As I write this, US president Donald Trump has yet to deliver his 2020 State of the Union address. For two reasons, we don’t have to wait for that speech, or for the Democratic response, to discuss the state of the union.

First, we know that he’ll say what presidents always say (the state of the union is strong, etc., because of his policies) and that the Democratic response will be the standard opposition party response (the state of the union would be better if we were in charge).

Second, we neither need, nor can we trust, Trump or Michigan governor Gretchen Whitmer to truthfully and accurately advise us as to the state of the union. Politicians lie, and the landscape around us is littered with evidence from which we can form our own, more well-informed, opinions.

Two such pieces of evidence  — one from each “major” political party — stand out this very week.

First, the Republican Party is in the process of formally ratifying the principle of fuhrerprinzip: “Complete and total authority is vested in the Fuehrer [leader] …. The authority of the Fuehrer is not limited by checks and controls, by special autonomous bodies or individual rights, but it is free and independent, all-inclusive and unlimited.”

This ratification is evident not only in the impending vote to acquit Trump versus an air tight impeachment case, but in the results of the 2020 Republican Iowa caucuses: 97% of participants supported Trump versus all opponents, in spite of the fact that his misrule militates against virtually every principle the GOP pretended to stand for as recently as three years ago.

Second, the Democratic Party is in disarray — not just technically, as evidenced by its inability to count Iowa caucus votes in a timely manner,  but over the wrenching dilemma between offering America the status quo (a “moderate” candidate like Joe Biden or Pete Buttigieg) or the status quo on steroids ( a “progressive” candidate like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren) this November.

If the state of the union depends on partisan politics to secure Americans’ rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, it looks like we’re screwed.  Those things aren’t on credible offer from either “major” party.

The Republicans offer us enslavement to their three-year-old cult of personality; the Democrats, enslavement to their octogenarian  cult of bureaucracy. Flip a coin. Heads, authoritarianism wins; tails, freedom loses.

Or vote Libertarian and win a free country.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

The main Democratic impeachment charge against US president Donald Trump is simple: Trump attempted to pressure and/or bribe the president of Ukraine to investigate a political opponent (Joe Biden), House impeachment managers say, both for corrupt motives (to win re-election) and in violation of the law (by withholding congressionally appropriated aid).

On fact and law, the Democrats’ case is air tight. Trump publicly confessed to the actions in question, and the Government Accountability Office’s report on those actions concludes that Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

That leaves Team Trump with three defenses:

First, that the Constitution imbues the president with near-complete power over foreign policy and that this is therefore a mere matter of policy disagreement in which his opinion carries total weight. Unfortunately, the Constitution says otherwise.

Second, that Trump’s motives were pure: His actions were driven by moral outrage at the possibility of corruption. Why, he just wanted to get to the bottom of things! Unfortunately, no really one believes that, least of all those proclaiming it.

And third, that Joe Biden is himself corrupt, that he pressured Ukraine’s government to fire a prosecutor who investigated his son’s lucrative relationship with Burisma, an energy company based in Ukraine.

Let’s have a look at that allegation. Here’s a quick timeline:

Joe Biden was tasked with “overseeing” the US relationship with Ukraine in Marc 2014.

In April 2014, his son, Hunter, was hired by Burisma, and Biden traveled to Ukraine to offer $50 million in US aid. That spring, Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin opened a probe of Burisma.

In March 2016, Shokin was fired as a prosecutor.

In January 2017, Ukraine ended its investigation of Burisma after a settlement (or, some suggest, a bribe).

In January 2018, Joe Biden publicly  bragged about how he’d engineered Shokin’s firing by threatening to block $1 billion in US aid.

Looks like a pretty strong case against Biden. He probably abused his position as vice-president, at the very least to cover for his son, and perhaps for himself (was Burisma “buying influence?”).

Throughout this time,  US mainstream media covered the appearances of impropriety.

Throughout this time, Republicans controlled both houses of Congress.

Did the Republican Congress investigate Joe Biden’s possible corruption? No.

Did the Republican House attempt to impeach Joe Biden over his possible corruption? No.

In the nearly two years between Joe Biden’s public admission and the Democrats assuming control of the US House of Representatives, did the Republican Department of Justice announce an investigation of his possible corruption? No.

Republicans suddenly — and conveniently — got interested in Joe Biden’s possible corruption when a Republican president got his posterior in a sling for similar actions.

In plain English, the Republican claim here is “since we didn’t do OUR job when WE ran things, you shouldn’t do YOUR job — or ask us to do ours — now.”

I’m no lawyer, but I doubt that law schools teach the “what about HIM? He did it too!” defense. It probably doesn’t fly in criminal trials. It shouldn’t fly in an impeachment trial either.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

According to its web site, Shields of Strength “provides fashionable, functional, and durable Christian fitness jewelry and accessories.” Those items include military “dog tags” engraved with quotes from scripture and sometimes the logo of the armed forces branch the customer belongs to.

When the Military Religious Freedom Foundation complained, the Marine Corps Trademark Licensing Office ordered the company to stop combining scripture references and the Corps’ emblem.

Most commentary on the dispute centers around “religious freedom” versus “separation of church and state,” but those seem like side issues to me.

When I served in the Marine Corps, many of my comrades wore crosses, St. Christopher Medals, and other religious symbols on the same chains as their dog tags. As long as a Marine is paying to have his own custom dog tag made with such things incorporated in them rather than hanging separately, and as long as that tag includes the relevant identification information, I just don’t see the problem.

What IS the problem?

According to MCTLO, “[T]he USMC Trademark Licensing Program exists to regulate the usage of Marine Corps trademarks such as the Eagle, Globe and Anchor worldwide. ”

Even assuming the correctness of “intellectual property” claims like copyright, patent, and trademark, such claims don’t past muster when asserted by the US government or its subsidiary agencies such as the Marine Corps. This is especially true of trademarks.

While the justifications for copyright and patent law have their own clause in the US Constitution (“to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries”) US trademark law is justified in terms of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

The Marine Corps isn’t a private commercial entity. Nor should its symbols — which date back to 1868 in current form, to 1775 in various forms, and ultimately to the British marines the US based its service’s composition and mission on — be treated as the Marine Corps’ commercial property.

Just as written works created by government employees pursuant to their jobs fall into the public domain under copyright law, official government symbols should fall into the public domain under trademark law.

The Marine Corps logo is a piece of evolving history. It doesn’t belong to the Marine Corps as an organization, or even to the individual Marines who make up that organization. It belongs to all of us.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY