A few words on Congressman Riggleman, who's leaving office shortly.
I first became aware of him when he ran for the office in 2018 and we made fun of him for being a fan of "Bigfoot erotica..." which... was sort of true! He's a Bigfoot lore enthusiast, though not a believer.
He won his election and served as a straightforward libertarian Republican. He himself owns and operates a distillery, so has a particular interest in deregulation of business, including the hemp business. congress.gov/bill/116th-con…
But in 2019, true to his principles (ie, Government should leave people alone to do what they want) he officiated a wedding between two of his campaign volunteers, both men. And the local GOP in his district Did Not Like That.
So Congressman Riggleman was challenged for the GOP nomination in 2020 by a Liberty U official named Bob Good, who said the Congressman had "abandoned conservative principles."
But instead of a primary, the local GOP decided to hold a in-person nominating convention at an evangelical church during the pandemic. (They ended up making it a drive-thru convention.) Congressman Riggleman lost.
If you're saying to yourself, "Wait, I've heard of that Good fellow" you're most likely remembering this, from the Trump rally to overturn the election last weekend.
Mr Good is about to take his seat as a Congressman from Virginia's 5th District, and Mr Riggleman is going to go home and make whiskey. I wish him well, and almost feel bad about the Bigfoot jokes.
Ever since hosting "Constitution USA" on PBS 7 years ago I've given talks on the Constitution. The principle question I ask and then try to answer is: Why has our Con succeeded (+ or -) when so many others have failed or were instantly ignored?
Here's the Soviet Constitution of 1936, for example. Note: guaranteed universal suffrage, rights to work, health care, leisure time, etc. A liberal's dream. And of course, it was instantly and immediately ignored. Why wasn't ours?
After a long chat, with care to mark the places/times it WAS ignored (see: Jim Crow), I arrive at this answer: because what binds us together in America is not culture or national origin but a kind of civic religion of democracy.
But it's also useful in thinking about the Civil War, and its causes. Usually we talk about the South's motivation for seceding, because it's been so intentionally obscured and lied about. They did it to preserve chattel slavery, period.
But why did Lincoln fight them?
He himself said, famously, that it was to "save the Union." "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that."
Sen. Tillis made a point I often do: that every dictator in the modern world ran a country with a Bill of a Rights.
It’s true! Among those countries: the Soviet Union, Communist China.
Then he said the difference between them and the US was “we have a Constitution.”
Um, no.
1st of all the Bill of Rights IS the Constitution. First ten amendments thereto, in fact.
2nd, those countries also had Constitutions, which their leaders also ignored. It’s all just paper.
So what’s the real difference between them and us? I could go on about this — and do!— but it boils down to: in this country we’ve always* had the willing consent of the losers.
ACB believes that the right to an abortion is not guaranteed in the Constitution. (She hasn't said that in so many words, but the people who support her seem sure about that.)
Okay, but what does the Constitution allow?
Would it allow the government to ban all abortions under any circumstances? If not, which circumstances are allowed? (She's said that it shouldn't be allowed for sex selection or for certain birth defects like Downs Syndrome.) But how about an non-viable pregnancy? Rape?
If a woman seeks out an illegal abortion and is caught, can the state imprison her until the baby is brought to term? Can they then take the baby away from the mother, on the grounds she tried to kill it? The Constitution remains silent.
If you haven't read it, the @nytimes did a superb investigation of the killing of Breonna Taylor, and all the terrible turns of luck and judgement that led to it. nytimes.com/2020/08/30/us/…
They've also presented their investigation as a TV documentary, below, and two episodes of "The Daily" podcast.
The NYTimes correspondent who led the investigation is now questioning the Attorney General about an important fact: did the police announce their presence?