“It’s never a good sign when you wake up in the morning and discover you are facing prosecution under the same law used to put members of the Ku Klux Klan in jail in the 1800s.” —journalist Lucian K. Truscott IV

“If Donald Trump wanted to say that the joint session organizing the peaceful transfer of power was a fraud and a charade, he had every right to say that. But he had no right to actually obstruct the proceeding.” —U.S. Rep Jamie Raskin (D-MD)

After a grand jury in the District of Columbia indicted former president Donald J. Trump for engaging in a “criminal scheme,” Special Prosecutor Jack Smith issued his four-count indictment on Aug. 1.

Trump, and only Trump, is charged with (1) conspiring to subvert the results of the 2020 presidential election; (2) conspiring and trying to obstruct confirmation by Congress of the election results; (3) obstructing the congressional proceeding on Jan. 6, 2021; and (4) conspiring against American citizens’ right to vote and have their vote counted.

Trump has pleaded not guilty and starting next March, will most likely be tried by U.S. District Court Judge Tanya Chutkan.

On the day after he lost the election, Trump falsely claimed there had been widespread fraud and declared himself the winner.

His Big Lie was challenged by a roomful of adults, including Vice President Mike Pence, senior Justice Department officials, the director of national intelligence, senior attorneys in the Trump White House, senior staff in his re-election campaign, and many state legislators and officials.

And significantly, the 63 post-election cases argued by Trump associates before state and federal courts were dismissed as “meritless.” According to Smith’s indictment, the courts “rejected every outcome-determinative post-election lawsuit filed by the defendant.”

In fact, no one in Trump World or anywhere else has been able to show evidence of any significant election fraud in 2020. Period. Finito. End of the line.

After repudiating Trump’s election fraud claim in paragraphs 11-12, Count No. 1 then details the steps by which he and his unindicted co-conspirators carried out their “criminal agreement” (ref: paragraphs 13-124).

Though not named, Trump’s six co-conspirators are odds-on ex-Big Apple Mayor Rudy Giuliani, academic John Eastman, Sidney “Release-the-Kraken” Powell, former Assistant AG Jeffrey Clark, attorney Kenneth Chesebro, and Trump toady Boris Epshteyn.

To carry out this conspiracy, Trump—along with his dodgy associates—is alleged to have:

• Attempted to “impair, obstruct, and defeat” the normal processes for counting ballots in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
• Recruited accomplices in those states plus Nevada, New Mexico, and Wisconsin to illegally pose as electors and to falsely certify to Vice President Pence and to Congress that they were legitimate.
• Tried to persuade Department of Justice officials to issue false claims of election fraud in the seven targeted states and have them replace legitimate Biden electors with illegal Trump electors.
• Tried to arm-twist Pence into using his ceremonial role at the Jan. 6 certification proceeding to fraudulently alter the election results.
• Used the “violence and chaos at the Capitol” on Jan. 6 to try — “based on knowingly false claims of election fraud” — to convince Congress to delay certification.Indictment Counts Nos. 2, 3, and 4 re-allege and incorporate the allegations in Count No. 1. Count No. 2 deals with Trump conspiring to “obstruct and impede” an official proceeding; No. 3 charges Trump with obstructing an official proceeding; and No. 4 charges Trump with conspiring to interfere with “the right to vote and to have one’s vote counted” (and, yes, indeed, No. 4 resurrects the Enforcement Act of 1871, also known as the “Ku Klux Klan Act”).

To comprehend the scope of Trump’s alleged transgressions, visualize this Through-the-Looking-Glass scenario in which Donald J. Trump:

• Proclaims the 2020 election as “the fairest and squarest ever.”
• Acknowledges he lost and Joe Biden won.
• Congratulates Biden
• Attends his inauguration.
• Eschews false claims of election fraud.
• Forbids “a gaggle of crackpot lawyers” to assemble fraudulent electors.
• Disbands Giuliani’s “Elite Strike Force Legal Team.”
• Protects the U.S. Department of Justice from being perverted.
• Tells the Proud Boys and wannabe streetfighters: “Go home. Stay home.”
• Nixes a rally at the Ellipse (and if one is held, doesn’t address it).
• Counsels Pence to comply with the Constitution.
• Marches to the Capitol himself to stop the insurrection.

