It’s NOT Elections: What makes Democracy Democratic And the institutional origins of the American Democratic Republic

 In the process of impeaching Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, the consistent cry of his supporters, and right from the peach himself, has been that the indictment by the House of Representatives for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress has been motivated by the anger of Democrats because of the victory of the Republicans and Trump in the 2016 election. “They are trying to undo the results of the 2016 election,” they like to say, “because they just can’t deal with the fact that Trump won.” This statement is the only time that Republicans and Trump will use facts. Further, Republican members of the Senate, Trump, and other Republican officials and pundits cry on that this will have long term consequences of changing the nature of democracy by enabling a majority party in the House to undo any election.

AmericaHypothesis: Elections are not the basis of democracy in this Republic, nor do they have anything to do with any impeachment, but, and most importantly, elections are minimally important to the primary mission of government, which is most protected through the institutional arrangement of power as framed in the Constitution of the United States.

To establish this AmericaHypothesis, as well as speak to the significance of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump we will need a little help from History, and also from an old friend, the Declaration of Independence. We need to establish the meaning of democracy in the Modern American sense and also to establish why, then how, government fits into that picture. 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 

that all men are created equal, 

that they are endowed by their Creator 

with certain unalienable Rights, 

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—

         The Founders had a clear vision in mind for the united States even though they could not hope to realize it then (that’s not a typo -- “united States” is how it was conceived at the time as 13 united nations and was written as such in the DOI). This vision is about us, the people, that we have rights, all of us, equally. We have rights. Of course, in practical terms, the Founders could not fathom how this would work in their world where women and Africans were not only thought of as inferior, but held in forms of legal slavery. As noted on this blog by Jocelyn Haley, https://americahypothesis.blogspot.com/2020/01/guest-performance-how-racism-is.htmlthe Founders really had no intention to include marginalized groups in their definition of “all men,” but that does not negate the future interpretation of this line, that the Founders did not think this possible …. That the future would think that “all men” might not only mean all people, but even all beings. But the importance here is not the practicality of the matter of rights, but that rights existed, as a matter of knowable and apparent truth – hence the borrowing of “self-evident” from Locke’s Essay Concerning Human Understanding to make the veracity of those rights not locked into some original state but in the existence of the moment of being, whenever that might be – rights exist because rights exist, self-evidence. And the nature of those rights is up to the individual possessing those rights to their own life, their own ability to do stuff (Liberty), and to define themselves and their actions the way they want (pursuit of Happiness). This is the premise of human being, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness, a Modern premise of the individuated right of self-definition and self determination.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

         The only reason that government exists is to protect those rights, and the only way government can proceed in its prime directive is to incorporate the very individuals that it is charged to protect in the very protection of those rights – the consent of the governed. In short, to protect rights, the governed have to govern themselves. The rationale is based on the simple idea that the only way I can access my rights is to insure the protection of your rights, but we do need rules to make sure that your right to act and define doesn’t come in public conflict with my ability to act and define. Government, rightly, has to reflect that balance of my power to act and define and your power to act and define and make sure that neither of us is dominant and neither of us is inferior. Balance.

When in the Course of Human events …. 

         History shows that for thousands of years the brightest minds of philosophy have struggled to define balance as the defining feature of government. We celebrate the Greek and Roman minds that are often referred to as the fount of wisdom in defining Democracy and Republican institutions, and while the Framers did borrow from the Enlightenment enthrallment with the ideas and writings of antiquity, the original source of balance that animated the Founding, and then the Framing, came not from the mind of the philosopher but from the practice of the barbaric. Democracy came not from Greece, but from the barbaric tribes of Germanic invaders to the isles of Britain.

         Most tribal, semi-nomadic groups, like the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, of necessity (because of resource limitation), develop a sort of equality in their blood based village units. Everyone’s input on decisions is important, because everyone’s input on obtaining resources was paramount. So, the village, through a council, representing the families and clans of the village, was by definition a place of balance. Each to each, by necessity, in balance, unless, by necessity, balance became corrupted – War, famine, the quest for resources. These are the causes for vaulting the one into an authority to act over the many. When Kings became Kings in the “forests of Germany” (both Jefferson and Adams utilize this phrase) their actions to use the equal authority of the members of the village were authorized through the collective action of the individuals of that village – and even more importantly as this authority was continually exercised it was still “balanced” by the will of the village council.

         In the Anglo-Saxon tradition the idea that “Englishmen” had “rights” became a thing, and that to protect those rights, those who were given the authority to act on behalf of the whole still were subject to a check by the whole. The greatest right was the input that members of the tribe had always enjoyed – to add their consent to the decisions made by the tribe so that the inherent balance of “I have input and you have input” was still maintained even when “King’s have authority” but “the people must consent.” For balance to exist there has to be a check on authority.

         King’s don’t like balance. Power doesn’t like balance. Domination doesn’t like balance. In 1066 came the Norman Conquest to the Anglo-Saxon domain in Briton. William the Bastard and his descendants didn’t like the form of Anglo-Saxon kingship where Kings were balanced by a Witan (the council representing the clans and tribes of the people). They ruled by will, by will alone, and they set their mind in motion to deny the balancing act of Anglo-Saxon kingship.  And so when a weak King usurped his way into power, John, who outwitted the brutish, ass-kicking, but politically unsophisticated Richard, the Lion Heart, the guardians of the Witan, Anglo-Saxon “Nobles,” revolted. That Revolution we know as Magna Carta.

         That great charter documented that Englishmen had rights and the best of those was to consent to the laws that govern them. Government needed to be balanced, and the balance could only be achieved if Kings consulted with and gained consent from the representatives of the people – in this case the nobles, the representatives of the villages, clans and families – the people.

         At least this retelling of history is the English mythos believed by the Founders. In real practical history the “people” probably had very little voice once kings became kings. And nobles? Hardly representatives of the people, they likely took their place as the most powerful family in a clan that over time solidified their power through terrorizing anyone who challenged their authority. In reality, history shows that the path to government is paved by the skulls of the weak by those willing to murder and terrorize their way to power. But why let reality get in the way of a good story.

         After John, the toilet King, his predecessors paid lip service to “consent,” to balance, by consulting with the power of the Lords of the realm. Some King’s by the 1300s began to consult with powerful Commoners when the Lords wouldn’t or couldn’t “consent” to the will of the monarch. Indeed, Edward I – the Longshanks guy who was the villain of the villainous Mel Gibson’s homage to “freedom” in Braveheart – he’s the guy who established the precedent that lead to the formal institution of the House of Commons. And so, by the 1500s post-English game of thrones era of the Tudors, the constitution (arrangement of government) of England was the balancing of blood groups, King, Lords, Commons, who were all supposed to come to agreement before government could make law. Representatives of all the people consenting – balance by blood groups from greatest (King) to not so great (Common – usually wealthy un-noble relatives of the nobility in the name of all the people of common blood). Balance by blood groups, but balance nonetheless – all the balance necessary to make Plato and Aristotle and Polybius proud, but emanating out of the “Forests of Germany” and tribal barbarism.

…. it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

The establishment of English colonies legally and constitutionally transferred this balance of King, Lord, Commons, to the New World, but in the 17^th and 18^th centuries there were a couple of problems to the realization of this balance. First, and probably most problematic, It took months for word to come from where balance was achieved to where balance was enacted. Second, and in partial remedy of the first problem, permission slips were needed from the King to leave England to insure that errant subjects maintained their Englishness (and allegiance to the Kingdom). These permission slips, Charters, gave to the colonists (companies and proprietors of those colonies) the authorization to establish local government of their choosing as long as it was not in conflict with the laws, and authority, of England – as long as it conformed to the overarching system of balance for the empire, King, Lords and Commons. 

In constitutional technicality, if not historical reality, every colonist, Englishman or resident of English Land, was represented by the balancing of English institutions in English government. The colonists being commoners were still “represented” by the House of Commons, because they were still of common blood, and so their voice flowed, like blood, through the voice of the Commons (of course, in reality the Commons spoke for the rich and the powerful and real “commoners” had no voice at all, but again that just spoils the mythos). That the Commons was not really chosen by “election” through all the commoners voting is totally true but does not invalidate in the English understanding that the Commons represented the common. Everywhere.

By the time of colonization the KLC (King, Lords, Commons) constitutional arrangement (balance) entailed not only a division of blood, but also a division of powers. Federative powers (those regarding War and Peace, Diplomacy and terms by which subjects could leave the kingdom) were held by the King. Executive power was shared through the initiation and appointive power of the King and the maintenance of executive departments through a ministry staffed by the Lords and Commons. Legislative function was primarily handled by the Commons, but in a shared consenting relationship with the Lords and King. Judicial function emanated from several sources as there were several systems of law, the Common Law and its courts, King’s courts and ecclesiastical (and high church officials were Lords) courts. Every blood order had a share in law and order, balance. This explanation of English government by the age of colonization is an oversimplification to be sure, but it is the basic parameter of how things got done – with the exception of what technology did not allow.

         Local government had to be established to insure balance in colonial society and the colonists drew on a English precedent of high to low balance, from Governor (as mirror of the King’s Federative and Executive authority) to Assembly (as fulfilling the voice common consent). Balance within balance (imperio ad imperium). There were various ways in which representatives of the people (Assembly) and representatives of the King (Governor) were selected. The Lords didn’t have a voice because in the colonies there was no blood of this sort, balance would be achieved through just two orders of society. In some colonies all free men could vote to choose a representative for their consent, in some colonies only a few of the free men voted for representatives of everyone common in that colony – women couldn’t vote, children couldn’t vote, travelers couldn’t vote and slaves and servants couldn’t vote, but just as in England that didn’t make them any less represented by the Common voice in the Commons or the Common voice in their Assembly – at least initially.

         Over time, it becomes apparent that where there were no blood distinctions, the inherent balancing blood distinctions were not retained in the understanding of how consent was given and government functioned to maintain social balance. By the 1760s the colonists had, quite apparently, forgotten how blood was the balancing factor in favor of function – function of casting the ballot and function over particular actions of government. 

         When Britain (England changed its name in 1706 when it married Scotland – it was a shotgun wedding, literally) defeated France in a war for global dominance in 1763, Parliament (KLC) decided that it was time to govern the colonies in a more English way – through the ancient blood based institutions of Parliament. They did so because the Parliament spent a lot of money on the colonies paid for by the English commoner in England and not by the English commoner in the colonies (See Finding the Founding, parts 3-8 on this blog). The colonies needed to pay their fair share in maintaining the Greatness of Britain, and the Commons in England, on behalf of the blood of the commons everywhere, was going to manage that financial decision. It wasn’t George III, it was through the Parliament and particularly the blood representatives of the colonies that was in charge of this policy of taxing the colonists so the colonists would pay their own bills. The King wasn’t a Tyrant, who acted alone, the King was merely one blood part in a balancing of blood meant to insure the rights of “Englishmen.” But the colonists, who protested on behalf of their traditional English rights, had forgotten just how their own system was supposed to work. They believed that the King was still the King, voicing his powers and prerogatives by himself or through his Governor mouthpieces, but the Commons to which the commoners of the colonies exercised their right of consent was only through their common Assemblies, 13 of them, separately, to voice their common consent. And this consent was not exercised because of common blood, but because commoners (some of them, not all) voted for other commoners to be their Common voice in those 13 separate assemblies. Further, there could be no common institution for this consent because each colony was a different “mini England” (presumably with 13 different pinkies to their lips). This distinction between blood and function was a radical departure from the English tradition of blood based balance in favor of an institutional balance – the Assembly and its sole legislative function, balances out the King and his federative and executive functions

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

         The colonists had to go back to the drawing board to achieve balance since in their political evolution blood could no longer be the element by which balance, and therefore, the protection of rights could be achieved.  And so, thanks to their colonial mentality, they turned to an institutional relationship with which they were familiar to try to establish balance. The Articles of Confederation helped establish a system (along with 13 constitutions for the thirteen separate colonies, now “states” (read, nations) in their own right) where Federative power and certain executive and judicial functions, inherited from the King, were balanced with the peoples common consent exercised in legislative assemblies in the nations of the united States. Within those States balance was further achieved, in 13 different ways, by a division of function, legislative, executive and judicial, as well. Balance upon balance, balance within balance, power within power, power upon power. Imperio ad imperium. Balance.

         The Ancients knew it, and even the Founders knew it, but they often ignored the things they should have known, as with blood in balance. What did they know? They knew that Imperio ad imperium, was a philosophical problem. You can’t have a whole within a whole, a power within a power, a nation within a nation, but that is the system erected by the confederation of the united States under the Articles of Confederation. Each state was sovereign, and on its own, and each state was part of the union – you can’t be separate and part at the same time. It’s kind of like being on a teeter totter (or see saw, or probably some other funny name) and while your supposed to achieve balance and rock back and forth, if one side has more weight balance cannot be achieved. 

         Congress recognized the problem. It couldn’t fulfill its duties under the Articles if the states did not pass the laws to support its recommendations …. And the states didn’t. So the Confederation Congress expanded the nature of its charge and the nature of how it could function. The Confederation sought to add to its Federative function, the means to secure that function through accessing legislative ability, executive organization, and judicial formation. 

         When the States would not pass legislation to fund the charge of Congress to run the Continental Army, Congress came up with the idea of developing the legislative means to tax colonists and use the money for their Federative function – the same plan that Parliament came up with in 1763 that had set the whole problem in the colonies in motion. David Howell, the most important Founder you’ve never heard of (unless Founder only refers to those in the 2^nd Continental Congress that approved independence and then he is merely the most important Revolutionary figure you’ve never heard about), pointed out that the whole of Revolution and Independence was predicated on the idea that only the colonies/states could have legislative function and not the King/Congress. Congress dropped the plan, but it wasn’t forgotten (at least not by Madison and Hamilton who came up with the idea).

         Congress also organized an executive bureaucracy to manage its Federative and Executive functions. The executive boards established by Congress represented the precursor to the executive branch under the constitution. Congress was in control of judicial matters between the States and over the newly acquired territories through the Treaty of Paris that recognized the independence of the united States (who by that time standardized the writing of that title into United States). ConFederal courts were established, and by the 1780s there were hints of a legislative, judicial and executive institutional foundation under ConFederal control. But by the mid 1780s things had changed – some of the former colonists no longer merely identified with their own nation (state as the whole) and instead looked to the union (union as whole) as the entity that defined their identity. Patrick Henry’s famous quote from 1774, which made no sense then (and probably was never uttered in these words) – “I am not a Virginian, but an American” – could finally make sense. But while some were moving away from Imperio ad Imperium as the basis of identity, it was the functional, out of balance, nightmare of Imperio ad Imperium that signed the death warrant to the united States under the Articles of Confederation and necessitated constitutional reform.

         Congress, under the Articles, had the Federative power to handle diplomatic affairs on behalf of all of the states – make treaties with foreign countries – but did not have the legislative authority to enforce the terms of those treaties. In basic terms what this means is that say Congress negotiates a treaty with country X that sets a 5% duty on goods coming over from country X, what happens if Virginia passes legislation that sets the duty at a different rate? Out of Balance – and the Articles had no remedy for this situation and by 1786 this exact instance pitted State against State – nation against nation – and that could have meant war. War between the States – war the enemy of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness – war the enemy of balance. The fear of war must have been so great that the traditional interpretation about why the Articles failed is to blame it on poor people in Shay’s Rebellion. Laughable, if it wasn’t so sinister. 

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness

         Madison was one of the inspirations for giving Congress a legislative authority with the Impost Plan of 1781 (defeated by Howell), and he apparently never forgot. In 1786 he organized a meeting by the Southern States (and Pennsylvania) to talk about the problems that would arise from competing economic systems between the states (because of the variable duties created by States in contradiction to the treaties negotiated by Congress). The result of the Annapolis Convention, engineered by Madison, was that the representatives from these states called on Congress to revise and amend the Articles to achieve the balance the Imperio ad Imperium system needed. Madison, you little devil.

