Earlier this month, Shore Rivers, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, the Sierra Club, and other environmental activist advocacy groups met at an Eastern Shore Environmental Legislative Review Summit.

Summit attendees included members of the General Assembly from Prince George’s, Montgomery, Anne Arundel, and Baltimore Counties. In reviewing the summit proceedings, it is clear there is a surge of focus on pollution in the Chesapeake Bay.

This is welcome news for everyone interested in the health well – being and a bright future for the Bay.

The Delmarva Fisheries Association (DFA) has been raising the alarm on pollution’s devastating impact on the Bay these for an exceptionally long time. DFA has also been researching and proposing ideas on meaningful and measurable ways to help ensure the Bay not only survives but thrives.

That said, it was disheartening that one uninformed summit attendee made statements about the health of the Bay that are, at best, misleading and are, at worst, flat out wrong.

At the Summit, State Senator Sarah Elfreth who represents Annapolis and the southern portion of Anne Arundel County said the wild fishery for oysters is not rebounding. NOT TRUE! According to the most recent reports from the State Department of Natural Resources, the number of oysters harvested over the previous four years increased dramatically, the number of oysters harvested over the previous three years have increased over 200%, the biomass on oysters harvested have increased and the spat set from which full-grown harvestable oysters grow has increased. These numbers are inconvenient truths for doom and gloom story tellers that help in endless fundraising campaigns  by some environmental groups more focused on using incorrect, incomplete, or misleading information to encourage well-intentioned but misinformed members of the public to donate money to their organizations.

Senator Elfreth also expressed her displeasure on how the Maryland Department of Natural Resource’s Oyster Advisory Commission presented their report to members of the General Assembly in December 2021. In her view, development of the report was not conducted in the way that the General Assembly had initially set it up. This observation is misleading. The facts are that industry representatives from DFA on that advisory commission not once, but twice, presented a letter of resolution specifically addressing the fact that the dialogue and deliberation was not working out the way it should have because of covid restrictions on in person meetings. These same representatives expressed their opinion that issuing a final report should be delayed. That view was not shared by a majority of the commission members.

Perhaps Senator Elfreth, who serves as chair of and as one of two Maryland State Senators on the tri state Chesapeake Bay Commission, as Senate Chair of the Joint Committee on the Chesapeake and Atlantic Coastal Bay Critical Area, as a member of the Oyster Advisory Commission and was sponsor of the legislation on Fishery Management Plans for Oysters; would have been aware of these facts if she had attended more than a few meetings of the Oyster Advisory Commission over a four year period. Perhaps by attending more meetings and voicing her concerns at those meetings about the process she could have made a difference. By virtue of her serving in all the capacities noted above she also had every opportunity to request, access and review timely and accurate information on such an important issue as oyster restoration challenges and opportunities.

Meeting the still daunting challenges of improving the health of the bay requires every key stakeholder to participate fully in all discussions no matter how these discussions are managed, as well as a commitment to become  fully aware of all the pertinent facts. Those charged with doing what is best for the bay need to be engaged wherever, whenever, and however there is fact-based dialogue and deliberation. The Bay and those who love it as a place to make a living or enjoy using it for a wide range of recreational pursuits deserve nothing less

Rob Newberry is the chairman of the Delmarva Fisheries Association

Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would find myself applauding the Cheneys. I found Dick Cheney’s cavalier attitude while Vice President to be a constant irritant. Not to mention contracts to Halliburton, false claims of weapons of mass destruction, approval of waterboarding—and, of course, accidentally shooting Harry Whittington, a Texas attorney, in the face while quail hunting.

 I disagree with Liz Cheney on almost every issue—gun control, regulating greenhouse gas emissions, abortion, healthcare, the Middle East—the list goes on. Yet last Thursday, Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz were the only Republicans who had the guts to honor those who protected the Capitol on January 6, 2021. I give them both credit for doing so. And I give Liz extra credit for staying true to her conservative beliefs but also giving an honest assessment of Trump’s anti-democratic and complicit behavior regarding January 6. 

When George Bush was president, I bemoaned his gutting the government surplus that Clinton amassed, approving illegal interrogation acts, hiring a horse expert to run FEMA, and permitting unlawful spying on Americans. Yet now I remember how graciously Bush welcomed Obama to the White House. He couldn’t have been more hospitable. Even his daughters were kind and welcoming to Sasha and Malia. Contrast that with Trump’s entire family refusing to greet the incoming President or even attend the inauguration. 

During his campaign, Romney said Obamacare was the worse piece of healthcare legislation in the history of healthcare legislation—even though it was a mirror image of his healthcare plan in Massachusetts. He said Obama was weak on terrorists, even though Obama ‘s administration killed Osama Bin Laden. At a fundraiser for wealthy donors, Romney claimed that 47 percent of people will vote for Obama no matter what. He stated, “they believe they are victims who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to healthcare, to food, to housing, to you name it.” Romney went on to say, “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”  He also suggested that people should vote for him because he was a businessman even though he refused to divulge any information about how he ran his business. That was then. This is now. Now Romney is a Republican who voted to convict Trump of abusing his power and who condemned Trump for stonewalling the Biden presidency and attempting to prevent the peaceful transition of power.

