The Supreme Court and the Shadow Docket

Introduction

In the past months the media has occasionally mentioned the Supreme Court and its Shadow Docket. This tool has become important to the Trump administration as it attempts to deal with lower court decisions that hamper the President’s agenda. Examples include the deployment of federal troops to support ICE operations, and the court ordered payments for the SNAP program.

The Merit Docket

The Supreme Court has used two approaches to hearing cases. The first is the merit docket. This traditional docket involves a Court review to determine on merit the 60 to 70 cases that the Court will consider during any given year. In making this decision, the Court hears briefs and holds oral arguments. If the case is heard, the Court then issues its opinion explaining its reasoning, usually with dissents and concurrences. The process involved transparency and shows informed decision-making.

The Shadow Docket

The second track is the shadow docket. The traditional view of the shadow docket is simple. The Supreme Court rules on procedural matters such as scheduling and injunctions. Most of the time these cases, as noted above, deal with due dates for briefs, or a request to halt a lower court’s orders. These cases are not under intensive review and do not require oral arguments. Generally, the decisions have no explanation and often lead to questions about the rationale for the decision. As noted by Stephen Vladeck in his testimony before Congress, “Owing to their unpredictable time, their lack of transparency, and their usual inscrutability, these ruling come both literally and figurative in the shadows.”

The Growing Problem with the Shadow Docket

The term “shadow docket” was first used by University of Chicago law professor Will Baude in 2015. He used it to refer to the docket of work at the Supreme Court that almost no one noticed. This work consists of thousands of decisions usually handed down as an “order” by a single judge, usually the Circuit Judge for a particular district. Sometimes, the order reflects the opinion of the entire Court. Of course, routine decisions can be made without all of the justices hearing all the arguments. The current issue is that the justices are sometimes granting relief in contentious cases. The problem is that cases which had been determined as significant are now being decided in the “shadows.”

Significant Issues Decided or Blocked by the Shadow Docket

The shadow docket decisions have included gerrymandering, environmental regulations, and abortion. And in many cases, the administration has filed an emergency motion where the administration seeks to suspend or reverse lower court decisions, even while the case is ongoing! Emergency actions are supposed to be rare. They are considered by the Supreme Court when the lower court ruling could cause irreparable harm. Justice Elena Kaga has said that the court has gone “astra” making the “Court’s emergency docket not for emergencies at all …… only another place for merits determination—except made without full briefing and argument.”

Why is This Change a Problem?

Use of the shadow docket process runs against the historic record of transparency and rule of law generally associated with the Supreme Court. The Court has historically allowed the lower courts to establish facts and make determinations on cases. The Court then receives full briefings on the lower court case, holds oral arguments from both sides of the issue, and decides on an outcome, providing details of the decision-making process (including dissenting and supporting opinions). This process has been the backbone of the Court’s legitimacy with the American people.

It is no wonder that the American public is beginning to question the Court’s objectivity. Shadow docket decisions do not have the transparent look of the merit docket. Decisions are being rendered with little or no reasoning given. This has fed the believe that the Court has become more political in its decision making.

In addition, the concept of case law, which has guided lower courts in their decision making, has become difficult to follow. Federal judges often cannot agree on what weight to give shadow docket decisions. This has played out in the confusion over Trump’s immigration policies and his use of the military to support ICE.

The Consequences

District Judges are not only having problems applying case law or knowing the Supreme Court’s message, but they are also resigning out of frustration. One example is Judge Mark Wolf, U.S. District Judge for the Massachusetts District, who has resigned after many years on the bench. He has expressed his frustration with the erosion of prosecutorial independence, attacks on the Constitution, and rule of law by the current administration. Wolf was appointed by President Reagan in 1989 and was a major jurist in the Watergate Affair.

Conclusion

The shadow docket is likely being misused as a matter of political expedience. It is up to the Justices to reign in this practice and recognize that matters which the administration views as emergencies should be allowed to play out through the normal appeals process.

The Trump Administration and The Bill of Rights

The Future is in the Supreme Court’s Hands

One of the most important written documents in American history is the Constitution. And within the Constitution is the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. These amendments spell out the limitations of our government by the people as well as the rights of the people. Has the Trump administration adhered to our founding father’s vision of a nation ruled by the people and for the people? A look at how well the administration has followed the tenants of the Bill of Rights gives a clear picture of an administration that has no interest in these important rights and limitations! It will be up to the Supreme Court to determine just how far the administration can push the letter of the law!

The First Amendment relates to religion, free speech, and assemblage. The government should make no laws establishing a preferred religion or prohibiting the exercise of religion. Today, Christian Nationalism fails to allow for the exercise of religion other than that of Christians. Laws requiring Christian references have been passed in several states. Usually, they are found unconstitutional when reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Free speech is guaranteed. However, under the current administration, speech which does not conform to the standards set by the President has been under attack. Comedians making jokes about the administration are regularly attacked by the President and his surrogates. Colbert, Kimel, and O’Fallon are just a few who have had to pay a price for making jokes about the President and his administration. The President has even issued an executive order that prohibits flag burning, despite a previous Supreme Court decision that makes it a form of free speech. In the last few days, he has reiterated that anyone burning the flag should be in jail for one year! Furthermore, the press is being stifled with threats from the Federal Communications Commission following our President’s disapproval of news coverage. ABC recently settled a lawsuit regarding free speech rather than paying the price to defend the corporation and jeopardize a pending multi-million-dollar merger with Nexstar.

Freedom of assemblage is being taken away as the President sends national guard and/or federal troops to Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and other cities where demonstrations around Immigration Customs Enforcement protest the government’s attack on immigration. As of this writing, federal judges have blocked the deployment pending hearing legal responses from the federal government.

The Second Amendment concerns the Militia (National Guard). The “Guard” is highly regarded and regulated by law and decades of precedents. Our President is using powers granted to him to control insurrections or enforce federal laws to create unrest where there are no insurrections and the enforcement of federal laws are not being forcefully ignored. The right to bear arms is not under attack by the administration.

The Third Amendment concerns quartering of troops. It has little application in today’s world. The administration, so far, has not tried to place troops in private homes or businesses. Although, ICE has trespassed on private property in the pursuit of illegals.

The Fourth Amendment provides for the security of people against unreasonable search and seizure. Probable cause is needed for searches and warrants. The amendment requires that warrants give a description of the place, persons, and things that can be seized. The ICE crackdown on immigrants has often failed to follow the simplest rules set forth in this amendment. People are arrested without probable cause as defined by our courts over many years. People are arrested because they do not look like “Americans”. Even children are being detained (arrested)!