         He had finagled the calling of a revising convention – what we call the Constitutional Convention – and he had no intention of revising (or amending). He saw that the see-saw was a balancing act that even the Flying Wallendas could not achieve.  His idea was a new nation, one nation instead of 13, but still divisible, as long as those divisions, lower case s states, were subordinate to the whole. No longer Imperio ad Imperium, but now parts within a whole and a whole defining the parts. That’s an easier act to balance

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

The purpose of government is to protect rights. The purpose of the Constitution is to create a system where the union as a whole, the Nation, can carry out it function and lead to the protection of those rights. Rights are protected through balance. Balance is achieved by equality, as it was in the forests of Germany, so to was it in Philadelphia in 1787.  The way to bring balance to the force between the states was to establish a force over the states, and the will of that force would be realized in another balancing act of three co-equal institutions. This constitutional balancing act reflects the writings of philosophers from Plato, to Harrington, to Montesquieu, to whoever else you want to name, but it also mirrors the balancing act of the blood based KLC in its institutional reformulation through function. And while Article I, the Legislative Branch realized through the House and Senate, correlates to the Commons, and Article II to the King, and even a rough accounting of Article III can give you the Lords, the biggest correlation is balance. Not through blood but through checks. Balance achieved. Congress keeps an eye on the President, the President agrees to legislation and appoint the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court gets to interpret whether the legislation is in keeping with the founding intent (sometimes, but not when they say dumb shit like money and speech are the same thing). We like to say that the constitution is a system of “checks and balances” – no, it’s a system of balance because of the checks. That balance is achieved regardless of how those who exercise the functions of those institutions are chosen. Instead of elections we could give an exam to determine who should be in the Senate, or pick names out of a jar (as did Athens) to determine members of the House. Voting doesn’t matter to the protection of Rights, to the purpose of the Constitution, the balance achieved by co-equal separate branches which check each other’s power does matter.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

         The relationship between the branches has changed over time, according to Historians and Political Scientists – early in the Republic the Supreme Court seemed ascendant, and after Lincoln, the House and Senate dominant, and the 20^th century gave rise to what they like to call the “imperial presidency.” May be true, but this is more perception and leadership than a matter of function and eroding checks that establish balance. No President, no matter how imperial, has functioned without Congress (Right says: “Even Obama with all his executive orders?” Yes, even Obama couldn’t unbalance the system.) No Court no matter how supreme, would be in existence without the selection of executive function, and their rulings without meaning if not for legislative remedy. So the question begs whether the conduct and actions of the current President of the United States is a threat to this system of balanced power to protect rights, government. 

         We all know the basic gist of what happened even if we disagree on specific elements. The President wanted a favor in return for a favor. The favor was asked of Ukraine to open and/or announce investigations into the Biden’s and also potential Ukrainian involvement into the election of 2016. In conjunction with asking for a favor, President Trump placed a hold on aid to the country, Ukraine, from which he asked the favor. 

The Democrats:

Claim that this was an attempt to coerce Ukraine into digging up dirt on a potential opponent of the President in the 2020 election.

Claim that the President inhibited the House’s ability to investigate potential wrong doing.

The Republicans:

Claim the President was worried about corruption in Ukraine and, therefore, wanted investigations into alleged corruption and withheld funds to insure those investigations. Further, they argue, that it is the President’s prerogative to withhold aid.

Claim this was a partisan investigation and impeachment and therefore was under no obligation to turn over any information to Congress. 

While there are many other factors and claims to be made, these are the most basic, and most important, in the Impeachment of President Donald John Trump. 

And all of these claims can be true and therefore not a threat to the constitutional system. If so, then the Democrats were wrong and the President should remain in office. Unless ….

Somewhere in this process there is a check that should be noted. It is the President’s prerogative to direct foreign policy and, therefore, to withhold funds, but …. If he withholds funds that have been allocated through the Legislative Branch it is incumbent upon him, upon the executive, to inform Congress. Every other time that President Trump withheld funds to foreign countries he followed the requirement to inform Congress and give sufficient cause. In this case he did not. Why? If the President, as the Trump defense team claims, has the sole and exclusive right to develop foreign policy are not his claims plausibly deniable, but without following that requirement the claims of the President and all of his Republican allies are equally implausible. So how can we know if this is accidental, or insignificant, or worthy of removal. Both sides bemoan that there is no clear burden of proof in the Senate Trial. The proof is in the balance.

