By the time you read this column, the US House of Representatives will almost certainly have passed the following Joint Resolution:

“Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That, pursuant to section 202 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622), the national emergency declared by the finding of the President on February 15, 2019, in Proclamation 8444 (84 Fed. Reg. 4949) is here-by terminated.”

The fake “emergency” in question powers US president Donald Trump’s plan to divert money appropriated for other purposes to  his pet “border wall” project (he used to swear up and down he’d find a way to make Mexico pay for the wall, but those days are clearly over).

The resolution’s chances of passage by the US Senate are not quite as good, but the possibility exists.

After which, there are the absolute certainties that first, Trump will veto the resolution and second, neither house of Congress will be able to drum up the votes needed to override that veto.

Most news accounts mention that last part, but emphasize the notion that this Joint Resolution constitutes a damaging “rebuke” to the president.

In fact, it’s just a cowardly way for Congress to avoid doing what it should do by pretending that it did “something,” then go back to business as usual while Trump proceeds merrily on his wall-obsessed way.

Congressional Democrats started talking up impeachment before Trump was even inaugurated. They’ve spent  two full years on various investigations of their own and on promoting the prospect that Special Counsel Robert Mueller would get them the goods.

Now Democrats have a majority in the House and Trump has served them up, on a veritable silver platter, a clear-cut, air-tight, irrefutable case for his own impeachment.

Twice in the last two months, Congress has denied Trump funding for his wall, weathering the longest partial “government shutdown” in US history rather than give it to him in December and denying it a second time with the funding bill he signed in February.

Congress saying “no” when the president asks for money is not an “emergency.” He only gets to spend the money they give him, and he only gets to spend that money on the things they’ve told him he can spend it on.

As Article I, Section 9 of the US Constitution puts it, “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” That’s one of many provisions in the Constitution that make the US a representative democracy with separation of powers rather than a monarchy or dictatorship.

Trump’s declaration of a fake “national emergency” was actually a declaration that he is now an absolute monarch, a dictator, no longer accountable to Congress for his actions.

If that’s not covered by the Constitution’s “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” clause outlining grounds for impeachment, what is?

And if Congress isn’t prepared to respond accordingly, why should they — or we — bother with the continuing charade that they, or the law, matter at all?

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

• “Congress’s Cowardly ‘Emergency’ Rebuke,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 02/26/19
• “Congress’s Cowardly ‘Emergency’ Rebuke,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader [Iowa], 02/26/19
• “The cowardly ’emergency’ rebuke from Congress,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Montgomery, West Virginia Herald, 02/27/19
• “Congress’s cowardly ‘Emergency’ rebuke isn’t all they can do,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Claremont, New Hampshire Eagle Times, 02/28/19
• “Congress’s Cowardly ‘Emergency’ Rebuke,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 02/28/19
• “Congress’ cowardly emergency rebuke,” by Thomas L. Knapp, South Florida Times [print edition], 02/28/19
• “Congress’s Cowardly ‘Emergency’ Rebuke,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 03/01/19

As February draws to an end, rumors abound that we’re about to see Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Or at least that someone — namely, newly confirmed US Attorney General William Barr — is about to see that report.  The rest of us, maybe not so much.

“I don’t know at the end of the day what will be releasable,” Barr told the US Senate during his January confirmation hearing.  “I am going to make as much information available as I can consistent with the rules and regulations.”

That’s not good enough.

Robert Mueller has spent nearly two years and more than $25 million supposedly getting to the bottom of the “Russian meddling” claims — claims that have, both before and throughout his tenure, roiled the news cycle and called the integrity of American elections into question.

Mueller may answer to Barr, but both he and Barr claim to work for the public. And that money didn’t come out of Mueller’s pockets or Barr’s. It came out of your pocket and was supposedly spent on your behalf.

That report is, by any reasonable standard, your property.

Not Mueller’s. Not Barr’s. Not President Trump’s. Not Congress’s. Yours.

You should be able to read every last word of it. If you want to, anyway.

Congressional Democrats are all over this, and we know why — they expect the report to condemn President Trump to one degree or another. While it may stop short of the most overheated claims (like the idea cultivated by former acting FBI director Andrew McCabe  and others that Trump could be an actual Russian agent), they hope it will at least reveal damning evidence of collusion between Trump’s presidential campaign and Vladimir Putin’s regime, finally getting 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton off the hook for her poorly run campaign and embarrassing loss.

US Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is already threatening to subpoena Mueller and sue for release of the report, with any redactions made by Congress rather than by the Department of Justice. That’s a start, but it’s not good enough either. No redactions are permissible. We shouldn’t just see the parts of the report that Schiff wants us to see because they support Schiff’s preferred conclusions.

If these two years of “Russiagate” theatrics have really been about getting at the truth and not just about embarrassing Donald Trump or even removing him from office while redeeming Clinton’s reputation, well, let’s have a look at the report sans edits by Barr OR Schiff and see whether or not WE think it does those things.

The era of public permissiveness regarding government secrecy is — or at least should be — over.

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

• “Mueller Report: Secrecy Shouldn’t Be an Option,” by Thomas L. Knapp, River Cities’ Reader [Iowa], 02/24/19
• “Mueller Report: Secrecy Shouldn’t be an Option,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Antiwar.com, 02/25/19
• “Mueller Report: Secrecy Shouldn’t be an Option,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 02/25/19
• “Mueller Report: Secrecy Shouldn’t be an Option,” by Thomas L. Knapp, CounterPunch, 02/26/19
• “Secrecy shouldn’t be an option,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Orangeburg, South Carolina Times & Democrat, 02/27/19
• “Mueller report demands disclosure,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Wilson, North Carolina Times, 02/28/19
• “Mueller Report: Secrecy Shouldn’t be an Option,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Ventura County, California Citizens Journal, 03/04/19
• “The Mueller Report: Secrecy shouldn’t be an option,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Southgate, Michigan Press & Guide, 03/08/19
• “The Mueller Report: Secrecy shouldn’t be an option,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Southgate, Michigan News-Herald, 03/08/19

On January 23,  the US National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service released its “interim report”  following up with hearings for public comment in February.

The Commission’s motto, or at least the sentiment expressed in large font at the top of its web site, is “Strengthening American Democracy Through Service.” But the report itself bespeaks a working definition of “American democracy” completely at odds with both long-held American standards of freedom and basic rule of law.

The commission reports that it is “considering ways to implement universal service, such as …. Establish[ing] a norm for every American to devote at least a full year to either military, national, or public service; and Requir[ing] all Americans to serve, with a choice in how to satisfy the requirement.”

As a matter of law, that last suggestion was — or at least SHOULD have been — settled in 1865 with the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the US Constitution: “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”

As a matter of the values for which Americans rose up and fought their revolution, they are clearly laid out in the Declaration of Independence: “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 …”

Put differently — and this is a universal, not merely American, moral claim — your life belongs to you, not to the state.

The state has no legitimate power to take your life, or any portion of it, from you, nor any legitimate power to force you to serve its goals rather than seeking after your own happiness.

“Mandatory national service” is slavery, full stop. It’s a moral abomination with no conceivable justification in anything resembling a free society, and under the US Constitution in particular it is clearly and unambiguously illegal.

And yes, that includes the military draft, contrary to the sophistry of the US Supreme Court’s Chief Justice Edward Douglass White, Jr. in 1918’s Arver v. US ruling upholding that institution in World War One.

If anything, a military draft is even more repugnant than non-military “mandatory national service” insofar as it goes beyond deprivation of liberty and pursuit of happiness and, as a matter of policy, places the draftee’s very life in danger.

The full brief of any legitimate National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service, properly understood as a matter of both morality and law, would be to  recommend that Congress abolish the Selective Service System and its mandatory draft registration scheme.

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

• “Mandatory National Service: ‘Strengthening American Democracy’ by Ignoring Americans’ Rights,” by Thomas L. Knapp, OpEdNews, 02/22/19
• “‘National service’ mandate would be unlawful,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Wilson, North Carolina Times, 02/24/19
• “‘Strengthening American Democracy’ by ignoring Americans’ rights,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Richmond, North Carolina Observer, 02/26/19
• “Mandatory national service: ‘Strengthening American Democracy’ by ignoring Americans’ rights,” by Thomas L. Knapp, Fayette, West Virginia Tribune, 03/20/19