The Fifth Amendment addresses the requirement for an indictment for crimes. A person must be indicted by a grand jury. In modern times, the prosecuting attorney can present the indictment. In 2025, individuals are being arrested without being indicted. There is no trial. This amendment also addresses double jeopardy; a person cannot be tried twice for the same crime. This amendment also provides for the right to not be a witness against oneself. It also requires due process before private property can be taken for public use. These three areas seem to be left alone.

The Sixth Amendment provides for a speedy and public trial by a jury of peers. This is the habeas corpus amendment. It provides for the right to call and confront witnesses. It also provides for the right to have an attorney. Many of the alleged illegal immigrants are not provided these basic rights. Many have been arrested and removed from this country without any formal hearing!

The Seventh Amendment is the double jeopardy rule. At this point this amendment is not being attacked.

The Eighth Amendment concerns bail. It cannot be excessive. It also says that the punishment cannot be cruel or unusual. In the case of ICE deportations, the charged crime of being an illegal immigrant has resulted in deportees being incarcerated in prisons in other countries or detained in deplorable detention centers here. Think Alligator Alley.

The Ninth Amendment reflects a deep philosophical commitment to the idea that liberty is not confined to what’s written in law. The rights of the people are not limited by the Constitution. The interpretation of this amendment may have bearing on current situations.

The Tenth Amendment says that the powers not given to the federal government belong to the states. Current actions regarding the use of national guard and federal troops are beyond what the founding fathers likely believed. Their creation of posse comitatus and the Insurrection Act have limited the use of our military. While there are exceptions to both, the current situations as viewed by our president go beyond what the rationale person would accept as insurrections or a need to enforce federal law.

In conclusion, the decisions made by the Trump administration need to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. We can only hope that justice prevails over political pressures!

Cents or Common Sense?

I often ask, “How much is enough?” How much wealth is enough for a person to live a good life? Is it $100,000, $1,000,000, billions, and now in some cases trillions? Most of our founding fathers were educated, skilled, and diverse in their financial status. They chose to create a constitution that guaranteed equality of opportunity and equal treatment of individuals. While slaves were not considered equals and women were not given any rights, these men were people of their time and represented a vision of the future where the people would govern themselves with equal voices. Is the pursuit of wealth what our founding fathers visualized when they established this great republic? NO, their vision was about equal opportunity, not the accumulation of vast wealth and the power that comes from having it.

The America That was Planned.

The Constitution, written by our founding fathers as our “blueprint,” stressed individual freedom through a representative democracy. The “people” were to be the government. The assumption was that an educated electorate would choose the best candidates to represent their interests. The founding fathers tried to draft a document that would allow the people to make decisions. However, several of these same authors also had a skeptical view of the future. They warned about greed and consolidation of power. Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Franklin were very vocal about their concerns. Franklin is quoted as saying, “We have a democratic republic, can we keep it?” Some people with wealth and power have been trying to control government decision making for decades. And in 1958, Dwight Eisenhower warned in his farewell speech, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”

What is America About in the 21^st Century?

In the 21^st Century, success varies depending on the individual. Those with gifts for business control the decisions that Congress makes through lobbyists and PACTS. The control of government by vested business is not new. By 1900, “robber barons” influenced many government decisions. This influence was eventually limited during two presidencies—Theodore Roosevelt and Franklin Roosevelt. However, over the decades following WWII, business interests have once again been able to exert excessive influence over our leaders.

Do we value wealth over our freedom of expression, and the ability to live life as we choose as long as we do no harm to others? The relationship between money, happiness, and freedom is complex. Can money buy happiness? According to one study, the answer is “yes” for 59% of Americans (72% of Millennials and 67% of Gen Z). Most associate a “Return on Happiness” with on-time bill payment (67%), being debt-free (65%), affording everyday luxuries without worry (54%), and owning a home (45%). Half of people say contentment is found in spending on experiences with those they cherish (53%) and in optimism for what’s next, including retiring on their own terms (37%).

However, many also recognize that financial stress can hinder overall happiness, with 73% of Americans reporting that they experience financial stress. In the current environment, people estimate that they will have to delay their expected retirement by three years (to age 63), on average. Economic pressures like inflation (81%), rising costs (81%), interest rates (66%), and student loans (32%) are dampening a sense of prosperity. Half of the people say they carry debt (54% of Gen Z, and 72% of Gen X), and 36% state that they could not handle an unforeseen expense over $500 without real worry (Empower Press, November 20,2023).

Apathy

However, as Noam Chomsky said, “As long as the general population is passive, apathetic, diverted to consumerism or hatred of the vulnerable, then the powerful can do as they please.” When the average American could have a nice home, car, truck, boat, and the ability to take vacations, then no one paid attention to the what the government was doing unless it impacted them directly.

In America, political apathy is a problem. In the United States, turnout for presidential elections places the country in 31st place out of 49 nations where data is available. During the 1800s, on average, 70% of Americans voted in presidential elections. Since 1900 the average has been consistently around 62-64%. The highest turnout was in the Hayes/Tilden race of 1876 with an 83% turnout. By the 21^st Century, apathy was common.

Donald Trump entered the Republican primary in June 2015. His campaign slogan was “Make America Great Again (MAGA)!” He won! Still, while Trump accurately claimed the election saw the largest number of voters to ever vote, voter turnout, at approximately 60%, was not great. The MAGA movement believes the U.S. was once great but has declined due to foreign influence. It supports “America first” policies, economic protectionism, reduced immigration, and what it regards as traditional American values, some of which involve discriminatory policies. In 2016, the MAGA movement made it clear that many Americans were concerned about the “extreme liberal” direction of the nation and the impact that it might have on their lives. The leaders of the movement stressed the “good old days” when Americans were patriots with Christian values. Opportunity existed for all if they would just work for it. They believed that government had become a tool for the left thinking socialists/communists. These left leaning leaders gave handouts to, and created opportunities for those who were not prepared or deserving.

Under President Donald Trump, America has now arrived at a critical point in determining what this nation represents. Are we going to step up and be about personal freedom or are we going to allow monied interests to control our government and our lives? Americans need to decide what is the ideal balance of wealth and power versus happiness and freedom for all.

Donald Trump’s Use of the Court System as a Tool to Implement His Objectives

It should come as no surprise that President Trump has been counting on his use of the court system to allow his administration to pursue his objectives despite legal challenges. Donald Trump and his businesses are not novices when it comes to using the court system to their advantage. Since 1973, Donald Trump’s businesses have been involved in over 4,000 federal and state legal cases. The cases run the gamut from real estate issues to personal defamation. His businesses have been involved in over 100 tax cases. In 2022 the Trump Organization was convicted on 17 criminal charges. (Jacobs, Shayna, “Trump Organization Convicted in N.Y. Criminal Tax Fraud Trial,” Washington Post, December 6, 2022). Donald Trump has been to court for accusations of sexual harassment and assault. The E. Jean Carrol case decision founds him guilty and fined him $80 million. (Stempel, Jonathan, “US Judge Upholds 83.3 Million Defamation Loss, Rejects New Trial,” Reuters, April 25, 2024). In January 2023, he was fined nearly $1 million because the judge found him to be “a prolific and sophisticated litigant who repeatedly using the courts to seek revenge on political adversaries. Haberman, Maggie (January 31, 2023) “Trump’s Well-Worm Legal Playbook Starts to Look Frayed,” Vanity Fair.