Alas, not one of these make-believe events occurred, and Trump is in a heap of trouble.

Steadfast Mike Pence should be singled out for respect! Beginning with a Christmas Day phone call and stopping only with the Capitol insurrection in progress, Trump badgered Pence to cooperate with his scheme. Despite Trump’s barrage of phone calls, conversations, public and private meetings, tweets, blandishments, insults, and threats, Pence stayed loyal to his constitutional responsibilities. Over and again, he told Trump to stuff it. The Republic is deeply in his debt.

Because he still insists the 2020 election was stolen from him, because he’s running for another term in the White House, and because his base of “Deplorables” is solid and substantial, one can argue that Trump’s coup attempt has not yet been shut down for good. That is a chilling prospect, but one for another article.

Gren Whitman has been a leader in neighborhood, umbrella, public interest, and political groups and committees, and worked for civil rights and anti-war organizations. He is now retired and lives in Rock Hall, MD. 

In my January 2023 letter to the Spy, the subject of ‘embodied carbon footprint’ was introduced. I wrote, 

 ‘Adaptive reuse is a responsible choice combining preservation with a low embodied carbon footprint, a win-win proposition across the matrix of historical and environmental indices’. 

Knowing that carbon footprint, greenhouse gas emissions, and climate change are terms gaining huge attention and significance globally, I thought it relevant to illuminate my statement. It is germane to the decision making process and community-wide dialogue to save or demolish the historic building.

So what is embodied carbon? Simply put, it is the emissions from carbon dioxide (CO2) or greenhouse gas (GHG) associated with the manufacture and use of a product or service. For construction products, this targets the emissions from raw material extraction as well as its manufacturing, transportation, installation, maintenance and disposal.

And how does it relate to the Armory? Perhaps the American Institute of  Architects, (AIA) can best provide the answer, further supporting my opening statement. From the AIA’s website,

‘Renovation and reuse projects typically save between 50 and 75 percent of the embodied carbon emissions compared to constructing a new building. This is especially true if the foundations and structure are preserved, since most embodied carbon resides there. With many projects, the first question should be “Is there an existing building we can use instead?” This is an admittedly a hard sell for architects – after all, many of us got into the business for the excitement and challenge of designing something new from the ground up. But channeling that energy and creativity toward making poor-performing buildings into something beautiful, sustainable and energy efficient has its own rewards, and yields substantial positive results.’

Let’s tie it all together.  The need for sustainability in the design, construction and operation of buildings is a stark reality, gaining more scrutiny with each passing year. According to the Energy Information Administration, about 40 percent of the energy consumed in the US in 2015 went directly or indirectly to operating buildings. This finding effectively launched the ‘green building’ movement here in the US.

When embodied carbon is added to the energy consumed, the total is almost 50 percent. While awareness to reduce operating impacts is widespread, less understood and considered, is the carbon impacts during construction of a building.

Each building product has its own embodied carbon footprint with some more egregious than others. Studies have concluded that almost 23% of all global emissions in the construction of a building come from three common materials: concrete, steel, and aluminum. 

Construction of new, non-residential buildings, requires a substantial amount of concrete for the footings and foundations. Floor construction also uses concrete (poured in place and on metal deck or the use of precast planks). Tons of steel are used for concrete reinforcing bars and the superstructure of the building which rest on the concrete foundations. Steel is further used for the metal studs to build walls and partitions and for door frames. Aluminum is typically used to fabricate windows, doors, exterior wall cladding and roofing. In total – an embodied carbon hot mess.

