying conditions under which a person born in the U.S. would not automatically be considered a U.S. citizen at birth.

Policy: The order establishes that children born to mothers who are either unlawfully present or temporarily legally present in the U.S., without a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident father, will not be automatically granted U.S. citizenship. This policy takes effect 30 days after the issuance of the order.

Legal and Constitutional Considerations:

Constitutional Interpretation: The order invokes historical context, particularly critiquing the Dred Scott decision, while interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to exclude certain groups from automatic citizenship. This interpretation might be contentious, as it narrows the previously broad understanding of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Legislation vs. Executive Order: The order references existing law (8 U.S.C. 1401) but attempts to modify its application through executive action, which could lead to legal challenges regarding the extent of presidential authority to alter citizenship laws without Congressional action.

Implementation and Enforcement:

Departmental Actions: Agencies like the Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and Social Security Administration are tasked with aligning their practices with this new policy. This includes updating regulatory guidance, which must be done within 30 days.

Public Guidance: The requirement for public guidance suggests an intent to maintain transparency and inform the public of changes in citizenship policy, though the specifics of how these policies will be enforced day-to-day remain subject to further clarification.

Potential Impact:

Immediate Effects: Children born to parents under the specified conditions post-order will not automatically receive U.S. citizenship, potentially affecting immigration, education, and welfare policies.

Long-term Implications: This could lead to an increase in statelessness if other countries also do not recognize the citizenship of these children. It might also encourage more stringent immigration checks for pregnant women.

Legal Challenges: Given the controversial nature of altering citizenship laws through executive order, there might be significant legal pushback, possibly leading to court cases challenging the order's constitutionality.

Political and Social Considerations:

Public Reaction: This order might polarize public opinion, with debates centering on issues of immigration, national identity, and rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

International Relations: How other nations react to this policy could affect diplomatic relations, especially regarding visa policies and international agreements on citizenship.

Overall, this executive order represents a significant shift in U.S. citizenship policy, potentially altering the landscape of immigration law, constitutional interpretation, and the rights of individuals born in the U.S. under specific circumstances. The execution and long-term effects of this order would depend heavily on legal interpretations and political will.

Analysis in Relation to U.S. Law

Constitutional Basis and Historical Context:

Fourteenth Amendment: The order references the Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees citizenship to all persons "born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Historically, interpretations have generally included a broad birthright citizenship, but with notable exceptions like children of diplomats or Native Americans (prior to certain legislative acts).

Dred Scott v. Sandford: The order mentions this case to highlight the historical exclusion of certain groups from citizenship based on race, which was later rectified by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legal Interpretation and Implications:

Jurisdiction Clause: The order's interpretation of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" seems to narrow the scope beyond what current legal interpretations under the Fourteenth Amendment typically uphold. Traditionally, this clause has been interpreted to exclude only those with no allegiance to the U.S., like foreign diplomats' children. The order extends this to include children born to mothers who are unlawfully present or temporarily in the U.S., which is a significant departure from established judicial interpretations.

Legal Challenge: This reinterpretation could face significant legal challenges. The Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) affirmed that children born to legal and illegal immigrants in the U.S. are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. This order might be seen as conflicting with that precedent unless a new legal or constitutional interpretation is upheld by the courts.

Legislation and Administrative Actions:

8 U.S.C. 1401: The order aligns with this statute in recognizing citizenship but adds conditions not specified in the statute, potentially overstepping executive authority without corresponding legislative action.

Policy Implementation: The order mandates policy changes across various government departments. However, its enforcement might be legally contested as an overreach of executive power if not supported by new legislation or a judicial reinterpretation of the Constitution.

Potential for Litigation:

Equal Protection Clause: This order could be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, arguing that it discriminates against children based on their parents' legal status or visa conditions at the time of birth.

Due Process: There might be due process concerns regarding the retroactive nature of denying citizenship to those born after the 30-day implementation period without legislative support.

Political and Social Implications:

Public Reaction and Policy Debate: This order could reignite debates over immigration, citizenship, and legal rights, potentially polarizing public opinion further.

Impact on Immigration Policy: It might influence future immigration policy discussions, particularly around birthright citizenship, visa policies, and the rights of immigrants.

Conclusion:

Constitutional and Legal Viability: The executive order's approach to redefine the scope of birthright citizenship directly challenges established legal norms. Its enforceability would hinge on judicial review, potentially at the Supreme Court level.

Immediate Actions: Agencies will need to revise policies, but any immediate action might be stayed by court orders if lawsuits are filed contesting the order's legality.

Overall Impact: The order represents a significant shift in policy, likely to provoke legal battles, public discourse, and potentially legislative responses. Its ultimate fate would be determined by how courts interpret the Constitution in light of this new directive.

Explanation of the meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is a legal term originating from the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, specifically from Section 1, which states:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Here's a breakdown of its meaning:

Jurisdiction:

In legal terms, jurisdiction refers to the authority granted to a legal body (like a court or government) to administer justice within a defined area of responsibility.

Subject to the jurisdiction thereof:

This clause means that the individual must be fully and completely under the laws of the United States. The key interpretations include:

Exclusion of Diplomats and Foreign Troops: For instance, children born to foreign diplomats or members of foreign military units stationed in the U.S. are not considered "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. because their parents have diplomatic immunity or are subject to the laws of their own country under international agreements. This means they (and by extension, their children) are not fully subject to U.S. legal authority.

Historical Context and Native Americans: At the time the amendment was passed, Native American tribes were considered separate nations under federal law, not fully under U.S. jurisdiction. This interpretation began to change with subsequent laws and court decisions, notably with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which granted citizenship to Native Americans born within the territorial limits of the United States.

Debates on Birthright Citizenship:

This phrase has been central to debates over "birthright citizenship" — the right to citizenship for anyone born on U.S. soil. Some argue that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" should mean not just being physically present but also owing allegiance solely to the U.S., potentially excluding children of undocumented immigrants. However, the predominant legal interpretation, backed by judicial decisions like United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), has been that anyone born in the U.S., regardless of their parents' status, is a citizen if they are not covered by exceptions like diplomatic immunity.