While many MAGA supporters would say that the Democrats have used the justice system to persecute Donald Trump, his record of problems with the government, other businesses, and people precede his interest in politics by several decades. Most cases in which Donald Trump has been involved were before he announced his candidacy for President.

Still, since January 2025, hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against the current Trump administration. These lawsuits challenge various executive orders and actions taken by the administration, including those by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) led by Elon Musk. The courts have blocked the administration in several cases, and many of these cases are currently under appeal.

A litigation tracker by Just Security has recorded a total of 378 cases against the Trump administration’s actions. Out of these, 25 actions have been blocked, 77 temporarily blocked, and 17 blocked pending appeal. Additionally, 146 cases are still awaiting court rulings.

One notable case is Taylor v. Trump, where a group of individuals whose federal death sentences were commuted by President Biden are challenging an executive order by President Trump. This order directed the Attorney General to evaluate their imprisonment conditions and resulted in their indefinite incarceration at a federal supermax prison. Other significant cases where his efforts have been blocked include a legal challenge to a birthright citizenship executive order and challenges to suspending his asylum executive order. Immigration advocacy groups argue that the executive order violates the Constitution. Other cases where bans on executive orders are in place include challenges to suspending the Refugee Program. Plaintiffs argue that the executive order violates the Fifth Amendment. A federal appeals court ruled in March that Trump can partially enforce the refugee ban. And another case fights the Deportation of the Boulder, Colorado attack suspect’s family. A federal judge in Colorado halted the deportation of the wife and five children of Mohamed Soliman, who is facing a hate crime charge in the wake of a firebombing attack in Colorado. The ruling will remain in effect until a scheduled hearing. While President Trump has had his actions challenged and blocked, he has also had success with the Supreme Courts decision on Executive Immunity and most recently in the civil judgement in New York where the fine of $50 million for fraud was overturned by the appellate court.

Summary of Total number of cases currently tracked by Just Security: 381.

Case Status Summary:
Case Closed in Favor of Plaintiff: 1
Blocked: 25 (When a case is described as “blocked,” it means that a court has issued an order preventing the enforcement or implementation of a specific action or policy. This can happen for various reasons, such as the court finding that the action or policy is likely to be unconstitutional, violates existing laws, or causes irreparable harm.)
Temporarily Blocked: 77
Blocked Pending Appeal: 17
Temporarily Blocked in Part or Temporary Block Denied in Part: 11
Temporary Block Denied: 38
Not Blocked, Pending Appeal: 34
Awaiting Court Ruling: 147
Case Closed: 22
Misc: Transferred: 2
Case Closed/Dismissed in Favor of Government: 7

The End Game

For over 50 years, Donald Trump has used the courts, mostly to his advantage. When a court finds against his position, he appeals. If the appeal fails, he appeals to the next higher court. This is a delaying tactic that often results in a settlement where Donald Trump can claim a victory even if it costs him. The tactic has allowed him time to proceed with his agenda while the legality plays out in court. To improve his chances of favorable outcomes, he has discovered a tactic to appoint judges who are loyal to him to positions where he may have cases heard. In an Augst 19, 2025 article in Politico, Erica Orden notes that President Trump is circumventing the Senate to install top federal prosecutors who are loyalists. According to Orden, when Trump’s nominees can’t be confirmed by the Senate, he temporarily installs an interim US Attorney. This person can serve for 120 days (4 months). When the term ends, District Judges can reject the appointment. The Trump administration has chosen to ignore the District Judges and reappoint his selected federal attorney for an additional 120 days (Orden, Erica, “Trump Bypasses the Senate—and the Courts—to install loyal US Attorneys,” Politico, August 19, 2025).

One of the most recent cases involved New Jersey, where Alina Habba, one of Trumps personal lawyers was appointed to serve and then nominated for the permanent position of federal prosecutor. Habba was the attorney involved in the detention of Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and Representative LaMonica McIver when they attempted to visit an immigration detention center (Catalini, Mike, “Judge Says Former Trump Lawyer Alina Habba has been Unlawfully Serving as US Attorney in New Jersey,” Associated Press, August 19, 2025). On August 20, 2025, US District Judge Matthew Brann ruled that Habba was acting Illegally as the US attorney for New Jersey. President Trump’s illegal effort to bypass Congress was noted by the Judge. Cases overseen by Habba after her illegal appointment are now being appealed by defendants in those cases (Rivard, Ry, “The Fallout from the Alina Habba Ruling has Begun” Politico, August 22, 2025).

Conclusion

How the battle for the courts will play out is anyone’s guess. However, it is worth noting that President Trump’s team, even with its delaying tactics is losing more often than winning. The issue to be considered is the damage done to the system and the agencies impacted by the administration actions while the courts decide whether the actions are Constitutional!

The Use of Federal Troops and Officers for State and Local Law Enforcement

The recent use of the National Guard, and active-duty Marines in Los Angeles, and Federal Park Police in Washington, D.C., raises the question of when, where and how federal agencies and the military can be used for general law enforcement activities outside their normal assigned responsibilities. While the Pentagon ended the deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops in Los Angeles on July 15, 2025, 300 national guard soldiers are still deployed. These troops were initially sent to deal with protests over the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. Neither Governor Newsom nor Mayor Bass requested the use of the guard in dealing with localized protests and looting. The 700-person Marine unit has been recalled. Then, on August 12, 2025, approximately 800 National Guard troops and National Park Police were deployed to Washington, D.C, under President Donald Trump’s orders to combat crime and homelessness. This deployment included members of the Guard’s 273rd Military Police Company. In addition, three states are sending additional guard troops to support the District Guard.

As a career law enforcement officer, trainer, educator, and administrator, I was shocked to see the events in Los Angeles and Washington unfold using federal officers and military personnel. Most law enforcement personnel are familiar with the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 (18 U.S.C. § 1385). This act prohibits the use of the military to enforce domestic laws unless expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. It was passed after the Civil War Reconstruction to prevent federal troops from policing civilian populations in the South. The term posse comitatus comes from Latin, meaning “power of the county.” Historically, it referred to a sheriff’s ability to summon civilians to help enforce the law. The Act specifically prohibits direct law enforcement by military personnel (e.g., arrests, searches, seizures). The use of the military as a domestic police force without legal authorization is not allowed.

The Trump administration has justified its actions citing the Insurrection Act of 1807. The Act provides notable statutory exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. The Insurrection Act allows the president to deploy troops to suppress insurrections or enforce federal laws when requested by a state governor or when rebellion makes enforcement of laws impossible. In general, an insurrection refers to an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government. It involves a group of people rising in active resistance to the enforcement of laws or the functioning of the government.

Historically, the Supreme Court has intervened interpreting the Posse Comitatus Act. In the United States v. Red Feather (1975) the Court upheld the concept that indirect support (e.g., equipment) does not violate the Act. However, in United States v. McArthur (1982) the Court found that military involvement in a drug investigation crossed the line into unlawful enforcement.

It is important to note that The National Guard is not regarded as a federal agency and is under individual state authority.Governors can use their National Guard units for law enforcement support within their state or, if invited, in neighboring states.

It is equally important to note that the Supreme Court has said that the military can be used inIndirect support of law enforcement activities—like sharing intelligence, training, or loaning equipment. But direct involvement in arrests or investigations is not allowed.

The Insurrection Act has been used eight times since its passage. President Abraham Lincoln activated state militias to fight the secessionist states of the Confederacy (1861-1865). President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed federal troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce the desegregation of public schools (1957). President Lyndon B. Johnson deployed federal troops to protect civil rights marchers in Alabama during the desegregation of southern schools (1957). President Jimmy Carter deployed federal troops to manage the influx of Cuban refugees in Florida (1980). President George H. W. Bush deployed federal troops to restore order during the Los Angeles Riots following the Rodney King verdict (1992). President George W. Bush deployed federal troops to assist with disaster relief efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (2005). (History of U.S. Troop Deployments 1950-2023, Hoover Institution) President Donald Trump deployed troops as noted in the introductory paragraph (2025).

As noted earlier, the National Guard is currently active in Washington, D.C., with approximately 800 troops deployed to support law enforcement and community safety efforts. The D.C. National Guard has a unique status, as it is the only National Guard unit that reports directly to the President of the United States. This structure allows for rapid deployment in response to emergencies or national security needs. The question is “Is there an emergency?”. The President claims he needs to remove homeless people and stop the crime epidemic. There is no crime epidemic. There are many cities in America that have higher crime rates than in the District. According to his own FBI National Crime Report, overall crime is down, not only in the District, but nationwide.

What transpired in Los Angeles was challenged as illegal. Only Governor Newsom has the authority to call out the Guard. The Insurrection Act allows the President to use the military when there is an insurrection or to enforce federal laws when requested by the state governor. There was no insurrection where the enforcement of law was impossible and there was NO request from Governor Newsom for assistance from the California National Guard.

As a result of the federal government’s action, Governor Newsom filed a lawsuit against the federal government. The request by Newsom for an injunction was initially granted but eventually overturned by the Appellate Court. The Department of Justice argued that the Posse Comitatus Act does not apply, there was no precedent for such a lawsuit, there was no injunctive relief or money damages, and that Newsom and the State had suffered no harm. That case was adjudicated on August 13, 2025 and is still being reviewed by U. S. District Judge Charles Breyer.

While the call out of the National Guard in D.C. is within the President’s authority, that authority is to only respond to emergencies and national security threats. As of this writing, numerous groups are questioning Trump’s justification. There is NO emergency! Crime is down in the District as well as the nation, as reported by Trump’s own Justice Department. Lawsuits will likely be filed. However, Trump has historically shown a tendency to use the courts to his advantage. Court actions generally move slowly, allowing Trump to continue his activities unless an injunction is approved.

Of greater concern is President’s Trump’s comments about using the Guard in other cities. Right now, there is NO national emergency, no major uptick in crime, and no rebellion. The founding fathers did not want a national police force. The significant laws are the Insurrection Act of 1807, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The Trump administration is pushing the limits when they claim that the guard can be used beyond a logistics mission. While pending lawsuits will likely make this clear, as noted above, it has been Donald Trump’s strategy to use the courts to gain time.

It is time for concerned citizens to get involved by calling, texting, emailing or writing representatives and senators. Push Congress to act. It is time to “call out” the illegal behavior of the Trump administration before it is too late. Continued peaceful protests with widespread media coverage can be helpful, if the media finally engages. Trusted media sources must speak up along with our concerned citizens.

Is History Repeating Itself?

The Gilded Age and Robber Barons

Historical Context

The Gilded Age (roughly 1870-1900) was infamous for its blatant corruption. Political machines like Tammany Hall in New York City thrived on bribery, patronage, and voter manipulation. This age was notorious for political corruption, with officials often influenced by wealthy business interests. Business tycoons wielded immense influence over politicians, often securing favorable legislation in exchange for financial support. The term “robber barons” emerged to describe these industrialists who exploited both workers and the political system. Thus, Americans saw extreme wealth concentration among industrial magnates like Rockefeller and Carnegie. Rockefeller and Carnegie amassed fortunes largely unchecked by government regulation. These wealthy businessmen focused on domestic industrialization. The wealth gap between industrial tycoons and ordinary workers was staggering. The era was marked by rapid technological advancement that reshaped society. Railroads connected the country, electricity revolutionized production, and factories mechanized manufacturing.

Reform efforts during this time included the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883, which aimed to curb patronage by requiring government jobs to be awarded based on merit rather than political connections. However, progress was slow, and corruption remained deeply entrenched. Populist movements were frequent, and debates over government intervention in the economy were just beginning. It wasn’t until President T. Roosevelt became president, that real reform began.

Does any of this sound familiar? The Gilded Ageand today share striking similarities, particularly in terms of economic inequality, technological innovation, and political dynamics.

Similarities?

