A teacher speaks out

This caught my eye at Daily Kos:

I have taught government for many years.  When I am not teaching government, I am usually teaching American History.   I am well aware that our history is full of problematic actions by our government.  We have too many examples of separating children from parents — in slavery, in te use of Indian Boarding Schools. In the past we taught explicitly Protestant religion in public schools, one reason Catholics founded their own system of schools.  We have a history of religious bigotry even in place where we pretend we were celebrating religious freedom. Maryland’s Act of Toleration prescribed death to anyone who denied the Holy Trinity and Jews were denied the right to hold public office in the state until the Jew Bill in 1826 gave them (but no one else) that right. We still had established religions in states, supported by tax dollars of ALL residents, until Massachusetts finally disestablished in 1833  (New Hampshire moved in that direction in 1819, but I believe that technically the law was not fully changed until 1877).  We put American citizens in concentration (not extermination) camps because of their race and heritage.  We regularly see those who proposed denying rights to those who oppose them politically (gerrymandering is only one method:  voter id laws is now the more common method, combined with making it more difficult to vote; and strip away rights of appeals, of access to counsel, use of high bail to incarcerate before conviction, etc.).

I am aware of the historic failings of American society. Yet what I see now scares me.

Many people have commented on the recent Trump tweet about denying due process to “illegal” immigrants, but missed a key part of that tweet, where Trump talked about an “invasion.”  As a teacher of government and as a student of American history that word caught my attention.  Allow me to offer the relevant portion of the Constitution, the 2nd Clause of Article I, Section 9:The

 privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

This is a restriction on Congress.  There have been cases dealing with how far a President can go going back to the Civil War period.  In Ex Parte Merryman then Chief Justice Taney ruled that Lincoln could not suspend habeas in Maryland (done to prevent secessionists whom Lincoln had arrested to prevent them from going to Annapolis to vote to secede) but it is not clear if Taney did so in his capacity as Chief Justice or as a serving judge in Maryland- in any case, Lincoln ignored the order.  Also tangentially relevant is Ex Parte Milligan, in which SCOTUS ruled (but not until 1866) that a person could not be tried in military courts/commissions when civilian courts were open and functioning.  It is worth noting that in 2006, SCOTUS ruled in Boumediene v Bush that prisoners at Guantanamo could not be denied habeas.

In the Civil War era cases, it should be clear that Congress had the right to suspend habeas because there was an insurrection.

I know that most people argue that Trump’s tweets show a total ignorance of constitutional principal, but the use of the word “invasion” troubles me -I have no trouble believing that Trump may have been told (?by White House Counsel?) of the limits of suspending habeas and by using this word he is establishing the predicate to ask Congress to suspend habeas.  But would it be just for those coming across the border?  Is it too far fetched to consider that were Trump looking at the possibility of losing control of both House and Senate he might move for such power now?  After all, does not he admire Erdogan in Turkey, who took a very similar approach to guarantee his control of power.  And remember, a recent poll showed a majority of self-identified Republicans willing to suspend the 2020 election to keep Trump in power.

And later:

 I have lived 72 years.

I do not know how much longer I may have.  I hope to teach for at least five more years.  I want to continue to think and write and reflect and engage with others and try to make a difference.
I knew men who were imprisoned because they refused to violate their consciences.  I knew others, from WW II and from Vietnam, who because they chose alternative service rather than going into the military were forced into doing work intended to be humiliating and demeaning, although for them they fulfilled those responsibilities with humility and dignity.
I am going to attempt to follow my conscience.
I do not know what the costs may be for me.  That is inconsequential.
What matters is the cost to me if I do not follow this path, if I do not do what I can in my actions, words, and living, to try to “preserve and protect” the Constitution of the United States, and some sense of a nation that actually cares for all of humanity. 

Peace.

I, too, fear Trump will act in panic as he loses power, declaring martial law. It's in the man's unfortunate character.