In summary, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is meant to exclude those who are not completely under U.S. law due to their diplomatic status or historical exceptions like Native Americans before specific legal changes. It establishes criteria for who qualifies for U.S. citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, focusing on legal allegiance and jurisdiction rather than merely physical presence.

[pattcaster]

Pattcastter And Due Process

[thellawtoknow]

The Fourteenth Amendment and the Ideals of Equality, Justice, and the Protection of Fundamental Rights

The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution Historical Context Structure and Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1: Citizenship and Equal ProtectionCitizenship Clause Due Process Clause Equal Protection Clause Section 2: Representation and Voting Rights Section 3: Disqualification from Office Section 4: Public Debt Section 5: Enforcement Impact and Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment: Expanding the Boundaries of Justice Civil Rights and Desegregation The Incorporation Doctrine Marriage Equality and Gender Rights Immigration and Citizenship Modern Implications and Continuing Evolution Challenges and Controversies Conclusion The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, ratified on July 9, 1868, stands as one of the most significant and transformative amendments in American history. Emerging in the aftermath of the Civil War, it was crafted as a response to the deep divisions and systemic injustices that had plagued the nation, particularly the institution of slavery and the inequalities it perpetuated. The amendment is notable for its breadth, addressing citizenship, equal protection under the law, due process, and the relationship between the federal government and the states. Its provisions have profoundly shaped American society, law, and governance, ensuring the protection of individual rights while reinforcing the principles of democracy and equality.