Wealth Disparity: The Rockefellers, Morgans, Goulds, Vanderbilts, and Carnegies controlled over 50% of the nation’s real and personal property during the late 1900s. Today, billionaires like Elon Musk, Warren Buffet, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos hold immense economic power. Wealth inequality in the U.S. has been steadily increasing over the past several decades. The top 1% of Americans now control 31% of the nation’s wealth. In 1963, the wealthiest families had 36 times the wealth of middle-class families. By 2022, that gap had widened to 71 times. In 1983, white families had about $320,000 more wealth than Black and Hispanic families. By 2022, that gap had grown to over $1 million.
Technological Advancements: The expansion of new technologies like railroads, electricity, and assembly line manufacturing dominated the Gilded Age. Today the U.S. leads in artificial intelligence, software development, and semiconductor production, with major investments in AI research and chip manufacturing. Solar and wind energy are expanding rapidly, driven by government incentives and growing demand for sustainable solutions. The U.S. is experiencing a resurgence in manufacturing, particularly in automotive (electric vehicles) and semiconductors.
Political Turmoil: The 1800s experienced political corruption with the Teapot Dome, Star Route postal bribery scandal, Credit Mobilier contractor bribes re Union Pacific Railroad and Panama Canal. In the 21^st Century we have witnessed the Enron scandal, Bernie Madoff, FTX, and Variety Blues. Both major political parties in the U.S. have accused each other of various forms of wrongdoing, often tied to scandals, policy decisions, and ethical concerns. Democrats have accused Republicans of voter suppression tactics, while Republicans have alleged election fraud and biased election oversight. Both parties have pointed fingers at each other over financial misconduct, misuse of campaign funds, and conflicts of interest. Democrats have accused Republicans of being influenced by foreign governments, particularly Russia, while Republicans have claimed that Democrats have ties to foreign entities that compromise our national security.
Social Movements: The Gilded Age was filled with social movements like abolition, women’s rights, temperance, Utopian societies, and reform of education and prisons, and the birth of the union movement. Today, workers have unions, labor laws, and social safety nets. Social reform continues with Black Lives Matter, MeToo, Arab Spring, LGBTQ+.
Populist Movements: The Populist Movement was driven by farmers, laborers, and reformers who sought economic and political change. The most notable populist movement was the People’s Party, founded in 1892. It emerged from the Farmers’ Alliances, which had been organizing to address issues like falling crop prices, unfair railroad practices, and debt burdens. Today we see the Tea Party movement and MAGA. The MAGA Movement focuses on prioritizing American interests in trade, immigration, and foreign policy. It advocates for stricter border control and reduced immigration, supports tariffs and policies that favor American manufacturing, emphasizes strong policing and criminal justice policies, and appeals to working-class voters who feel left behind by globalization. The Tea Party Movement 0pposes excessive government intervention in the economy, advocates for lower taxes and reduced government spending, supports deregulation and minimal government interference in business, was a major force in resisting the Affordable Care Act, and encourages decentralized political engagement.
Regulation: During the Gilded Age there was NO regulation. Thanks to anti-trust laws passed in the early 1900s, monopolies were regulated for the first time. Today, modern antitrust laws are supposed to prevent monopolies from dominating industries as they did in the late 19th century. However, many believe that antitrust enforcement has weakened over the decades, leading to increased market concentration and wealth inequality. Still, the Department of Justice recently won a landmark case against Google, ruling that the company had monopolized digital advertising markets. This suggests that regulators are still capable of acting against monopolistic behavior. However, critics argue that enforcement often lags behind rapid changes in the business landscape, making it difficult to address emerging monopolies effectively.
Globalization: The Gilded Age was about American business. While there was global trade America was focused on its own growth. Today’s economy is deeply interconnected on a global scale. America has lost much of its labor-intensive production to cheaper labor markets overseas.
Political Corruption and Reform: Political machines like Tammany Hall once controlled local government, with bribery and patronage as standard practice. National corruption was common with big money buying Congressional votes. Today, money still plays a powerful role in politics through lobbying and campaign financing. Lobbying and campaign financing allows corporations and wealthy individuals to exert significant influence over policy decisions. Super PACs (political action committees) can raise unlimited funds, often leading to concerns about the disproportionate power of money in politics.

Conclusions

My own opinion is that we are again under siege by large corporate/monied interests. The common worker is left out of the solutions. Monied interests are making gains. MAGA, through Donald Trump, promised that in the first days in office the average American would see lower prices, better wages, a return to better days, and Americanization of the United States. After 100 plus days in office, prices are not lower, wages are not better, and the numbers of unemployed have not changed. While the Trump administration claims that it has almost eliminated illegal border crossings, the way Americanization is being achieved is questionable. Courts have ruled against his executive powers used to deport illegal immigrants, or even citizens, who speak out against Israel. Public opinion remains divided on whether Trump is successful, with a minority praising his decisive actions while a majority express concern about economic instability and legal challenges to his policies. Recent polls show that Trump’s approval rating has declined as concerns over the economy and foreign policy are growing. His approval rating hovers around 45%, with some polls showing it dipping as low as 39%. Nearly 60% believe Trump’s policies are making the economy worse. Fifty-nine percentdisapprove of his administration’s tariff increases. His handling of immigration has 45% approval, but disapproval has increased. And lastly, 51%think he is relying too much on executive orders. I believe we need a 21^st Century Teddy Roosevelt!

I leave the comparison and conclusions to the reader.

Suggestions to Save America from Itself

One person’s opinion

There are many Americans across the political spectrum who believe that America has reached a crossroad. Liberals and conservatives cannot agree on policy direction. Should we focus on humanitarian issues, or should we focus on building our economic strength and hope for the trickle-down effect that Reaganomics promised? Unfortunately, too many Americans fall into this dichotomy, failing to recognize all the room that exists between these two extremes. The most unfortunate result of the focus on this dichotomy is that the real issues that Americans face are not debated.

In 2025, with the success of the MAGA movement in gaining political control, the promises of greater opportunity, prosperity, and a return to “true” American values appear to be on the horizon for those who believe in the MAGA movement. Yet, after only one hundred days in office, the prospect of a better America seems dim. Official statistics are not totally doom and gloom. Still, many middle- and lower-class Americans have a perception of food and everyday living costs soaring. The Trump administration appears to be at odds with itself. The Secretary of Treasury and the head of DOGE are reportedly less than civil with each other. Top Pentagon officials have resigned over the way that the Secretary of Defense has handled a variety of issues. The courts are being attacked for their stand on issues that many Americans see as Constitutional guarantees. The Senate, which was established to represent the states, seems to turn a blind eye to the increasing interference of the federal government with state’s rights. It also appears that the federal government is attempting to impose the administration’s values on all Americans. Attacks on private schools, using monetary blackmail, is not in America’s interest. Cutting federal services with a “chainsaw” has not brought about savings. Rather, various agencies seem to be falling into an ineffective mire due to lack of staff. Even the polls are turning against President Trump’s handling of almost all issues except for border control. This weekend’s polls (Ipsos, ABC, Washington Post, etc.) report that 55 percent of voters do not support President Trump’s leadership.

If it were up to me, how would I go about fixing our now very dysfunctional government? I would advocate for Impeachment of President Trump. While not likely to happen given the lack of courage by Republicans in our House of Representatives, I believe the organization’s success or failure starts with the person at the top of the chain of command. In the case of President Trump, I believe he has failed to show good leadership. His picks for cabinet members showed little thought for professional competence, instead focusing on personal loyalty. His attack on the economy has been a disaster. His establishment of DOGE is a total waste of effort, which has caused serious damage to a functional government 9which arguably does need serious reform).

Since Impeachment is unlikely, and other Constitutional remedies are also out of the picture, I would suggest that the Senate start to focus on doing its job. It was created as the voice of the states, just as the House was created to be the voice of the American people. The Senate has, in my opinion, lost sight of this responsibility! Too often state governors are left with the responsibility of maintaining the state’s rights. Perhaps it is time to undo the 1913 legislation (17^th Amendment) that moved the selection of state senators from the hands of the state legislature to a popular vote, in essence creating another tier of legislators who are now concerned about popular votes rather than the welfare of the states they represent.