Shockingly, by running the numbers for efficiently designed and operated buildings, it was revealed that the construction process emitted tons of carbon – equivalent to many years of operating emissions. Building new, even a ‘net-zero’ building, must consider the carbon footprint from the building process to understand the bottom line environmental impacts. Be wary of labels for net-zero, clean energy and green products. You must look under the hood in the final analysis.

Finally, the matter of demolition must be considered. Through the stages of a building’s lifecycle, demolition activities generate most waste and carbon emissions. Around 10% of the embodied CO2 emissions is released during demolition and transportation, processing and disposal of construction waste. Then there are the implications associated with landfills and dealing with hazmats.

One last thing, explain the Armory’s role? It should now be evident that by reusing the Armory, the lowest embodied carbon footprint will result, benefitting not only our region but the planet. The savings in carbon emissions is staggering as you already learned by reading the  AIA excerpt. And you should also understand the consequence of building new, even if the building is touted as being a  ‘net-zero’ or ‘green’ design.

Washington College has a substantial embodied carbon footprint in town and within the region.  Embracing  reutilization of the Armory will improve the College’s carbon footprint. This option is particularly attractive with an Environmental Science and Studies Department. An exceptional opportunity exists to involve the environmental students and staff with the real life lessons and challenges associated with an adaptive reuse project.

 From the Department’s own web page,

‘Washington College students use the Chesapeake Bay Region—its farms and waterways, its history and culture, its people and their environmental concerns—as a learning laboratory’.

‘…majors are grounded in an interdisciplinary course of study which prepares students to critically analyze and investigate solutions to regional and global environmental issues, whether it is the revival of a depleted fishery, the fate of toxins, land use management in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, world population concerns, loss of biodiversity, or climate change’.

Integrating the Armory as a learning laboratory is a win-win proposition offering many lessons that can be applied beyond the boundaries of Chestertown. Its potential as an exciting interactive teaching and learning vehicle is invaluable. 

Let us not lose sight of the fact that the Armory is an historic structure listed on the National Register and an important community ‘landmark’ and ‘edge’ feature in the context of the town from a planning perspective, as presented in Kevin Lynch’s seminal book, The Image of the City (Harvard-MIT Joint Center for Urban Studies). The prominent architect who designed the building furthers its significance.

In the final analysis, climate change awareness also does not support the construction of a new building on the Armory site and Washington College should agree. The responsible and morally correct solution is a building proposal that includes adaptive reuse of the Newnam Armory.

Thom Kocubinski, RA is an architect and planner now living in Chestertown

 

Based on the allegations by Fani Willis, District Attorney for Fulton County, Ga., a Grand Jury has indicted former president Donald Trump and 18 co-defendants for “a conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the election in favor of Trump.” 

This 98-page booklet reprints the charging document. With a table of contents to help navigate, it’s still a dense read. In a nutshell, it sets forth how this sprawling criminal conspiracy tried to return Trump to the White House illegally, and makes Watergate look like a nursery school tantrum.

The indictment’s three components are:

• Section 1: Administrative information. 
• Section 2: Count No. 1, including 161 Acts.
• Section 3: Counts Nos. 2 through 41.

SECTION 1 (pages 1-12) names the 19 defendants, itemizes the Counts for each, gives the title and legal reference for each of the 41 Counts, names the members of the Grand Jury, and includes a Table of Contents. 

SECTION 2 (pages 13-71) is focused solely on Count No. 1, charging Trump and 18 co-defendants with a conspiracy to violate the State of Georgia’s RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) law. It includes a one-paragraph description of the conspiracy (aka “The Enterprise”); eight paragraphs outlining “the manner and methods of The Enterprise”; and the 161 “Acts of Racketeering Activity and Overt Acts in Furtherance of the Conspiracy.” 

Count No. 1 — violating Georgia’s RICO law — applies to Trump, his closest associates, and all the other defendants. Each of the accompanying 161 Acts describes how the 19 defendants participated in “The Enterprise.” (Note: although an overt Act may not itself be criminal, it is considered as being “in furtherance of the conspiracy.”)