Historical Context The Fourteenth Amendment was introduced during the Reconstruction Era, a turbulent period following the Civil War when the nation sought to reconcile its divisions and address the status of formerly enslaved individuals. The Civil War had ended slavery through the Thirteenth Amendment, but questions remained about the rights of freedmen and the obligations of the states in ensuring those rights. The Southern states, through mechanisms like Black Codes, sought to maintain racial hierarchies, effectively undermining the freedoms granted to African Americans. Congressional Republicans, seeking to secure the gains of emancipation and protect civil rights against state encroachments, drafted the Fourteenth Amendment as part of a broader Reconstruction strategy. Its ratification became a condition for the Southern states’ reintegration into the Union. Structure and Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment The Fourteenth Amendment is a cornerstone of constitutional governance in the United States. Its structure, divided into five sections, systematically addresses critical issues arising from the Civil War and Reconstruction while laying the groundwork for future advancements in civil rights and federal-state relations. Each section serves a distinct purpose, reflecting the evolving understanding of citizenship, governance, and justice. Section 1: Citizenship and Equal Protection Citizenship Clause The Citizenship Clause asserts that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." This clause was revolutionary, overturning the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) decision, which had denied citizenship to African Americans. It established birthright citizenship as a foundational principle, ensuring that the newly freed African Americans and their descendants would be recognized as full citizens. Due Process Clause The Due Process Clause prohibits states from depriving any person of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." While the Fifth Amendment provides similar protections against federal actions, the Fourteenth Amendment extends these protections to state actions. The clause has been instrumental in safeguarding individual rights, as it has evolved to encompass both procedural and substantive due process: - Procedural Due Process: Requires that legal proceedings affecting an individual's rights must be fair, including proper notice and an impartial tribunal. - Substantive Due Process: Protects fundamental rights from government interference, even if procedural safeguards are followed. This has been applied in cases involving privacy, family rights, and bodily autonomy. Equal Protection Clause The Equal Protection Clause mandates that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It establishes the principle that laws and policies must be applied fairly and without discrimination. This clause became the foundation for numerous civil rights advancements, including: - Racial Equality: Landmark cases like Brown v. Board of Education (1954) used the Equal Protection Clause to dismantle racial segregation. - Gender Equality: Cases such as Reed v. Reed (1971) extended the clause to prohibit gender discrimination. - Marriage Equality: The clause also served as the basis for decisions like Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage. Section 2: Representation and Voting Rights This section addresses representation in Congress and penalizes states that deny voting rights to male citizens aged 21 or older. At the time, voting rights were restricted to men, and the provision reflects the societal norms of the 19th century. It aimed to incentivize states to extend suffrage by reducing their representation in Congress if they unjustly excluded eligible voters. While this section had limited enforcement during Reconstruction, it laid the groundwork for later expansions of voting rights, such as the Fifteenth Amendment (granting African American men the right to vote) and the Nineteenth Amendment (granting women suffrage). Section 3: Disqualification from Office This section was specifically designed to address the post-Civil War political landscape. It disqualified individuals who had engaged in rebellion or given aid to enemies of the United States from holding public office unless Congress lifted the disqualification by a two-thirds vote. This provision sought to prevent former Confederates from regaining political power and undermining Reconstruction efforts. While its enforcement diminished over time, Section 3 has resurfaced in contemporary debates, such as discussions about its applicability to individuals accused of participating in insurrection or sedition. Section 4: Public Debt The Public Debt Clause affirms the legitimacy of debts incurred by the Union during the Civil War while explicitly repudiating debts incurred by the Confederacy. It also forbids compensation claims for the emancipation of enslaved individuals. This section served multiple purposes: - Reassuring creditors that Union debts would be honored, thus maintaining economic stability. - Preventing any legal or political support for the Confederate cause by invalidating its financial obligations. The clause has continued relevance in modern fiscal policy, as it has been cited in discussions about the federal debt ceiling and the obligation of the government to honor its debts. Section 5: Enforcement The final section grants Congress the power to enforce the provisions of the amendment through appropriate legislation. This provision underscores the federal government’s role in ensuring that states comply with the amendment’s mandates. Over time, Congress has utilized this power to pass key legislation, including: - The Civil Rights Act of 1964: Addressing discrimination in public accommodations and employment. - The Voting Rights Act of 1965: Protecting against racial discrimination in voting. - The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Ensuring equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities. This section empowers Congress to adapt the principles of the Fourteenth Amendment to contemporary challenges, reinforcing its enduring significance. The structural design of the Fourteenth Amendment reflects its multifaceted purpose: to establish the principles of equality, safeguard individual rights, and define the balance of power between the federal and state governments. Each section addresses a specific challenge of its time while allowing for interpretations and applications that continue to shape American law and society. Its enduring relevance underscores its role as a cornerstone of constitutional democracy, ensuring justice and equality for future generations. Impact and Interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment: Expanding the Boundaries of Justice The Fourteenth Amendment has profoundly shaped the trajectory of American law and society, standing as a pillar of civil rights and justice. Its broad and forward-looking language has allowed it to evolve alongside the nation, addressing emerging societal challenges and embodying the principles of equality and liberty. Over time, it has been central to landmark Supreme Court rulings, social movements, and debates on the balance of power between states and the federal government. Civil Rights and Desegregation The Equal Protection Clause became a key instrument in dismantling institutionalized racial discrimination, most notably through the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education (1954). The Supreme Court, in this decision, declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause. This ruling overturned the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which had upheld the doctrine of "separate but equal." Brown v. Board of Education not only marked a turning point in the civil rights movement but also solidified the role of the federal judiciary in addressing state-sanctioned inequalities. It paved the way for subsequent civil rights legislation and decisions that targeted systemic racism in areas such as voting, employment, and public accommodations. The Fourteenth Amendment thus became a foundation for combating racial injustice, inspiring movements and court battles that reshaped the social and legal fabric of the United States. The Incorporation Doctrine One of the most significant interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment is the incorporation doctrine, through which the Supreme Court has applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Initially, the Bill of Rights was understood to limit only the federal government. However, the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extended these protections to state actions, ensuring that fundamental freedoms were uniformly upheld across the nation. Key cases demonstrating incorporation include: - Gitlow v. New York (1925): Recognized the protection of free speech under the First Amendment as applicable to the states. - Mapp v. Ohio (1961): Applied the Fourth Amendment's protection against unlawful searches and seizures to the states. - Gideon v. Wainwright (1963): Guaranteed the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment in state courts. By applying the Bill of Rights to the states, the Fourteenth Amendment strengthened individual liberties and ensured that states could not infringe upon fundamental constitutional rights. Marriage Equality and Gender Rights The Fourteenth Amendment has been instrumental in advancing equality in matters of marriage and gender. Two landmark cases illustrate its impact: - Loving v. Virginia (1967): Struck down laws banning interracial marriage, citing the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses. This decision affirmed the principle that marriage is a fundamental right, irrespective of racial distinctions. - Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): Recognized same-sex marriage as a constitutional right under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court emphasized that denying same-sex couples the right to marry violated the principles of liberty and equality. In addition to marriage equality, the Equal Protection Clause has been used to combat gender-based discrimination. Cases like Reed v. Reed (1971) and United States v. Virginia (1996) invalidated laws and practices that treated men and women unequally. These rulings underscored the amendment’s adaptability in addressing evolving understandings of equality. Immigration and Citizenship The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has had a profound impact on immigration and nationality law. By establishing birthright citizenship, it affirmed that all individuals born in the United States, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, are U.S. citizens. This principle has been central to debates over immigration policy and the rights of immigrants’ children. The Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) affirmed that children born in the United States to non-citizen parents are entitled to citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision reinforced the universality of the Citizenship Clause and has been a cornerstone in defending birthright citizenship against modern challenges. In addition, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses have been invoked to protect the rights of non-citizens within the United States. These provisions ensure that immigrants, regardless of their legal status, are entitled to basic protections under the law, such as fair treatment in judicial proceedings and access to public education (e.g., Plyler v. Doe, 1982). Modern Implications and Continuing Evolution The Fourteenth Amendment remains a living document, adapting to address contemporary challenges in civil rights and equality. Recent debates over issues such as affirmative action, voting rights, reproductive freedoms, and LGBTQ+ protections continue to draw on its provisions. For example: - Affirmative action cases like Fisher v. University of Texas (2016) explore how the Equal Protection Clause balances efforts to address historical injustices with the principle of individual equality. - Challenges to voting rights, including disputes over voter suppression laws, highlight the amendment’s role in safeguarding democratic participation. - The Due Process Clause is frequently cited in cases involving bodily autonomy and reproductive rights, as seen in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and subsequent challenges. The enduring impact of the Fourteenth Amendment lies in its broad and aspirational language, which allows it to serve as a foundation for addressing inequalities and protecting fundamental rights in an ever-changing society. The Fourteenth Amendment’s influence on American law and society cannot be overstated. Its clauses have empowered individuals, constrained discriminatory practices, and clarified the relationship between the federal government and the states. As the nation continues to grapple with issues of equality, justice, and governance, the Fourteenth Amendment remains a guiding light, ensuring that the principles of liberty and equality endure as the bedrock of the American legal system. Its ability to adapt to new challenges reflects the enduring strength of the Constitution itself. Challenges and Controversies Despite its transformative power, the Fourteenth Amendment has not been without controversy. Critics have often debated the scope of federal authority it grants, viewing it as a challenge to states’ rights. Additionally, its broad language has led to differing interpretations, with some arguing that judicial activism has expanded its intent beyond what the framers envisioned. The amendment also continues to be a focal point in modern debates over issues like affirmative action, reproductive rights, and immigration policy. These controversies underscore the enduring relevance of the Fourteenth Amendment in shaping the legal and social fabric of the United States. Conclusion The Fourteenth Amendment embodies the ideals of equality, justice, and the protection of fundamental rights. It transformed the Constitution, ensuring that the principles of liberty and democracy apply to all individuals, regardless of race or status. Its provisions have served as a beacon for marginalized communities and a foundation for progressive change. As society evolves, the Fourteenth Amendment remains a critical tool for addressing new challenges and upholding the promise of a more perfect union. Read the full article

[usnewsper-politics]

Impeachment Pressure: Pelosi's Leadership Tested Amid Democratic Party Divide #democraticparty #dueprocess #impeachmentproceedings #leadershipstyle #leftwardshift #moderateDemocrats #NancyPelosi #progressiveDemocrats #swingdistricts #transparency #Trumpsconduct

[undergroundusa]

READ TO THE ARTICLE HERE:

SHARE & EDUCATE

[usaviralcontent]

Trump says he doesn’t know if he needs to uphold constitutional due process Read More...

