Did nobody else see little Donny Thump-Thump endeavor- ing to spread his cooties last night, with molesting condescension? Can he con- ceive no limit to the al- lure of his infection, as his hot mob exults in his foul, fulsome recruitment, thanking them for applaud- ing his seduction of sur- vivors of their own crime? At the level of his devel- opment, we recognize that feint as offering cooties.
Where is Nancy Reagan when we need her. Just say no. Running on a platform to strip people of their rights, anathematize their lives, hound them with an establishment of religion, and indemnify their foes, it is sadistically preda- tory to insult them with a hug. What, no torches?
He glanced aside and upwards: that coxcomb of phosphorence ... If you are lying down under fire - flat under pretty smart fire - and you have only a paper bag in front of your head for cover you feel immeasurably safer than you do without it. You have a mind at rest. This must be the same thing.
Not since the first George Bush succeeded the only Ronald Reagan has the same Party held the Executive branch of the US government for more than two elected terms. With the prospect of Barack Obama’s being succeeded by a Democrat, many complain of his two terms these days less for their character, much less for any possible decline, than for a sense of supernumeration which this would represent. It is expedient, for them, to intone the words, “third term,” with an air of being affronted.
But in this projected succession there is another third term being proposed, to which its putative claimant is only too merry to stipulate. Possibly, the Constitutional ban on the practice exerts a special appeal to the pride of outwitting it, as a kind of glass ceiling for suckers. The 42nd President was elected to two terms and served their entirety, overcoming a show of some resistance to his completing the second. But that President had always taken care, as this new claimant in his Party does so often now, to proclaim that there were two holders of that office simultaneously.
The Constitutional restraint against a third term for just such a Presidency is more prophetic than we seem to notice. The 22nd Amendment applies in relevant part to a “person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected.” It speaks of a person, which is to say, without excluding any unelected person, because the restraint is intended to apply to every person. The present Democratic claimant to the office is candid to confess to having acted as President for two terms, and is candid to confess to enlisting the person who was elected to those terms to serve again, sometimes to be “in charge of reviving the economy,” sometimes to be “in charge” of actual Presidential duties, as may pop up.
It will be objected, that this is a semantic observation. It will be objected, that this is a “sexist” observation, besmirching the autonomy of one conjugal partner from another. But it cannot be protested, that the writers of this proscription would have left those objections any breath, if they had anticipated its flouting by two persons united for life.
This is not to say, it would be unwise to lend the experience of the law a little exercise in contemporary conduct. It is only to construe the law by the intent of its framers, as revealed in its text. Far be it from this page to be hidebound by strict construction, especially where the Party which rejects this candidacy so imaginatively is attached so pathologically to that philosophy, without having struck upon this unambiguous definition of the candidacy’s self-described illegitimacy. How seldom, indeed, has anyone else ever been so qualified to be President, Mrs Woodrow Wilson episodically aside.
On the contrary. I agree, the Constitution is a device to commend, sometimes to deplore, conduct which we know we have the power to absolve by politics, by vote or by other transactions. Our strictest constructionists have shown this repeatedly. And 2016 speaks to no political reality more starkly, than the power of ethical ingenuity to exert the will over any construct of constancy in its way. In-evitably, there may be cognitive irritation, along that path, and just as its clarity seems so dazzling.
It's for eventualities such as these, that trains were invented. Means of escape, not deportation, to settings where one can clear one's desk, one's calendar, to reason through a predicament. I go hiking, for everything about it. From the variable textures underfoot to the impromptu alternations in sun and shade overhead, hiking registers to me my presence, which is to say, it counts me. The demand not to abstain from voting is the argument offered for torture: if you could do good, wouldn't you willingly do wrong? This is the torture of a loyalty oath, and compulsion, as we learned at Nuremberg, affords no excuse. One has no vote, if none against that.
A real Ulysses Grant, a real Abraham Lincoln, a real Dwight Eisenhower, just to pluck a list of Republican commanders, from their thinning air. What a bar room nancy boy these lemmings have followed to their ditch.
Who could have guessed what a lark it would be, to be a- ble to get past Donald Trump and Elizabeth Warren in the same day, despite the risks in gorging a single news cy- cle on such richly seasoned fare? May I recommend it, as a purgative restoring light- ness to the leap, and ela- tion to the shot; even that annoyance one can sometimes feel in smoking crowds dis- pels itself as the lifting of accrued affronts from the loud and the lurid. It can make Summer great again.