The people’s chamber is also failing. Members of the House seem to be more focused on their parties rather than on the concerns of their voters. There was a time when representatives were picked by their neighbors and served the community. Many gave up lucrative jobs to serve. Today many representatives view the position as a job, not a service to their voters. As such, they are often focused on getting reelected to a position that guarantees a good pension after five years and access to federal medical benefits. Campaigning has become a full-time business. I would suggest that representatives serve at least three years. Salaries should be commensurate with other local business leaders. (The Current salary is $147,000.) The guarantees should be stripped away. Perhaps then representatives would serve their constituent, not monied interests and their political party.

While I have criticized our president and congress, perhaps the greatest failure has been the apathy of most Americans. Until the current situation, most Americans have not participated in governing the country that was created as a nation of “We the People.” When only 2/3 of eligible voters bother the vote in presidential elections, there is a problem. Worse yet, only 20 – 30% of eligible voters turn out for state and local elections. To aggravate this problem, most Americans are not casting an “informed” ballot. Of those that vote, many cast party ballots without careful consideration of the candidates. It takes effort to know what the issues are and where candidates stand. Complicating the issue is the problem of knowing which information is accurate! I believe American education needs to instill a sense of government responsibility in our youth. In addition, we all need to learn how to recognize “fake news” in comparison to what is factual. We need to understand what opinion is and what is news.

While that would take years before the effects are realized, we might save this democracy if enough Americans are hurt by the policies of the current administration. Americans need to take the time to learn about current government policies, the Constitution, and our history. This great nation deserves more than most have given it. All Americans need to get involved by putting pressure on their senators and representatives. Americans need to become the government of “We the People!”

Does History Repeat Itself?

A Brief History of the Rise of Adolf Hitler

In 1922, the Beer Hall Putsch occurred when Adolf Hitler led the National Socialist German Worker’s Party (Nazi Party) members in an attempted coup. Hitler demanded that German leaders support his cause, but the coup failed. Four police officers were killed, as were 14 Nazi demonstrators. Hitler was arrested the next day. He was convicted of treason and sentenced to 5 years. He served only 9 months.

Hitler learned that violent revolution was not easy, but perhaps a nonviolent political revolution might better achieve his objectives. Gleichschaltung, the “coordination of society” was a goal to change the state at every level. He continued to promote the Nazis. In 1932, the Nazi Party was able to earn 37% of the votes for the Reichstadt. The majority parties, The Communists and Social Democrats, were unable to form a governing coalition because the Nazi Party refused to deal with either group.

With the help of several wealthy Germans, Adolf Hitler persuaded President von Hindenburg to appoint him as Chancelor of the Weimar Republic (Germany) on January 30, 1933. Wealthy German industrialists played a significant role in supporting Hitler and the Nazi Party during their rise to power. In early 1933, the Nazi Party was facing financial difficulties, but German industrialists provided substantial financial backing. This support was solidified during a secret meeting in Berlin on February 20, 1933, where Hitler assured them that he would eliminate trade unions and communists, and maintain private enterprises. Their contributions helped strengthen the Nazi Party and facilitated Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor.

Hitler then started promoting the idea that he had a mandate from the German people. The Nazis were given 2 seats in Von Hindenburg’s cabinet.

In addition, Hitler put loyalists in other various position of power in 1933. Hermann Goring was made Interior Minister of Prussia, while Wilhelm Frick was Minister of the Interior. These two ministers began an attack on free speech, due process, referendums, and state’s rights.

Hitler’s agenda included a plan to revive the economy (because Germany was recovering from recession), reduce unemployment, increase military spending (which had been curbed following WWI), withdraw from international treaties, rid the country of foreign individuals who were “poisoning” the blood of the nation, and exact political revenge against those who opposed his Nazi Party.

Hitler could not move on his agenda without Parliamentary support. The Nazi Party had only 1/3 of the Parliament. The Communists, and Social Democrats held the other 2/3. To overcome this problem, Hitler called for new elections, citing the inability of Parliament to form a new government, since the Nazi Party would not cooperate with the other two parties.

In February 1933, the press began noting that Nazi policies were not changing anything for the average German. In fact, the economy had gotten worse. Hitler’s efforts to double tariffs to protect German production of grain were faltering.

Then on February 27, 1933, an arsonist burned down the Reichstag building. Hitler blamed the Communist Party. Even today, no one knows who started the fire. The Communists blamed the National Socialists. A Communist was caught at the scene. However, the fire chief reported seeing evidence of Nazi involvement.

Interestingly, Hitler appeared on the scene and is quoted as saying, “There will be no mercy now. Anyone who stands in our way will be cut down. The German people will not tolerate leniency.” The next day he issued a decree, Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State, which Von Hindenburg signed into law. This decree placed restrictions on political activities, including politics in the press. Over the next few months, the only authorized press was the Nazi Party’s Volkischer Beobachter. There were restrictions on the right to assembly, speech, and press. The police would arrest those who opposed the government. The central government also claimed power over state and local laws and governments.

On March 5, 1933, elections were held, and the Nazi Party earned 44% of the vote. Von Hindenburg was forced to accept Hitler’s increase in power. Hitler then created the Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment with Joseph Goebbels as Minister.

On March 21, Hitler issued a decree giving amnesty to Nazis convicted of crimes in what Hitler called the “battle for national renewal”.

On March 23, Hitler issues his Enabling Act, “The Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Reich.” Although all of the Social Democrats voted against it, with the Communist Party banned, the Nazi Party had enough votes to pass the legislation. This legislation gave Hitler emergency power to bypass the legislature and President. The Supreme Court did not challenge the law. Both the Parliament and Supreme Court continued to exist but became Hitler’s servants with allegiance and support.

In 1934, President Von Hindenburg died. Hitler named himself the president, Fuhrer, combining the positions of president and chancellor.

History, Hitler, and Trump

There have been several articles, media posts, and a book, claiming that President Trump is following the same blueprint that Adolf Hitler used in dismantling Germany’s democracy. Others claim that it is easy to make such claims, but that much of what is said about a Trump/Hitler connection is coincidence. Is it just a coincidence or are the parallels too similar to be ignored?

Ivana Trump, Donald Trump’s first wife, reportedly mentioned in a 1990 Vanity Fair interview that he owned a book of Adolf Hitler’s speeches entitled My New Order and kept it in a cabinet by his bed. Attorney Burt Neuborne, a leading civil rights advocate, said that in her divorce filings, Ivana claimed that he kept, annotated, and studied the material. However, Donald Trump has denied reading the speeches and stated that the book was given to him by a friend.