[taqato-alim]

Analysis of: Memorandum of Agreement for the 2023 WGA Theatrical and Television Basic Agreement (September 25, 2023)

PDF-Download: https://www.wgacontract2023.org/wgacontract/files/memorandum-of-agreement-for-the-2023-wga-theatrical-and-television-basic-agreement.pdf

Here is a summary of the key points discussed in bullet form:

The CBA establishes fair and balanced standards for wages, benefits, credits and working conditions through good faith negotiations.

Rights and duties are reasonably balanced between unions, workers and employers with meaningful obligations on all sides.

Dispute resolution processes promote transparency, accountability and protection of due process rights.

Provisions support the financial security, job stability, bargaining power and professional recognition of writers.

Residual structures and payment formulas provide ongoing compensation linked to works' lasting value and adaptation.

Healthcare contributions and pension funding secure important benefits for writers' wellbeing.

Staffing/development guarantees foster stable working environments ideal for creative output.

Considerations are made for the legitimate interests of all stakeholders, including production companies.

Quality control is indirectly encouraged through provisions enabling focus on merit-based work.

Overall the agreement demonstrates high-quality reasoning aimed at mutual understanding between bargaining parties.

Here is a summary of the key points:

Term of the agreement is from September 25, 2023 to May 1, 2026.

Incorporates the provisions of the 2020 WGA - AMPTP Theatrical and Television Basic Agreement and the 2020 WGA - Network Theatrical and Television Basic Agreement, as amended by this Memorandum of Agreement.

Resolves any inconsistencies in favor of the terms in this Memorandum of Agreement.

Allows the Guild to divert up to 0.5% from certain salary minimums in 2024 and up to an additional 0.5% in 2025 to increase pension or health fund contribution rates.

Increases most minimum salary rates by compound annual increases, generally 5% in the first year, 4% in the second year, and 3.5% in the third year.

Increases residuals bases and other payments by varying percentages each year.

Establishes terms for contracts entered into during the term of the agreement covering new media productions, SVOD programs, virtual MVPDs, and other areas.

Modifies various articles covering areas like arbitration, credits, derivate works, foreign markets, and more.

Sets an expiration date of May 1, 2026 but allows certain provisions to continue applying to works produced during the term.

Based on its content and purpose, this document is a collective bargaining agreement (CBA).

Some key evidence that points to it being a CBA:

It is an agreement negotiated between a labor union (the Writers Guild of America) and multiple production companies represented by their bargaining agent (the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers).

It establishes terms and conditions of employment for writers covered under the agreement, including minimum salaries, residuals, credits, union dues, healthcare, and pension contributions.

It has a set duration or "term" of several years, as is typical for CBAs negotiated in the entertainment industry.

It references and modifies existing CBAs between the parties to establish new baseline terms.

The language and formatting resemble other CBAs, with contract language clearly denoted and provisions numbered for easy reference.

So in summary, given its context as an agreement negotiated between a union and employers to govern wages, hours and working conditions, this document falls squarely into the genre of a collective bargaining agreement.

Here are the key stakeholders affected by this collective bargaining agreement and an evaluation of how it addresses their interests:

Writers: The CBA primarily aims to protect writers' interests by setting baseline standards for pay, benefits, credits and working conditions. It clearly prioritizes writers' wages and job protections.

WGA Unions: The agreement empowers the unions to collectively bargain on behalf of all members and establishes processes for dispute resolution that promote members' interests.

Production Companies: Terms are balanced to also consider companies' economic interests through provisions on derivatives works, foreign markets, etc. Dispute resolution ensures streamlined compliance.

Actors/Directors Guilds: As other entertainment unions, they have an indirect stake, but this CBA focuses just on writer interests without encroaching on other guild contracts.

Consumers: Quality control and ethical standards could positively influence the art and media being produced. Transparency promotes confidence in the output and its funding.

Shareholders: Employers' economic interests are reasonably taken into account to avoid excessive cost burdens that could impact investment returns.

Overall, while primarily aimed at directly representing writers, the CBA demonstrates a balanced, fair consideration of other key stakeholders' legitimate interests through establishment of expected norms, processes and parameters of negotiation.

Here is an evaluation of the rights and duties established in the document:

Rights:

Workers have right to union representation and collectively bargain compensation/terms.

Unions can advocate for members and ensure transparency in credits and disputes.

All parties have due process rights in dispute mediation/arbitration.

Duties:

Employers must meet minimum pay standards, benefit contributions, working conditions.

Unions must fairly represent all workers and maintain professional conduct.

All parties must negotiate in good faith and follow terms of final agreements.

Dispute processes have timelines that obligate timely resolution/information sharing.

Credit, derivative work and residual rules outline obligations around attributions.

The rights and duties presented seem balanced and reciprocal. Obligations require substantive actions but also procedural fairness. No extra-contractual rights or out-of-scope duties are established. Protections are granted alongside meaningful responsibilities. Overall, an equitable establishment of interrelated entitlements and expectations between stakeholders is exhibited. No obvious concerns regarding overreach or gaps in rights/duties were identified.

There are several key benefits established by this collective bargaining agreement:

Financial security - Minimum pay rates, healthcare coverage, pension funding ensure a basic standard of compensation.

Job protections - Credit processes, prohibitions against circumventing rules promote stable work opportunities.

Recognition/attribution - Credit, derivative works and sequel policies uphold appropriate professional recognition.

