[Updated from 1/23/17 and 2/1/17]
So Donald Trump is going to visit today the grave site of Andrew Jackson, slave owner, and thus further identify himself with racism, white nationalism, Native American expulsions and other things irrefutably bigoted.
As I had asked earlier, why does Trump revere this reprehensible figure?
----------------------------------------
I raised these questions after a Federal court in California has issued an even broader order against Donald Trump's immigration and travel ban: what happens when Trump refuses to honor the third branch of government's legal role?
You've probably seen recent articles and punditry from the likes of Steve Bannon, Rudi Guiliani and New Gingrich, et al, comparing Donald Trump to his early 19th century predecessor Andrew Jackson.
You know - - "Old Hickory," the blunt, slave-owning crusty outsider, a legendary holder of grudges, etc.
You'd think truths about Andrew Jackson would dissuade any modern politico from embracing him - - slave ownership and more, for example - - unless that's a willing Alt/Right subtext.
Then there's the absolutely reprehensible Jacksonian legacy - - the expulsion of thousands of Cherokee people from their sovereign southern lands (so the stolen property could be handed over to fellow slave owners) - - which wittingly or not, Trump could emulate by expelling millions of Mexican immigrants and/or also ban (or expel) Muslims from our shores.
And here's one extremely troubling bit of Jackson lore to file away which may be why Trump's brain trust worships Jackson despite all his faults.
Let's say that a court rules that Trump is in violation of the US Constitution's anti-bribery prohibition and must completely divest his businesses.
Or the US Senate votes after an impeachment trial that Trump must resign because he and/or his team colluded with the Russians before or after the election, or had committed other impeachable offenses:
Here's the Jacksonian precedent: When the Cherokee Nation sued over the seizure of their lands that preceded their expulsion, and the US Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in the Cherokees' favor, Jackson is said to have remarked:
Ha ha.
But given Trump's one-man band personality and the like-minded authoritarians around him, can't you see him and his people responding the the same way when legal orders Trump doesn't like or respect come his way?
So Donald Trump is going to visit today the grave site of Andrew Jackson, slave owner, and thus further identify himself with racism, white nationalism, Native American expulsions and other things irrefutably bigoted.
As I had asked earlier, why does Trump revere this reprehensible figure?
----------------------------------------
I raised these questions after a Federal court in California has issued an even broader order against Donald Trump's immigration and travel ban: what happens when Trump refuses to honor the third branch of government's legal role?
You've probably seen recent articles and punditry from the likes of Steve Bannon, Rudi Guiliani and New Gingrich, et al, comparing Donald Trump to his early 19th century predecessor Andrew Jackson.
You know - - "Old Hickory," the blunt, slave-owning crusty outsider, a legendary holder of grudges, etc.
You'd think truths about Andrew Jackson would dissuade any modern politico from embracing him - - slave ownership and more, for example - - unless that's a willing Alt/Right subtext.
Then there's the absolutely reprehensible Jacksonian legacy - - the expulsion of thousands of Cherokee people from their sovereign southern lands (so the stolen property could be handed over to fellow slave owners) - - which wittingly or not, Trump could emulate by expelling millions of Mexican immigrants and/or also ban (or expel) Muslims from our shores.
And here's one extremely troubling bit of Jackson lore to file away which may be why Trump's brain trust worships Jackson despite all his faults.
Let's say that a court rules that Trump is in violation of the US Constitution's anti-bribery prohibition and must completely divest his businesses.
Or the US Senate votes after an impeachment trial that Trump must resign because he and/or his team colluded with the Russians before or after the election, or had committed other impeachable offenses:
Here's the Jacksonian precedent: When the Cherokee Nation sued over the seizure of their lands that preceded their expulsion, and the US Supreme Court led by Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in the Cherokees' favor, Jackson is said to have remarked:
"Well, John Marshall has made his decision; let him enforce it."Get the joke? The Supreme Court doesn't have an army.
Ha ha.
But given Trump's one-man band personality and the like-minded authoritarians around him, can't you see him and his people responding the the same way when legal orders Trump doesn't like or respect come his way?
Related Posts :
Contrary To Earlier Reports, US And Russian Troops Are Not Shooting At Each Other In Syria
Another Canadian Diplomat In Cuba Is Sick From Suspected 'Sonic Attack'
Vermont Air Guard Commander Uses An F-16 For A Romantic Getaway
Retired Gen. McChrystal: President Trump's Attacks On Military Service Members Are 'Disturbing'
Tweets For Today