SECTION 3 (pages 72-98) contains Counts 2-41, the remainder of the indictment. Along with his alleged RICO violation, Trump is charged with 12 more Counts, as is his attorney, William Rudolph Louis Giuliani. In contrast, Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff, and attorney Jenna Ellis are charged with two Counts. The 15 other co-defendants are charged with varying numbers of Counts.

As alleged in the indictment, the conspiracy commenced on Nov. 4, 2020, when “Donald John Trump made a nationally televised speech falsely declaring victory in the 2020 presidential election” (overt Act No. 1) and concluded on Sept. 15, 2022 — almost two years later! — when Georgia lawyer Robert Cheeley “committed the felony offense of perjury” (overt Act No. 161). The 22 months in between witnessed an astonishing number of meetings, phone calls, emails, texts, voicemails, memorandums, statements, letters, presentations, conversations, assemblies, solicitations, falsehoods, threats, and that Capitol insurrection.

The 161 Acts describe exactly how Trump and 18 associates turned into conspirators under Georgia’s RICO statute. Highlights — lowlights if you will — include:  

• ACT No. 56: On Dec. 10, 2020, Giuliani made six false statements to “members of the Georgia House of Representatives present at a House Governmental Affairs Committee meeting,” including this: “Between 12,000 and 24,000 ballots were illegally counted by Fulton County election workers at State Farm Arena on November 3, 2020.” 
• ACT No. 90: On Dec. 18, 2020, Trump, Giuliani, attorney Sidney Powell, “unindicted co-conspirator Individual 20, and others” met at the White House to discuss “certain strategies and theories intended to influence the outcome of the Nov. 3, 2020, election,” including “seizing voting machines and appointing Powell as special counsel with broad powers to investigate allegations of voter fraud in Georgia and elsewhere.”
• ACT No. 97: On Dec. 27, 2020, Trump asked Acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue “to make a false statement by stating, ‘Just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.’”
• ACT No. 111: On Jan. 2, 2021, U.S. Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey Clark asked Acting U.S. Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen and Acting U.S. Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue to sign a document that “falsely stated the U.S. Department of Justice had ‘identified significant concerns that may have impacted the outcome of the election in multiple States, including the State of Georgia.’” This falsehood was to be sent to Georgia’s governor, speaker of the House, and president pro tem of the Senate, but Rosen and Donoghue refused. 
• ACT No. 112: By telephone on Jan. 2, 2021, Trump and Meadows tried to pressure Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger into agreeing to “find 11,780 votes,” but he refused. (Note: millions subsequently listened to this recorded call.)
• ACT No. 130: On Jan. 5, 2021, Trump told Vice President Mike Pence that “Pence had the power to decertify the Nov. 3, 2020, election.” When Pence disagreed, Trump called him “naive, implied he lacked courage, and stated that Pence was doing ‘a great disservice.’”

These are only six of the overt Acts; there are 155 more. 

It would be negligent not to mention two shabby incidents covered in the indictment. First was the pressure put on Atlanta election worker Ruby Freeman to alter her testimony to prove she corrupted the vote count at State Farm Arena. This failed and resulted in indictments for Stephen Lee (Lutheran pastor from Illinois and former cop), Harrison Floyd (former martial arts fighter), Trevian Kutti (former publicist for rapper Kanye West), and Robert Cheeley (Georgia lawyer). 

Second was the foray into the Coffee County, Ga., election office to engage in an “unlawful breach of election equipment” and to “tamper with electronic ballot markers and tabulating machines,” constituting computer trespass and computer theft. This caper involved attorney Powell, Cathleen Latham (former GOP chair for Coffee County), Scott Hall (Atlanta bail bondsman), and Misty Hampton (former election director in Coffee County), plus several unindicted co-conspirators. 

The United States will be forced to deal for years with the residual consequences of electing Donald Trump to the White House. It’s our nation’s grave, self-inflicted wound. The federal and state trials pending in Georgia, Washington D.C., New York, and Florida will be part of this reckoning.

With Meadows and other defendants presently trying to have their cases transferred to a federal court, the cast of characters in this indictment is likely to change. No matter. In whatever ways this complicated legal and political situation morphs and is rejiggered from now on, Fani Willis’s historic indictment will forever serve to describe the full scope of Trump’s depravity.

Gren Whitman has been a leader in neighborhood, umbrella, public interest, and political groups and committees, and worked for civil rights and anti-war organizations. He is now retired and lives in Rock Hall, MD. 

“The minute the FBI makes recommendations on what should be done with its information, we become a Gestapo.”
—J. Edgar Hoover

I wasn’t bad or famous enough to get onto President Nixon’s enemies list, but FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover – not as picky – included me as Subject No. BA 100-24104 in his agency’s covert and illegal counter-intelligence program, a.k.a. COINTELPRO.

From 1965 to 1971 — and while the FBI was assembling my 115-page file – I worked on voting rights projects in Maryland and Georgia, spoke out against U.S. foreign policies, drove a taxi in Baltimore, edited copy at the Baltimore Sun, put out a weekly political newsletter, spent a year as an anti-Vietnam war organizer, and directed an addiction treatment clinic — all perfectly constitutional activities.

 

Then on March 8, 1971, the self-styled Citizens’ Commission to Investigate the FBI burgled the agency’s office in Media, Pa. By liberating suitcases stuffed with files, the “commission” outed COINTELPRO, Hoover’s super-secret, extra-legal counterintelligence program that began spying on thousands of Americans in 1956.

Under the Freedom of Information Act and for 10 cents a page, I obtained my COINTELPRO file. Shadowing me at meetings and picket lines and recording what I said and wrote and with whom I met, the banal assemblage discovered nothing, prevented nothing, and ultimately proved nothing. Riddled with redactions, repetitions, and errors, J. Edgar’s surveillance was a big waste of federal employees’ time and taxpayers’ dollars.

What triggered Hoover’s minions to spy on me? I was targeted after I mailed my draft card back to Local Draft Board No. 36 in Towson in April 1965. Even though I’d been discharged from the Army three years earlier, not carrying a draft card was still illegal. Protesting LBJ’s decision to send the 82nd Airborne — my old outfit — into the Dominican Republic, I told my draft board that I refused to carry it any longer. When the feds looked closer, they found that I fit into two of their very favorite subversive profiles: pro-civil rights plus anti-Vietnam war, and so they started watching.

As Selma exploded and the Vietnam war escalated, 1965 was tumultuous and I was swept into the turmoil. That August, I joined the “Assembly of Unrepresented People” on the National Mall, and along with another 200-plus civilly disobedient anti-war protesters was arrested on Capitol Hill while trying to present Congress with our “Declaration of Peace with the People of Vietnam.” The FBI was watching.

Leaving SNCC in 1966, I became a Baltimore Sun copy editor and in my free time produced a political newsletter, “The View From Here,” which expressed liberal-to-left views on social, political, and economic issues, including Vietnam and civil rights. The FBI was watching.

In early 1968, I was persuaded by Catholic activist Phil Berrigan to leave the Sun and organize full-time against the war, giving me a front-row seat for this watershed year. A year later, I was invited to direct Man Alive, a struggling methadone maintenance clinic in Baltimore. Though deeply involved in the intricacies of treating opiate addicts day-to-day, I continued to engage in anti-war activities, including the May Day demonstration in 1971, when I was arrested again, this time with 20,000 others. The FBI watched all of this.

Hoover’s surveillance might have had consequences. With its litany of “captioned-subject-went-here” and “Whitman-said-this,” the faceless folks at COINTELPRO included two incidents, either of which could have put me in serious legal jeopardy, including prison.