Bargaining power - Collective negotiations through unions empower workers in setting industry-wide standards.

Flexibility - Exceptions, modifications allow tailoring provisions reasonably based on specialized circumstances over time.

Stability - Establishing mid-to-long term agreements promotes predictability versus constant renegotiation.

Transparency - Defined dispute/credits mechanisms promote understanding outcomes rather than arbitrary decisions.

Efficiency - Incorporating/modifying past CBAs builds on established practices versus reinventing processes.

Experience - Industry expertise helps craft balanced, practical guidelines informed by talented professionals' knowledge.

Overall, these union-negotiated benefits secure workers' livelihood needs and professional interests through recognized, standardized frameworks - goals yielding mutual benefits between labor and employers. No concerns about unintended or unduly burdensome outcomes were noticed.

Here is an evaluation of how the document addresses the interests and needs of writers as key stakeholders:

Financial Security: Minimum pay rates, health benefits, pension funding directly support writers' livelihood needs.

Recognition: Strict credit requirements uphold proper attribution for writers' creative works.

Fair Compensation: Residual formulas offer ongoing payment tied to works' enduring success/value.

Input Value: Requirements for assigned material pay reflect writers' upfront contributions fairly.

Workplace Protection: Prohibitions against circumventing rules promote stable, respected employment.

Authorship Rights: Policies around derivatives, sequels protect writers' ongoing interests in built worlds.

Bargaining Representation: Unions collectively advocate on behalf of all writers versus individuals.

Balance of Interests: Terms seem reasonably balanced between labor and profit considerations.

Transparency: Dispute/credits procedures promote open awareness of outcomes affecting writers.

Consistency: Incorporating past accords builds predictability around established industry practices.

Overall, while technical, the agreement's focus and provisions advance writers' core interests in stability, fair compensation, proper attribution and respect as creative professionals. No conflicts with writers' key needs or goals were identified.

The document establishes several provisions that directly promote financial security for writers:

Minimum pay rates for various roles/works provide baseline income standards. Rates increase each year.

Healthcare contributions ensure access to medical coverage, an important benefit.

Pension plan funding helps secure retirement income through employer contributions.

Residual structures like reuse formulas continue generating income from enduring works.

High budget/premium pay scales for major projects provide potentially substantial incomes.

Staffing/development room guarantees offer multi-week income stability from employment.

Expanded platforms like New Media establish residual frameworks for emerging revenue streams.

Dispute/arbitration avenues help ensure terms around compensation are properly followed/enforced.

While an individual contract could modify some terms, the agreement substantively empowers writers' long-term financial security through mandated wage standards, benefit structures, revenue-sharing policies and negotiating leverage afforded by collective representation. No apparent conflicts with supporting financial stability were identified. The focus clearly promotes this important goal.

The document directly addresses healthcare contributions for writers in a few key ways:

It mandates that employers contribute to an industry-wide health plan on behalf of covered writers.

The contribution rates are set at fixed percentages of minimum salaries that increase each year of the agreement, ensuring greater funding over time to support the plan.

It allows the unions to divert a small percentage of minimum salaries in some years specifically to increase healthcare contribution rates, prioritizing this important benefit.

By establishing writers' access to healthcare through employer contributions as required by the agreement, it helps secure workers' ability to obtain medical coverage.

The health plan is part of the industries' overall system that provides coverage to thousands of entertainment industry professionals.

Collectively bargaining over these provisions helps maximize funding for the plans to support high quality, comprehensive care services.

In summary, the healthcare contribution structures embedded in the agreement clearly prioritize secure access to healthcare services as a core worker benefit achieved through good faith negotiations between unions and management. This provision directly enhances writers' health and financial stability.

Here is an evaluation of how the document addresses residual structures for writers:

It establishes rules for payment of reuse/residual fees whenever original works are exploited through repeats, spin-offs, or derivative use.

Residual formulas are set as a percentage of salary based on type/length of reuse, ensuring ongoing return linked to continuing value.

Platform-neutral definitions of categories like New Media foreseeably apply residuals to emerging revenue streams.

Rules aim to close interpretation loopholes by clarifying qualifying uses such as foreign or promotional airs.

Dispute procedures allow challenging non-payment or underpayment to enforce residual rights contractually owed.

formulas and terms are periodically re-negotiated to update rates keeping pace with marketplace changes.

Residual structures acknowledge that works retain value over time as part of overall compensation package.

By contractually guaranteeing writers a portion of subsequent income, the agreement substantively supports their long-term financial interests through an ongoing stake in works' enduring success and adaptation to new platforms - key goals advancing intermediary residual rights and protections.

The document addresses residual formulas for writers in the following ways:

It establishes royalty rates and formulas for different types of work reuse/exploitation through repeats, derivative works, foreign and new media platforms.

Formulas are tiered based on original work format (film, TV, digital media etc.) and length of reuse to determine equitable percentages owed.

Rates are regularly negotiated upwards to keep pace with evolving revenue streams and inflation.

Clear definitions of covered reuse scenarios aim to prevent exploitation loopholes.

Formulas apply platform-neutrally to capture future monetization models.

Residuals continue paying writers for the life of a work, reflecting ongoing value created.

Terms help ensure writers share fairly in continuing success of their intellectual property.

Dispute processes enforce payment adherence to formulas contractually guaranteed.

By locking in residual formulas through collective bargaining, the agreement establishes ongoing revenue participation as a core part of compensation - a key goal in providing ongoing rewards linked to works' enduring value well after initial payment. Formulas substantively support long-term interests.

Here are a few ways the document addresses staffing/development room guarantees for writers:

It mandates minimum terms of employment for writers engaged as staff writers or in development rooms.

Staffing contracts are guaranteed for either 26 weeks or 52 weeks, providing stable income blocks.

Development deals mandating 6-month or 12-month employment support new work incubation.

Guaranteed roles and timeframes allow writers to fully focus on creative work without precarity.

