SO, WHAT'S NEXT??

Now that the Democrats have impeached and the Republicans have acquitted the president, two questions rear their ugly heads.

Question #1: What does it all mean?

Question #2: Where do we go from here?

The answer to Question #1 is fundamental. Having acquitted President Trump by asserting that the desire of a president to be re-elected widens his power to use the government on his personal behalf regardless of the civil rights of his opponents, this threatens the very checks and balance of power that's the cornerstone of our national liberty.

Not everyone who was offended by the outcome of the Senate vote on Wednesday, February 5th is on the left! One of the most common concerns throughout our 241 years of history under the Constitution is that delicate balance of federal authority mentioned above.

A California friend of mine sent me the following reaction to the Senate's decision not to call witnesses and he has given me permission to quote him here:

"After 232 years and four months, the US Constitution finally died today. One of its core points was the then revolutionary separation of powers. Today the Senate decided that that concept was obsolete and not longer functional."

My friend David is no liberal. In fact he's a libertarian who is jealous of our property rights and especially dedicated of our rights to gun ownership. He is one of the smartest men I know. We have many differences as to the legitimate role of the federal government and the risks therein of federal activism. 

This is what you'll find at the close of every email message you receive from David:

"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. -- Olmstead v U.S., 277 U.S. 348 (1928), Justice Louis D. Brandeis, dissenting.”

In other words, men of liberty are naturally alert to the dangers of men to whom liberty is contemptible. The real danger comes from those well-meaning men who lack any understanding of what might destroy liberty. What makes David's assessments so powerful is that far more than being a man with an agenda, he is a man of principle. I've never heard David express any favor for a political candidate, especially any leftist-oriented or Democratic Party candidate I tend to support.

What's apparent just lately is that President Trump has dropped all pretense regarding his call to the Ukrainian president. No longer does he deny the "quid pro quo.” Furthermore, he actually crows over the “quo!"

In the wake of recent events, Republicans will seek to demonstrate that Democrats sought the president's impeachment out of personal resentment, hatred and denial of the legitimacy of the 2016 election. The  Democrats will seek to demonstrate that Republicans have surrendered their obligations as public servants to the authoritarian whims of a president totally devoid of knowledge or even of understanding of the office he holds under the Constitution of the United States.

A most dramatic incident occurred this week that must command our attention: Willard Mitt Romney's decision to hold President Trump responsible for what Senator Romney decided was the President's abuse of his office. Senator Romney's “guilty" vote was an act of both principle and courage. As I see it, after having received party preferment in 2012, Romney did have a special obligation to protest presidential abuse of power. Last Wednesday, with the whole nation watching, he did just that. By so doing, Mitt Romney became to me an historic national hero more worthy of becoming president than he was in 2012. It would be grand if a former president named Bush and a former candidate named Dole would support Mitt Romney! 

The crucial question, even more urgent than what I asked at the outset, is: how much do you and I care about President Trump's assumption of limitless presidential power and authority? As I see it, that's what this impeachment effort has been all about.

Does it matter if a president acknowledges the limitations of the office he holds? Is the presidency wholly about his or her personal agenda? Have other presidents been subject to constant criticism almost from the moment they took office?

Of course they have! On more than one occasion, President Carter asserted that criticism and ridicule go with the territory.

Last week, I asserted that the "slippery slope" concept of the likely result of any misdeed mostly reflects people's fears more than it validates their conclusions. I concluded by saying that politics will eventually prevail, but where do we go from here?

Twenty-twenty is a political year.  It's time to get political beyond your comfort zone. Your personal liberty may well depend upon activist politics. Don't depend on others to free you from the personal prejudices and personally glorifying demands of a president totally unworthy of his office.

Like the Minute Men of 1775, beware — those Red Coat Republicans are coming. You don't need bullets to get 'em, all you need are ballots.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

EDWIN COONEY