The first was in October 1968, when marshals seized me in the U.S. Courthouse in Baltimore and accused me of handing out leaflets while the Catonsville Nine were being sentenced. After sitting in a holding cell for an hour while munching on a bologna sandwich, I was released by Maryland’s U.S. Attorney, Steve Sachs, who apologized.

The folks at COINTELPRO, however, interpreted this courthouse altercation completely differently, alleging instead that I assaulted three federal officers, a felony. Although the marshals had grabbed me, the FBI instead described them as my “victims.”

The report read:
“Deputy U.S. Marshal [name redacted]-Victim; Deputy U.S. Marshall [name redacted]-Victim; and U.S. Marshall Frank Udoff-Victim: Crime on a Government Reservation – Assaulting a Federal Officer.”

But Mr. Sachs elected to do nothing, and this matter was dropped.

The other entry in my file with potentially serious consequences came on the heels of my arrest during the 1971 May Day demonstrations in D.C. As I walked along M Street near Mount Vernon Square, I was arrested by D.C. police without provocation, charged with disorderly conduct, held until late that evening, and released on $50 bail.

The dicey bit came several weeks later. After being found not guilty — the cop who testified wasn’t even able to place me at the scene — I was puzzled when the judge remarked, “I really hoped we could get this man.”

Ultimately, my file suggested why the judge made this unnerving statement. Dated May 10, 1971, a report was titled, “NAME CHECK REQUEST ON MAY DAY DEMONSTRATORS” and was focused on “179 individuals who were arrested on May 3, 1971.” I was one of those individuals and the judge had likely read this in advance of my trial.

Because my COINTELPRO file reported my arrest in 1965 and the courthouse incident in 1968, I remain convinced my May Day judge had been handed this erroneous report to review before he found me not guilty. (After May Day, I was a plaintiff in a civil liberties lawsuit against the D.C. government and was awarded a $1,100 settlement in 1981.)

Because I was “connected” with SNCC and “participated in anti-war and anti-draft demonstrations” and “urged civil disobedience,” the FBI put me on its “Agitator Index” in 1969. I was later upgraded to “Priority III of the Security Index,” whatever that meant.

To this day, I remain tickled by parts of the file.

Despite its overweening interest in what I said and what I did and with whom I associated, the FBI never actually interviewed me. Why? “There is no indication that an interview of WHITMAN would prove productive, and it is believed that an interview of WHITMAN would not be prudent.”

My high school in Dedham, Mass., informed Hoover & Co. that I was “generally considered to be a good campus citizen and a good student.”

Presumptuously, J. Edgar’s intensely anti-Communist agency labeled me as a “non-Communist Party (CP) member.” Accuracy demands should that I have been described as “a Democratic Party (DP) member,” but that wasn’t the agency’s purpose.

Also odd was the entry: “At the time of Reverend PHILIP BERRIGAN’s arrest in New York City on 4/20/70, he had in his possession the name of captioned subject. The significance of WHITMAN’S name in BERRIGAN’S address book is unknown.”

In a May 1971 memo, the Baltimore FBI office reported, “this case is being placed in a closed status by the Baltimore Division.” For whatever reason, they had tired of me.

As it related to me, COINTELPRO never reached “Gestapo” level. Those anonymous informers just watched and watched and reported and reported.

Spies and snitches never prevented me from speaking out, writing, demonstrating, and organizing. Didn’t prevent me from shepherding newspaper and TV reporters to Catonsville to witness the Berrigans’ raid on the draft board. Didn’t stop me from organizing and joining numerous anti-war and civil rights protests, including civil disobedience. COINTELPRO just watched and reported — just creepy when you think about it.

Once-burned, twice shy, eh? During the COINTELPRO years, the FBI spied on thousands of activists using informers, typewriters, telephones, and index cards. It created long lists of so-called subversives and put them on its “Agitator Index” and “Security Index.” But, given 2022-level technologies, the agency’s spy powers are limitless.