Stability promotes quality output by facilitating long-term collaboration and continuity.

Standardizing deals industry-wide strengthens individual bargaining power.

Employment rules curb potential abuse of short contract cycles to circumvent benefits.

Disciplinary/cause termination procedures prevent arbitrary firing during guarantee periods.

By locking in baseline employment terms, these provisions help sustain writers' livelihoods while cultivating environments ideal for creative work - important support goals for the writing profession through negotiated guarantees. Stability and protections are key aims advanced here for stakeholders.

Evaluating how the document addresses Production Companies' interests:

Cost Control: While guaranteeing stable costs like healthcare/pensions, inflation-tied minimum increases ensure predictability.

Equity: Dispute mechanisms promote equitable, fact-based resolution against arbitrary union demands.

Flexibility: Industry expertise helps craft balanced, practical rules informed by experience of both sides.

Predictability: Multi-year format establishes mid-long term planning allowances versus constant interruptions.

Adaptability: Exceptions/modifications enable tailoring coverage reasonably based on unique factors.

Economic Factors: Provisions thoughtfully account for profitability factors like foreign/new media earnings.

Creative Autonomy: Guidelines focus on authorship/economics only without restricting story/production decisions.

Representation: Negotiating through the centralized Alliance empowers management leverage in process.

While prioritizing core worker needs, the contract demonstrates efforts to craft comprehensive yet balanced terms factoring profitability needs into an equitable agreement with built-in mechanisms ensuring flexibility and accountability on both sides. No conflicts with Production Companies' legitimate business interests were apparent.

The document establishes several provisions that can positively influence quality control and ethical standards during production:

Credit procedures uphold proper attribution, encouraging quality work deserving of recognition.

Minimum pay rates help attract and retain skilled talent, benefiting creative output.

Basic compensation/benefits support workers' wellbeing and ability to focus on quality craft.

Staffing rules promoting stable crews enhance continuity and collaboration vital to high standards.

Transparency in disputes/credits promotes confidence that merits alone will determine attribution.

Balanced negotiations respect all parties' legitimate needs, preventing corners from being unduly cut.

Protections against circumventing intent discourage tactics that could compromise integrity.

Regular renegotiations allow periodically updating rules as needed to address new challenges.

While not directly creative directives, these workplace standards help enable conditions where quality work consistent with ethical aims can reasonably thrive. Creatives are empowered and incentives prioritize merits over arbitrary factors or harmful compromises. Overall the agreement prioritizes an environment favoring control and conduct upholding high production values.

Here is an evaluation of the ethics presented in this collective bargaining agreement:

Fairness: The agreement establishes a process of good faith negotiations between equal parties and sets standards around wages, benefits and working conditions that appear to represent a good balance of interests and treat all workers fairly.

Transparency: Key terms are clearly defined upfront. Dispute resolution and credits processes promote transparency in outcomes. Certain limitations on inspections of data seem reasonable given commercial interests.

Inclusiveness: The CBA represents all union members, not just some, and sets universal standards rather than special exemptions to any membership group.

Accountability: Mechanisms like deadlines, notices and credits arbitration ensure obligations are met and workers can challenge any disputes through agreed channels and oversight.

Respect: The agreement establishes an atmosphere of mutual understanding and respect between unions and employers through professional language and recognition of each party's interests.

Integrity: Rules appear aimed at upholding the integrity of negotiations, credits and employment standards over time rather than enabling ways to circumvent the spirit of rules.

Overall, based on establishing due process, balancing interests fairly and upholding high standards of conduct, the content and aims of this agreement promote ethical practices and outcomes between workers and their representatives. No obvious unjust, harmful or deceptive provisions were noticed.

While the document does not explicitly reference the supreme law (Constitution) of the United States, its purposes and provisions appear consistent with Constitutional principles in several ways:

Freedom of Association: By allowing collectively bargained agreements between unions and employers, it protects the 1st Amendment right of workers to join together to advocate for their interests.

Due Process: Establishing clear dispute resolution procedures upholds due process rights under the 5th/14th Amendments to challenge grievances through an impartial process.

Equal Treatment: Terms apply universally versus creating special classes of workers, respecting 14th Amendment equal protection.

Contracts Clause: Continuing past agreement terms without retroactive changes respects the Constitutional protection of private contracts.

Interstate Commerce: Covering an industry engaged in multistate/international trade, it regulates labor matters within the Congress' interstate commerce authority.

Labor Laws: Collective bargaining promotes national labor relations/policies that Congress is authorized to regulate through legislation like the National Labor Relations Act.

While the CBA governs private actions, it aims to establish reasonable, balanced procedures and consistent baselines promoting stable expectations between parties - goals consistent with upholding rule of law and Constitutional protections for workers. No concerns about violating supreme law were identified.

Upon reviewing the document, I did not find any obvious logical fallacies.

Some reasoning presented could be scrutinized further, but appears generally sound given the context of negotiating a complex collective bargaining agreement between multiple stakeholders. Here are a few thoughts:

No appeals to emotion or popularity were noticed that could constitute Fallacies of weakness (e.g. ad populum, ad misericordiam). Tone remained professional.

Provisions establishing terms did not seem to rely on questionable premises that could reflect non sequiturs or equivocations in reasoning.

Definitions laid important groundwork and appeared self-consistent without circularity or ambiguity that might enable fallacious arguments.

Incorporation of past agreements was done reasonably vs. enforcing past decisions fallaciously.

Exceptions to rules were explained and limited without creating true fallacies of exclusion.

Dispute structures promoted impartial facts/logic over prejudices or regressions to questionable priorities.

Rationale was presented neutrally vs. apparent biases that could enable persuasive definitions, accident or ad ignorantiam fallacies.

Overall, while extensive negotiations could enable more fallacious thinking unintentionally, the document demonstrated efforts at accurate, comprehensively reasoned positions supported coherently on their own stated logic and merits. No conclusive logical fallacies were evident. Care and diligence seemed applied.