Hitler and Trump — Compare and Contrast

Trump was born into riches. Hitler was not.
Trump requested and received deferments for military service. Hitler served in the Bavarian Army with the rank of corporal.
Hitler’s academic performance was reportedly average at best. He struggled with subjects like mathematics and science and eventually dropped out of school before completing his education. His teachers described him as intelligent but unmotivated, and he often clashed with authority figures.
Donald Trump had a mixed academic journey. He attended the New York Military Academy during his teenage years, where he reportedly excelled in sports and leadership roles, becoming a cadet captain. Afterward, he spent two years at Fordham University before transferring to the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania, where he graduated with a degree in economics. While Trump has often claimed he was a top student at Wharton, records and accounts from classmates suggest otherwise. His name did not appear on the Dean’s List or among honors graduates. Some reports indicate he was a lackluster student who focused more on social activities than academics.
Hitler was interested in the arts, particularly architecture. He enjoyed painting and pursued a career as an artist. He failed to make a decent living, and so he entered politics.
Donald Trump is famously passionate about golf. He claims to also have an interest in reading, with some of his favorite books reportedly including The Holy Bible, The Art of War by Sun Tzu, and The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. Whether true or not, we do know that he does not like to read his daily briefings or other written materials. He prefers FOX News and other electronic media. Donald Trump’s reading habits continue to be a topic of discussion. Reports suggest that he prefers brief summaries or visual aids, like charts and maps, over lengthy documents. His ghostwriter for The Art of the Deal speculated that Trump might not have read a single book in his adult life.
There have been numerous allegations and anecdotes suggesting that Donald Trump has bent the rules while playing golf. For instance, some high-profile individuals, including actor Samuel L. Jackson and journalist Rick Reilly, have claimed that Trump tends to take liberties with the rules during games. Reilly even wrote a book titled Commander in Cheat, detailing these allegations. Reilly’s book suggests that Trump has been known to move balls, take extra shots, or claim victories under questionable circumstances. However, Trump has also been praised for his golfing skills by others, including professional athletes and celebrities who have played with him. It seems opinions about his conduct on the course vary widely, depending on who you ask.
Donald Trump’s major claim to fame lies in his multifaceted career and monied influence. He initially gained prominence as a real estate mogul, building a vast empire of luxury properties– including the iconic Trump Tower in New York City. He later became a household name through his role as the host of the reality TV show The Apprentice, which showcased his business acumen and catchphrase, “You’re fired!” He didn’t enter politics until 2015.

Political Paths

In his first election victory, Trump received just over 25% of votes from eligible voters. In his 2024, victory he performed better with 33%. This is far from the mandate that he claims. Hitler received 25% of the eligible votes in the 1932 elections and became the minority chancellor.
Both men had a means to dominate the media. The Nazi Party of 1933 gave away radios that had only one channel. Thus they bypassed the mainstream media. Donald Trump has had a range of media supporters over the years, particularly within conservative circles. Figures like Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson have been prominent voices on Fox News, often defending his policies and actions. Steve Bannon, through his “War Room” podcast, has also been a significant media ally. Additionally, platforms like Newsmax and One America News Network (OANN) have consistently provided favorable coverage.
Hitler talked about the superior Aryan race and demonized Jews. Trump talks about society’s problems, from black communities, threats from undocumented aliens (and in 2025 even those that are documented), unfair treatment of the white population through DEI policies, transgender encroachment in sports, and other hate topics. Trump says that the country is infested with alien rapists, despises “shit hole” nations, believes that America is the victim of unfair trade practices, and so on.
Hitler attacked his political adversaries, calling them parasites, criminals, cockroaches, and leftist scum. Trump called for locking up Hillary Clinton and degrades anyone who opposes him. He has clearly begun a campaign to rid the federal government of anyone he believed to be disloyal.
Hitler coined the phrase Lugenpresse (Lying Press). Trump uses “fake news” as his attack on the established mainstream press. According to Trump, the New York Times is failing. His onetime Press Secretary, Kellyann Conway famously created the term “alternative facts!”
Hitler and the Nazi wanted Gleichschaltung. As noted earlier, a complete reformation of the state and society that conformed to their ideals.
Although Trump denied ties to Project 2025, the crafters put forth a plan to reform government and society that conformed to their ideals.
Hitler’s youth movement was an attempt to indoctrinate Germany’s young people.
Trump attacks on the Department of Education, with some justification. However, what does the dismantling of the department mean for programs that teach inclusion.
Trump has removed DEI initiatives, fired government employees who do not agree with his vision, and removed historical references that do not fit his view of a grand America.
Hitler attacked science that didn’t agree with his Aryan race theory. Trump dismisses the science that supports climate change, immigration, health, and economics.
Hitler used his radio messages to push his opinions over all others. Trump has successfully used Sinclair Broadcasting and Fox Broadcasting to disseminate his message. Trump has launched his own social media platform called Truth Social. It’s part of his media company, Trump Media & Technology Group, which also has plans for a news network called TMTG News and a streaming service called TMTG+. These platforms aim to cater to conservative audiences and provide alternatives to mainstream media.
Hitler loved to orchestrate mass rallies. Trump also loves to appeal to crowds of loyal followers. At times he seems obsessed with the size of crowds.
Hitler used the German strong sense of a brilliant past to promise restoring Germany to its rightful place as a world leader. Trump has his MAGA.
Hitler closed German borders to protect Germans from non-Aryan migration. He also barred Jews, and promised to free Germany from Slavs. Trump attempted to bar Muslims and sanctuary seekers. While the Supreme Court found his Muslim ban unconstitutional, Trump found a way around it using executive orders. Trump is making tremendous efforts to remove various aliens from American soil without due process.
Hitler’s efforts to shift power to German industry was supported by corporate executives. Trump’s administration is also shifting power to the executive branch of the government and is supported by many of the wealthy corporate leadership.
Hitler worked to create German power, rejecting international cooperation in favor of military actions. Using the military, he annexed the Sudetenland, and invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, and eventually much of Europe. Trump’s administration is set on a plan to make America great. He says he doesn’t need other nations. He has withdrawn from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Paris Agreements on climate, and nuclear agreements with Iran. He has withdrawn from the North American Free Trade Agreement, abandoned our Kurdish allies in Syria, and questions the value of NATO. His most recent attack has been the imposition of tariffs on almost all our allies.
Hitler destroyed German democracy by purging voting rolls, questioning the integrity of the voting process. Trump has also attacked the voting process, claiming voting fraud when he lost the 2020 election. He has also encouraged mob violence as witnessed in video from January 6, 2021.
Hitler was able to politicize the German court system. Trump has been able to use the legal system to avoid prosecutions. He has praised President Andrew Jackson for defying Chief Justice John Marshall. He has abused his power of executive pardons. He has effectively used his powers to appoint Supreme Court Justices that may support his agenda.
Hitler loved to stage show parades featuring the German military. He imposed a order of personal loyalty on all German judges and expected loyalty from his advisors. Trump has used loyalty as a test for appointment to key positions in his administration. He fired James Comey for refusing to swear an oath of personal loyalty. He is reportedly planning a military parade to celebrate his 78th birthday.
Hitler was the final word. He was Fuhrer! He ruled by dictate. Trump has shown that he believes he is in total control. He is a “stable genius,” who knows all! Trump rules by executive order.
Following the Reichstag fire, Hitler declared a national emergency. President Trump has declared a national emergency related to trade deficits and foreign economic practices. This declaration, made under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, aims to address issues like trade imbalances and currency manipulation by imposing tariffs on various countries.

