Our democratic laws and institutions will not protect us from Trump's excessive impulsive authoritarian personality and his conviction that he has better answers than anyone else.
The moment the Donald declares a "national emergency," a unilateral decision, then he can sidestep the many legal limits on his authority and more than 100 special provisions become available to him, including Executive Orders 10995 through 11005.
He can activate laws that allow him control domestic unrest, freeze bank accounts, deploy troops inside the country and shut down electronic communications, i.e. take control of U.S. internet traffic to block access to certain websites and make sure pro-Trump content are the top search results.
Trump knows the internet poses a threat to his re-election. In August he tweeted that the search engines were "RIGGED" to serve up negative articles about him. "I think that Google and Twitter and Facebook, they're really treading on very, very troubled territory. And they have to be careful,"
If the government were to take control of U.S. internet infrastructure, Trump could accomplish directly what he threatened to do by regulation.
Congress amended Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934 to allow the president to shut down or take control of "any facility or station for wire communication." Wire communication in 1942 meant telephone calls or telegrams. We are living in the digital era, not 1942. The implications of shutting down "wire" is not the same as hitting the world wide web kill switch and giving Trump control over U.S. internet traffic.
Trump's friends in China, Russia, and Iran have control of the internet content but for him to attempt an internet coup, lawsuits would follow and our First Amendment rulings will probably prevent from taking total control of the Web, but keep in mind that Trump would not need complete control to stop any organized political opposition.
The First Amendment, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh
Throughout history the Supreme Court was willing to allow encroachments on free speech during wartime. Geoffrey R. Stone, a constitutional-law scholar at the University of Chicago, "The progress we have made is fragile, and it would not take much to upset the current understanding of the First Amendment." The Supreme Court a number of times has either upheld such actions or while the crisis is in process finds a way to not review them.
All Trump would need is three more Supreme Court justices to allow him to exercise his presidential power over their commitment to our individual liberties.
Do you really believe that Trump won't declare an emergency for the sake of holding on to power and keeping him and his family out of jail? [4]
The rule of law, the Supreme Court, congress and the senate might not be able to save us from King Don Jon-ump.
The modern constitutions of many other countries specify when and how a state of emergency may be declared and which rights may be suspended, but the few paragraphs in U.S. Constitution dealing with threats are assigned to Congress, not the president. There is no comprehensive discussion for how to deal and govern during an emergency.
When Trump decided that he was in charge and not the governors he was attempting to exhibit leadership on a scale equal to Franklin D. Roosevelt's internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II or George W. Bush's programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
How he is perceived at managing the war on the virus is all that will matter in November. The Chinese and the WHO will get the blame for the suffering of countless Americans and endangering lives around the World.
China for releasing the virus to launch their new silk road to kill the US economy, the WHO, that failed to provide adequate warning about the coronavirus.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