A new version of COINTELPRO can happen again, anytime, and a new generation of fired-up constitutional activists may find it already has.

Gren Whitman has been a leader in neighborhood, umbrella, public interest, and political groups and committees, and worked for civil rights and anti-war organizations. He is now retired and lives in Rock Hall, MD. 

 

As most people who follow the abortion issue know, the draft of a majority opinion authored by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to overturn Roe v. Wade [1973] was revealed by Politico on 2 May. The decision is in response to a challenge of a Mississippi Law enacted in 2018 called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

In his draft, Judge Alito describes the job before the Court:

“The State of Mississippi asks us to uphold the constitutionality of a law that generally prohibits an abortion after the fifteenth week of pregnancy – several weeks before the point at which a fetus is now regarded as ‘viable’ outside the womb. In defending this law, the State’s primary argument is that we should reconsider and overrule Roe and Casey and once again allow each State to regulate abortion as its citizens wish. On the other side, respondents and the Solicitor General ask us to reaffirm Roe and Casey, and they contend that the Mississippi law cannot stand if we do so. Allowing Mississippi to prohibit abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, they argue, ‘would be no different than overruling Casey and Roe entirely.’ They contend that ‘no half measures’ are available and that we must either reaffirm or overrule Roe and Casey.”

Note: Casey [1992] modified Roe, but reaffirmed most of it by holding that stare decisis (precedent) should be respected in most cases.

Judge Alito summarizes the majority opinion:

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely – the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.”

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It’s time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand.”

My opinion of Judge Alito’s opinion:

He is right in saying “Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held [in Roe] that it confers a broad right to obtain one.” Here I note Judge Alito’s reference to the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment:

Amendment 14, Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Judge Alito is also right when he says that because the Constitution does not explicitly address abortion, Roe was weakly reasoned, and that the Court is being asked, in effect, to make the law. That endeavor, called “judicial activism”, is not the job of the Court. But couldn’t a future court conclude that Dobbs, because it refers to language that must be “interpreted”, is also weakly reasoned?

Alito is wrong if he thinks that punting the ball back to the States is going to lessen our “enflamed debate” and “deepened division” on abortion. The rancor will get worse, not better. If abortion is of national importance, it should not be left to the States to do as they please, otherwise, slavery might still be legal in some.

The Court’s reputation is taking another hit. It already contains five justices who implied or explicitly stated in their confirmation hearings that they supported Roe. Now we find they were, in their job interviews, less than truthful.

The best solution is a Constitutional amendment clearly delineating the law regarding abortion (same for LGBTQ and privacy rights). That would remove the Court’s need to opine. We need a federal law on abortion, not a hodge-podge of state laws that run from no abortions under any circumstances to the opposite. But an amendment requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress, and with the Congress we have today, passionately divided along ideological lines on social issues, that is not a possibility.

So, we are stuck. It looks like abortion is going back to the states. There it will remain unless or until abortion becomes a national priority for voters.

Another Amendment, the Second, is out of touch with modern reality. It simply says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” This statement consists of an explanatory part followed by a declarative part, the latter being dependent on the former. The right of the people to keep and bear arms seems to be addressing the need for security provided by a well-regulated militia, does it not? Intent (a.k.a. mindreading) of the Second Amendment has been ruled upon four times by the Court, but the original wording has not changed.

When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, the most destructive “Arm” bearable by a person was a single-shot, muzzle-loading pistol or rifle. Did Madison, in his wildest dreams, envision mentally-ill citizens using rapid-fire, multi-shot pistols and rifles to murder their neighbors? To illustrate the ridiculous limit of the vagueness of “Arm”, the Second Amendment does not preclude citizens from bearing thermonuclear devices. It seems to me that the Second Amendment is in dire need of revision.

Bob Moores retired from Black & Decker/DeWalt in 1999 after 36 years. He was the Director of Cordless Product Development at the time. He holds a mechanical engineering degree from Johns Hopkins University