Just When You Thought He Was Done Abusing the Office …

Thanks, Elon, for the "Community Notes" feature. The one on this tweet is brutal. But let's sample other commentary. For example, Dan McLaughlin excerpts his column on Joe Biden's Constitutional Vandalism.

That’s not how any of this works. The Constitution doesn’t give presidents any role in amending it, much less by tweeting. . . . Congress has long been understood to have the power to set a time limit for ratification. There were good reasons for the time limit. In the 1970s, proponents argued that the ERA was needed because it was unclear that the Constitution already banned sex discrimination; today, the Supreme Court routinely rules that it does. Then, proponents reassured sceptics that the ERA had nothing to do with topics such as abortion or gay rights, let alone transgenderism; today’s proponents say that these are exactly why we need the ERA. Many state legislatures are run by very different parties and coalitions than those that were in power in the 1970s.

There's nothing stopping you, ERA fans, from simply trying again, from scratch. You know, like Ruth Bader Ginsburg advocated, and thought necessary.

C.J. Ciaramella, who (according to his blurb) has graced the pages of (among others) Vice, The Weekly Standard, High Times, Salon, The Federalist, Pacific Standard, The Washington Post, The Daily Beast, the San Diego Union-Tribune, and Street Sense, is also dismayed: Biden attempts to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment by blog post. He bends over backwards to be fair …

There is a legitimate argument that deadlines for ratification are inconsistent with Article V of the Constitution, but wishcasting the ERA into the Constitution is bad constitutional process and will further muddy the legal waters. The fact that Biden only announced he believes the ERA is the "law of the land" five years after it allegedly became so—and in the final days of his term—but declined to ever do anything to enforce or publish it, says everything about the seriousness of his position and the seriousness of his presidency.

Similarly, Jonah Goldberg believes that Biden's argument, such as it is, originates from someplace the sun fails to illuminate: Pulling It Out of Uranus. On what Joe has "long believed":

Say what you will about Biden, the man can keep a secret. In his statement, Biden says that it became the 28th Amendment almost exactly five years ago when the Commonwealth of Virginia ratified it on January 27, 2020. 

From that time until now, Biden has said pretty much nothing about this belief. That’s kind of a weird conviction to keep under your hat all this time. 

That is, unless, like almost everybody else, he didn’t think Virginia’s ratification of the ERA was anything other than symbolic until recently. Heck, the New York Times story on Virginia’s symbolic ratification of the ERA uses the word symbolic in the subhead and the first sentence. If the Times thought there was a shot at the ratification being something other than symbolic at the time, it would have flooded the zone with “let’s make this happen” coverage. Again, if they thought this was possible, the newspaper might even have asked Joe Biden what he thought about it, given that he was running for president at the time.

As a bonus, Jonah looks to the scatalogical gigglefest that is the Uranus Fudge Factory website. If President Dotard is looking for a retirement gig, he could, and probably will, do worse than employment as a fudge packer there.

And if you're looking for a sane take on the controversy, here's a Statement on the Equal Rights Amendment Ratification Process from Archivist of the United States Dr. Colleen Shogan and Deputy Archivist William J. Bosanko. (Which is linked by a number of folks cited above.) Excerpt:

In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.

By the way: my state's Senator Jeanne Shaheen tweeted her agreement with Biden's vandalism. And here's my reply:

Also of note:

  • "Worthwhile Canadian Initiative" That's the boring headline standard; Charles Blahous doesn't quite get there with Brookings’ Constructive Social Security Proposal.

    The U.S. Social Security system has been sinking into deepening trouble of late, its finances heading towards collapse, and with fewer friends in positions of power willing to do anything about it. There was once a time (the 1970s and 1980s) when each party’s leadership cared enough about Social Security to join in making politically difficult decisions to preserve its solvency. Unfortunately, a political schism emerged in the 2000s and 2010s, during which time only fiscal conservatives remained willing to sound the alarm, while progressives took to denying the reality of Social Security’s worsening condition. More recently, even purported conservatives have become increasingly unwilling to step forward and call for solutions.