Here are the usual evaluation criteria for determining the genre of a document and my analysis of this document based on each criterion:

Intended Audience: CBAs are intended for labor unions and employers/management. This document is clearly intended for the WGA unions and AMPTP member companies.

Organization/Structure: CBAs follow an expected structure of establishing terms, referencing existing agreements, defining key terms, outlining dispute resolution processes, etc. This document closely mirrors that structure.

Language/Tone: CBAs use legal/contract language to outline obligations and technical language around industry norms. This uses such language throughout with "contract language" clearly denoted.

Purpose: CBAs aim to establish standards around pay, benefits, credits and working conditions. This document modifies an existing CBA to set baseline terms for writers' employment.

Subject Matter: CBAs cover subjects like compensation, healthcare, pensions, job duties/definitions. This addresses those subjects along with residuals, new media terms, credits and more.

Cross-references: CBAs often reference earlier/related CBAs to build out terms over time. This modifies and incorporates terms from prior WGA-AMPTP CBAs.

Based on evaluation against these typical criteria, all evidence strongly supports that this document falls into the genre of a collective bargaining agreement between a union and employers. The intended structure, legal tone, reference to existing agreements and aim of establishing employment terms align it clearly with this genre.

Overall, the quality of reason demonstrated in this document is quite high. Some evidence:

Goals are clearly outlined upfront related to establishing baseline employment terms through a transparent negotiation process between represented parties.

Key terms are logically defined at the outset for consistent understanding and application.

Modifications are reasonably explained by referencing problematic ambiguity or changing industry conditions to promote fair, effective rules.

Obligations on both sides are presented as balanced and neutral rather than biased, self-serving or illogical. Mutual understandings are emphasized.

Dispute resolution mechanisms encourage addressing disagreements rationally and fact-based rather than arbitrarily.

Standards cover expected topics through detailed yet organized provisions considering reasonable reader interpretation.

Qualifications or exceptions to rules demonstrate internal consistency with overall aims rather than appearing arbitrary or aimless.

Outside references incorporate outside knowledge or consensus as applicable to inform provisions reasonably.

While detailed and complex, the document thoughtfully explains its positions and establishes accountable, practical guidelines through language emphasizing objectivity, consistency and resolution of conflicts reasonably agreeable to represented parties. Overall, a strong efforts at quality reason is exhibited.

In evaluating the quality of this document as a collective bargaining agreement, here are some observations:

Structure and Organization: The structure and organization of the document are very clear and logical. Key terms are defined upfront and provisions are numbered for easy reference. This follows expected conventions.

Grammar and Style: The language uses appropriate contractual/legal style and grammar throughout. Contract terms are denoted. Technical industry terms are clearly explained or summarized for the reader.

Completeness: As a Memorandum of Agreement meant to revise an earlier CBA, it clearly incorporates what it modifies and outlines a comprehensive set of baseline terms spanning multiple areas of relevance.

Consistency: Terms are defined consistently and provisions reference each other cohesively. No obvious internal inconsistencies were noticed.

Clarity: While detailed, the intent and obligations established in provisions are written clearly for the intended audience of labor/management. Legal jargon is kept to a minimum.

Accuracy: As the ratified agreement between the parties, it appears to accurately establish the terms agreed upon based on the evidence.

Overall, the document demonstrates a high quality in its structure, organization, consistency, comprehensiveness and clarity as a genre-appropriate CBA meant to govern an industry. The language, definitions and incorporation of prior agreements are rigorously professional. This suggests a well-executed quality of drafting.

GQ7UdFUFR4HuFviUQX95

[worldwatcher3072]

Unveiling the Fifth Amendment: Safeguarding Rights and Ensuring Justice

In today's installment of "Constitution Matters," we delve into the fifth amendment, examining its relevance in our everyday lives in the United States and emphasizing the significance of comprehending and exercising this fundamental right.

The fifth amendment of the U.S. Constitution serves as a safeguard, protecting individuals from potential abuses of power by the government and ensuring due process of law. It encompasses several essential principles that contribute to a fair and just legal system.

One of the key provisions of the fifth amendment is the protection against self-incrimination. This means that individuals cannot be compelled to testify against themselves in a criminal case. It grants the right to remain silent, enabling individuals to avoid self-implication and potential harm. This protection ensures that everyone has the opportunity to maintain their innocence and defend themselves without fear of self-incrimination.

Additionally, the fifth amendment guarantees the right to due process, meaning that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the lawful application of fair legal procedures. This encompasses a wide range of rights, including the right to a fair trial, the right to be informed of the charges against you, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to legal representation. Due process serves as a crucial safeguard, ensuring that individuals are treated fairly and impartially by the legal system.

Furthermore, the fifth amendment establishes the concept of eminent domain, which allows the government to acquire private property for public use, provided that just compensation is provided to the property owner. This principle strikes a delicate balance between the needs of the public and the protection of private property rights.

Understanding and practicing the fifth amendment is vital for every citizen. It empowers individuals to protect themselves against self-incrimination, ensures fair treatment within the legal system, and safeguards property rights. By upholding these principles, we contribute to the preservation of a just society where the rights and liberties of every person are respected.

As we continue our exploration of the U.S. Constitution, let us remember that the fifth amendment serves as a cornerstone of our legal framework, reminding us of the fundamental principles upon which our nation was built. Stay tuned for further insights into the Constitution and its enduring impact on our lives.

The above passage provides an introductory snippet for an installment of "Constitution Matters" focusing on the fifth amendment. It highlights the significance of understanding and practicing this constitutional right in everyday life in the United States, touching upon key provisions such as protection against self-incrimination, due process, and eminent domain. The passage aims to generate interest and set the stage for further exploration of the topic

[christianornot]

Due Process: Why the Bells in Your Head Should Be Ringing!!