Even if Trump was motivated by the legitimate foreign policy concern of potential corruption in Unkraine, the failure to notify Congress of withholding appropriated funds, as was required, is a constitutional offence that necessitates investigation and questioning, but not necessarily removal. The Executive has the duty to formulate foreign policy as much as the Legislative has the authority to provide funds for that policy. The check on the Executive in such a case is informing Congress what goes on with the money. Failing to do so brings imbalance and potentially imperils the function and purpose of government. Questions must be asked why? But these questions should not only ask about the funds, about the favor, about cover up in withholding. The question also goes to the plausibility that there is a corrupt intent offered by the man in this office.

The history of the present King of Great Britain

is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, 

all having in direct object the establishment of 

an absolute Tyranny over these States.

I wonder who the prophet was that claimed a “Chosen One” would bring balance to the Force? We’re never told in Canon, though it might be in the EU. What is apparent is that the Jedi misinterpret the prophecy. Anakin and the Skywalkers don’t bring balance to the Force, they are the reason the Force is thrown out of balance – they are beings not of the Force, but of manipulation of the Force by the Sith Lord, Darth Plagueis. They should never have been, they should never have existed. They were manipulated by evil and threw the whole Galaxy (far, far away) out of balance. To restore balance the Skywalkers had to die. And they did. All of them.

Trump is a manipulated President, and not by losing the popular vote and winning the electoral vote, but by cheating. When he said, “the election is fixed.” He was telling the truth. Russian cyber warfare in the 2016 election was not just on Facebook, but pinpointed right down to manipulating actual votes. How many? Just enough in places like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. Just enough to insure a manipulated win and a cheating manipulated President.

It is obvious that the cover-up of the rationale behind withholding hides the corrupt nature of this manipulated President. He cheated in 2016, and again he is trying to cheat for the 2020 election.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.

There is nothing inherently immoral about unconstitutional actions, but in the case of the President of the United States, who is bound by a sacred oath, unconstitutional actions are immoral and, therefore, call into question the character of the actor – or in this case reality TV personality. It is here, in the evaluation of his character that the impeachable actions become most plausible and damnable.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He, along with his family, have cheated the public welfare by engaging in fraudulent tax scheming, from which his sister was forced to retire as a judge.

He continually lies, about anything, substantive or not.

He cheated on all three of his wives.

He paid off two sex workers not to disclose his affairs in hopes to win election and broke election finance laws to do so.

He has failed to reimburse countless employees and contractors for work completed.

He brought collapse and ruin to a casino.

He established a “University” that bilked hundreds out of millions.

He associated with known child rapists aware of their sinister acts to which he has been accused of enjoining.

He has been credibly accused of rape and sexual assault by numerous women.

He holds that women can be grabbed at his pleasure.

He has excited the most vile elements of this or any society to openly flaunt their hatred of others, even going so far as to call them “fine people.”

He contended for years the narrative that only people who look like him can be and should be part of this nation, even to the point of claiming the previous President could not have been American.

He has consistently called for legislation and produced executive orders that would directly benefit his occupation as a real estate developer, Including allowing greater pollution into the public waterways of this country to benefit the feasibility of development.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has made himself a laughing stock to other world leaders.

He has demeaned the office of the Presidency by his boorish self-importance, such that it led him to push the leader of another country out of his way (though, honestly, that was hilarious).

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws

         For meeting with and colluding with agents of a foreign despot to rig his first election:

         For siding with this same despot over our own intelligence agencies in the pursuit to investigate that election interference:

         For obstructing Federal investigations into foreign manipulation of our elections

         For deluding the public into thinking that another country, an ally against despotism, was really responsible for the criminal manipulation of those elections:

         For conspiring to bribe this same ally to investigate his political rival:

         For calling on other powers to investigate American citizens to enhance his re-election:

So is it more likely that this President has the good of the nation and the balance of our constitutional system as his motivations, or that he was involved in an unconstitutional, criminal scheme to subvert this government for his own benefit. The answer is clear. He did everything the Democrats say he did, and probably much more. He must be impeached and removed. Balance must be restored.

If not then the Russians, and the hundreds of Russian Bots that will read this post, win and America will corrupt into a country without Hope.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.