Conclusion

While Trump and Hitler share many traits in their governing styles, it is important to note that dictators and authoritarian populists have followed similar plans. When there is a charismatic leader who uses the media to their advantage, it is possible to influence people to their cause. Fake and exaggerated issues are given solutions to the perceived problems. Hidden bias is allowed to rear its head.

According to Burt Neuborne, “The parallels—especially the links between Lugenpresse and ‘fake news,’ and promises to restore German greatness and ‘Make America Great Again’—are just too close to be coincidental. I’m pretty sure that Trump’s bedside study of Hitler’s speeches—especially the use of personal invective, white racism, and xenophobia—has shaped the way Trump seeks to gain political power in our time. ……Trump damn well admires—and is successfully copying—the way that Hitler got it (power).”

Draw your own conclusions. . .

Money and the VOTE

Election laws in the United States are designed to ensure fair and transparent voting processes. They cover aspects like voter registration, accessibility, campaign finance. States have the primary authority to set election rules, but federal laws, like the Voting Rights Act, provide overarching protection. These election laws strictly prohibit voter buying, which refers to offering money or other incentives to influence someone’s vote. Under 18 U.S. Code § 597, it is illegal to make expenditures to influence voting, whether to encourage someone to vote or refrain from voting, or to vote for or against a specific candidate. Violations can result in fines or imprisonment.

State laws vary, but no state allows payments to vote for or against a particular candidate or ballot measure. Some states, like Wisconsin, even prohibit payments for simply turning out to vote.

There have been allegations that Elon Musk may have violated campaign finance laws by offering monetary incentives to registered voters in swing states during the 2024 presidential election. These payments were tied to signing a petition supporting the Constitution. You could argue that such payments were intended to influence voter registration and voting behavior. If this is the case, such actions could potentially breach federal laws prohibiting payments for voter registration or voting.

In addition, Musk also has been a major donor to political campaigns, such as the current Wisconsin Supreme Court race. Here his donations and advocacy have sparked debates about the ethics of such involvement. Musk also has ownership of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) which has allowed him to amplify his political views and influence public discourse. His financial backing and public endorsements have positioned him as a key figure in certain political movements.

Musk’s interactions with senators and representatives have also sparked significant debate. Reports suggest that Musk has used his wealth and political action committees to exert pressure on lawmakers. He has reportedly threatened to fund primary challengers against Republican senators who oppose certain agendas. With his involvement in federal government restructuring, he has drawn criticism from both parties, with some senators expressing concerns about his unelected authority and its impact on their constituents.

However, it’s worth noting that legal experts are divided on whether these actions constitute outright violations or merely exploit loopholes in the law. The situation underscores the complexities of campaign finance regulations and the influence of wealth in politics.

Yet buying votes is strictly illegal. It involves offering money or resources to voters in exchange for their votes. This practice undermines democracy and as noted earlier, is punishable by fines or imprisonment under U.S. law.

The influence of money in politics has been a long-standing concern, and it raises tough questions about fairness and representation. When financial power overshadows the voices of everyday citizens, it can appear that the democratic process is being undermined. Since 2010, The Supreme Court Case, commonly referred to as Citizen’s United, has caused a major political upheaval. However, that is a topic for another blog.

But democracy is resilient. Grassroots movements, campaign finance reforms, and public awareness can all push back against these challenges. What measures do you think could help restore balance?

Where is the Pushback?

Where’s the pushback from Congress in response to President Donald Trump’s defiance of the courts and disregard for the Constitution? While actual Republican pushback has come from Elizabeth Chaney and Adam Kinzinger, and a few active Senators, most elected senators and representatives in both parties appear to have little appetite for pushback. Democrats, where are your leaders? OAC, Pete Buttigieg, a few others, and independent Bernie Sanders should be supported by more of you. Where are the real Republicans? Your party has been taken over by Trump supporters. The executive power that Trump claims is not real. His “MANDATE” is far from a mandate. A full 36 percent of eligible voters did not cast a ballot. That is a larger percentage than either Trump or Harris received. Push back!! Don’t let the judicial branch attempt to carry the load! Trump’s actions are not something new. Consider Andrew Jackson, known as the people’s president, and the pushback from his political opponents.

In 1834, Henry Clay led a revolt against President Andrew Jackson. President Jackson had started defying court directives and Congress. In 1832, Jackson defied Chief Justice John Marshall in the case of Worcester v. Georgia. In this case the state of Georgia attempted to impose laws on the Cherokee Nation. The Court upheld the sovereignty of the Cherokees. Jackson did not like the decision and refused to accept its directive. Most often Jackson is quoted as saying, “Jon Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” Jackson personal stance was part of his broader Indian policy which eventually led to the Trail of Tears.

Then in 1834, Jackson opposed the Second Bank of the United States as presented by Congress. Jackson viewed the bank as unconstitutional and corrupt, favoring state banks and a decentralized financial system. His stance led to the infamous “Bank War,” where he vetoed the renewal of the Bank of the United States’ charter and redirected federal funds to state banks, often called “pet banks.” Jackson claimed that as president he could judge the constitutionality of a central bank, ignoring the 1819 Supreme Court ruling in McCulloch v. Maryland, which held that the Bank of the United States was legal. This was a defining moment of his presidency. Senator Henry Clay viewed Jackson’s actions as outside his executive authority. Clay moved to have Jackson censored by Congress. In 1834 the Senate formally censured Jackson. In 1837 the Senate, now dominated by Jackson supporters, voted to remove the censure from the Senate record. Although Clay’s efforts failed, his argument helped shape limits on executive powers. Jackson’s personal beliefs regarding the central bank are the likely cause of the Panic of 1837, our first major depression.

Where is the Henry Clay or Daniel Webster of our generation? Webster said, “I am committed… to the Constitution of the country…. And I am committed against everything, which, in my judgment, may weaken, endanger, or destroy it…; and especially against all extension of Executive power; and I am committed against any attempt to rule the free people of this country by the power and the patronage of the government itself.” Which Senators today will protect the separation of powers as enshrined in our Constitution?