Let me put it plainly: if you aren’t hearing alarm bells about what’s happening to due process in America right now, you’re not paying attention.This Administration has openly floated the idea of ending birthright citizenship—not through a constitutional amendment, which would at least follow the law—but by executive decree. They’re banking on a Supreme Court that might rubber-stamp this move,…

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Dennis Goris :: @DennisGoris :: #DueProcess

* * * *

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

April 17, 2025

Heather Cox Richardson

Apr 18, 2025

Today, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) posted a picture of himself with Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Maryland man whom the Trump administration says it sent to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador through “administrative error” but can’t get back, and wrote: “I said my main goal of this trip was to meet with Kilmar. Tonight I had that chance. I have called his wife, Jennifer, to pass along his message of love. I look forward to providing a full update upon my return.”

While the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, apparently tried to stage a photo that would make it look as if the two men were enjoying a cocktail together, it seems clear that backing down and giving Senator Van Hollen access to Abrego Garcia is a significant shift from Bukele’s previous scorn for those trying to address the crisis of a man legally in the U.S. having been sent to prison in El Salvador without due process.

Bukele might be reassessing the distribution of power in the U.S.

According to Robert Jimison of the New York Times, who traveled to El Salvador with Senator Van Hollen, when a reporter asked President Donald Trump if he would move to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, Trump answered: “Well, I’m not involved. You’ll have to speak to the lawyers, the [Department of Justice].”

Today a federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to stop Judge Paula Xinis’s order that it “take all available steps” to bring Abrego Garcia back to the U.S. “as soon as possible.” Conservative Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote the order. Notably, it began with a compliment to Judge Xinis. “[W]e shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision,” he wrote.

Then Wilkinson turned his focus on the Trump administration. “It is difficult in some cases to get to the very heart of the matter,” he wrote. “But in this case, it is not hard at all. The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims in essence that because it has rid itself of custody that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

“The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps, but perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process.” The court noted that if the government is so sure of its position, then it should be confident in presenting its facts to a court of law.

Echoing the liberal justices on the Supreme Court, Wilkinson wrote: “If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home?” He noted the reports that the administration is talking about doing just that.

“And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present,” he wrote, “and the Executive’s obligation to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ would lose its meaning.”

After Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell’s warning yesterday that Trump’s tariffs will have “significantly larger than anticipated…economic effects, which will include higher inflation and slower growth,” and his statement that the Fed would not cut interest rates immediately as it assesses the situation, Trump today began attacking Powell. Trump wrote on his social media site that Powell is “always TOO LATE AND WRONG.” His missive concluded: “Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!”

Firing Powell would inject yet more chaos into the economy, and the White House told reporters that Trump’s post “should not be seen as a threat to fire Powell.” Hedge fund founder Spencer Hakimian posted: “Cleanup of orange vomit on Aisle 3.”

There seems to be a change in the air.

Three days ago, on April 14, Michelle Goldberg of the New York Times wrote that the vibe is shifting against the right. Yesterday, former neocon and now fervent Trump critic and editor of The Bulwark Bill Kristol posted a photo of plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Officers kidnapping Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk, and commented: “Where does the ‘Abolish ICE’ movement go to get its apology.”

Today, in the New York Times, conservative David Brooks called for all those resisting what he called “a multifront assault to make the earth a playground for ruthless men” to work together. He called for a “comprehensive national civic uprising” that would first stop Trump and then create “a long-term vision of a fairer society that is not just hard on Trump, but hard on the causes of Trumpism—one that offers a positive vision.”

Brooks is hardly the first to suggest that “this is what America needs right now.” But a conservative like Brooks not only arguing that “Trump is shackling the greatest institutions in American life,” but then quoting Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto to call for resistance to those shackles—“We have nothing to lose but our chains”—signals that a shift is underway.

That shift has apparently swept in New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, who is generally a good barometer of the way today’s non-MAGA Republicans are thinking. In an interview today, he said: “[M]y feelings about not only Trump, but the administration, are falling like a boulder going into the Mariana Trench. So the memory of things that this administration has done, of which I approve, is drowning in the number of things that are, in my view, reckless, stupid, awful, un-American, hateful and bad—not just for the country, but also for the conservative movement.”

Stephens identified Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance’s bullying of Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky in the Oval Office as the event that turned him away from Trump. “America should never treat an ally that way, certainly not one who is bravely fighting a common enemy,” he said. Stephens also noted the meeting had “delighted” Russia’s president Vladimir Putin, who is now “emboldened…to press the war harder.”

We have been in a similar moment of shifting coalitions before.

In the 1850s, elite southern enslavers organized to take over the government and create an oligarchy that would make enslavement national. Northerners hadn’t been paying a great deal of attention to southern leaders’ slow accumulation of power and were shocked when Congress bowed to them and in 1854 passed a law that overturned the Missouri Compromise that had kept slavery out of the West. The establishment of slavery in the West would mean new slave states there would work with the southern slave states to outvote the North in Congress, and it would only be a question of time until they made slavery national. Soon, the Slave Power would own the country.

Northerners of all parties who disagreed with each other over issues of immigration, finance, and internal improvements—and even over the institution of slavery—came together to stand against the end of American democracy.

Four years later, in 1858, Democrat Stephen Douglas complained that those coming together to oppose the Democrats were a ragtag coalition whose members didn’t agree on much at all. Abraham Lincoln, who by then was speaking for the new party coalescing around that coalition, replied that Douglas “should remember that he took us by surprise—astounded us—by this measure. We were thunderstruck and stunned; and we reeled and fell in utter confusion. But we rose each fighting, grasping whatever he could first reach—a scythe—a pitchfork—a chopping axe, or a butcher's cleaver. We struck in the direction of the sound; and we are rapidly closing in upon him. He must not think to divert us from our purpose, by showing us that our drill, our dress, and our weapons, are not entirely perfect and uniform. When the storm shall be past, he shall find us still Americans; no less devoted to the continued Union and prosperity of the country than heretofore.”

LETTERS FROM AN AMERICAN

HEATHER COX RICHARDSON