    But on January 3, the Social Security Administration’s chief actuary released an analysis, requested by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), of a comprehensive reform proposal developed by Wendell Primus of the Brookings Institution. Not only is the proposal a constructive one, but it may also have the potential to jump-start a desperately needed discussion of how best to rescue Social Security from impending insolvency.

    So it's interesting. Might even be better than doing nothing! But (bad news): it relies more on tax increases than cost containment. But see what you think. Charles does a fair job in describing and commenting on the proposal.

  • Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. At least in the activity they enjoy most: ruling by decree, without effective checks and balances. George Will observes: Trump doesn’t have a mandate. But, oh, does he have executive orders. Some recent history:

    Donald Trump, reelected, promises a flurry of transformative improvements to the nation, immediately (“on Day 1”), if not sooner. He has perhaps been rereading the Federalist Papers: “To reverse and undo what has been done by a predecessor, is very often considered by a successor as the best proof he can give of his own capacity and desert” (Alexander Hamilton, No. 72).

    Four years ago, Casey Burgat of George Washington University and Matt Glassman of Georgetown University wrote in National Affairs that the presidency “changes more abruptly than other governing institutions.” A “strong disruptive incentive” grows stronger as presidents, impatiently disdaining Congress as an impediment to the flowering of their reputations, increasingly resort to achieving changes unilaterally, by executive orders.

    Barack Obama unilaterally ratified the Paris Agreement on climate change as an “executive agreement” rather than achieving something — e.g., a treaty — affirmed by Congress. Trump unilaterally undid what Obama did.

    On Inauguration Day 2021, Joe Biden’s 11-page enumeration of “Day One Executive Actions” included rejoining the Paris Agreement. And an executive order decreeing “a whole-of-government” initiative “rooting out systemic racism.” Trump’s executive orders can un-rejoin the Paris Agreement, and un-decree permeating government with racial calculations.

    We might change the National Anthem from "The Star-Spangled Banner" to "Call Me Irresponsible".

  • When will they ever learn? Speaking of famous song lyrics, Pete Seeger wrote that one. (He eventually learned that Stalin was not a nice guy and the Soviet Union was a hellhole.) But that's not important right now. When will we learn that a free people should rebel against the FDA? Jacob Sullum notes the latest: FDA proposes a de facto cigarette ban, which would expand the war on drugs.

    On its way out the door, the Biden administration has proposed a rule that would effectively ban cigarettes by requiring a drastic reduction in nicotine content. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which unveiled the proposed rule on Wednesday, says the aim is to make cigarettes unappealing by eliminating their "psychoactive and reinforcing effects."

    Jacob is pessimistic that either Trump or probable HHS Secretary RFK Jr will see the libertarian light on this.

  • Time for a new "Truth in Labeling" Law? After reading James Taranto, I think it might be a good idea: ‘Fact Checkers’ Become Rent Seekers.

    Someone at the New York Times had a little fun writing a headline last week: “Meta Says Fact-Checkers Were the Problem. Fact-Checkers Rule That False.” The allusion was to an Onion story from 1997: “Supreme Court Rules Supreme Court Rules.”

    The Onion headline was funny because it was true. Article III of the Constitution establishes that the Supreme Court rules, as the Supreme Court ruled in Marbury v. Madison (1803). The Times headline was an inside joke. Readers wouldn’t get it unless they were deeply familiar with a baneful 21st-century journalistic convention.

    The term “fact checking” has two distinct meanings in journalism—one venerable, the other recent and corrupt. The former refers to a process of self-correction in which an editorial staffer retraces a writer’s reportorial steps, inspecting and reinterviewing sources to make sure everything in the story is accurate. The New Yorker and Reader’s Digest were renowned in the industry for their rigorous fact-checking departments.

    When you hear the term today, though, it usually refers to something completely different—what the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler calls “political fact-checking.” This isn’t a behind-the-scenes quality-control practice but a subgenre of news, whose emergence Mr. Kessler dates to the founding of FactCheck.org in 2003. Political fact-checkers don’t seek to ensure that journalists tell the truth but to demonstrate that other people—principally but not only politicians—are liars.

    I keep looking for job openings for epistemologicians, but have so far come up empty. Mainly people on Twitter claiming to be one.