Many Americans idolize Ronald Reagan. I was never one of them. I was going to Georgetown University when Reagan became President, and I was appalled at the difference in the town between the Carter and Reagan administrations. What seemed like an endless stream of limousines was constantly going up and down Wisconsin Avenue and M Street. There were lines out the door at Elizabeth Arden’s for updo hairdos, and the town suffered from a shortage of fancy ball gowns. To me, it seemed like the height of excess—flaunting ostentatious wealth–almost patently immoral. After the excesses of the Trump administration and the glitzy tasteless Trump brand in general, Reagan ‘s conspicuous consumption seems like child’s play in comparison. Now, I remember him as a wise sage who said things like, “trust but verify, “and “a people free to choose will always choose peace.”

And then, of course, there is Richard Nixon. Until now, he was considered one of the worst presidents in history. He disgraced the office, lied, and covered up his indiscretions. He resigned to save the country from the disconcerting and damaging process of an impeachment trial. The comparison to Trump does not bear repeating. And let’s not forget that Nixon also founded the Environmental Protection Agency, began a war on cancer, lowered the voting age to 18, signed the Paris Peace Accords, avoided a second Cuban missile crisis, and supported Israel with massive aid which Golda Meir later said saved her country.

Shakespeare said, “The evil that men do lives after them; the good is often interred with their bones.” So, if for nothing else, I can thank Trump for my remembering the good in some Republicans (although not many currently in office).

Maria Grant was principal-in-charge of the Federal human capital practice of an international consulting firm. Currently she is the HR Director of Politics & Prose Bookstore in DC. While on the Eastern Shore, she focuses on reading, writing, piano, gardening, and nature.

A week doesn’t seem to pass without news of another legislature considering action to limit or deny abortions in its state.  And the subject is front and center at the Supreme Court in its current session.  If the Court should decide to overturn Roe V. Wade it has been estimated that some 26 states would enact anti-abortion statues. 

Every time I hear about this issue, read about it or see it discussed on television my mind jumps back more than fifty years to a primitive, dank and musty duck blind on a creek in Talbot County.  It is so long ago that I cannot remember exactly where it was. But a conversation in the blind on that fall day stands firm in my memory.

We had a beautiful view of the creek and a small, secluded, peaceful bay where ducks and geese often gathered. And right in the middle of the bay was a small island—perhaps two acres or so—about a half mile out from the blind.  It was abandoned, overgrown with wild shrubs, reeds and grasses, and mature trees typical to an Eastern Shore landscape.  And, sitting at dead center, was a tumbledown, two-story house with a couple of outbuildings nearby.  None of the weathered clapboards on the property had felt the swipe of a paintbrush for decades. 

It was my first visit to the blind—one of those waterside outlooks that required a good set of boots because, on each rising tide, the moldy plywood floor flooded. My host had invited a local resident to join us. He spoke up in a quiet moment when nothing was flying. 

He pointed out the various characteristics of our site and its pluses and minuses insofar as hunting waterfowl was concerned. And then he pointed to the little island.  He may have called it by name.  If he did, I cannot remember what it was. 

“See that place over there?”, he said. “That’s  where the women went for abortions years ago. They would hire a  fellow to row them out there, at night.  They were afraid to use an outboard.  Too much noise. When they got there someone they called “Doc” would take care of them.”   

“Was he a real doctor?” I asked. “No, just someone who knew how to do that sort of thing,” he said.  

Today, more than a half century after that encounter, the recollection of my hunting companion’s story and the memory of that long-abandoned island come rushing back to me as I learn of legislators considering laws that would make it impossible for legitimate, trained health practitioners to provide abortions for women whose personal circumstances are such that they feel compelled to choose such treatments. 

For more reasons than anyone can imagine, and for more years than anyone can count, women have sought abortion assistance.  The question before us today is this:  Will we, as a nation, allow those women to terminate pregnancies openly, legally and safely, or will those who need such care have to return to the darkened shoreline, looking for the rowboat, that will take them to the island for a procedure performed by “Doc?”

We are likely to have some answers before the end of this new year.   

Ross Jones is a former vice president and secretary emeritus of The Johns Hopkins University. He joined the University in 1961 as assistant to President Milton S. Eisenhower. A 1953 Johns Hopkins graduate, he later earned a Master’s Degree at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.

With the advent of a new year and the anniversary of the lamentable events of January 6, 2021, we can reflect on the positive accomplishments of our community. They include, but are not limited to, the continued robust support shown for front- line responders to the COVID pandemic, resolution of the long-festering Talbot Boys dispute, and emerging consciousness that the Trappe Lakeside Development may need further deliberation due to its potential adverse environmental and community impacts.

But it is also evident that the stress and strain of our national politics continue to manifest in our community—in letters to the editor and other commentary on a range of topics and especially the curious behavior of our representative in Congress. In light of the ongoing abrasion of our polity, it may be useful for those of us who frequent Easton’s Washington Street to recall a warning sounded by our first president in his farewell address in 1798.

According to Nathaniel Philbrick in his new book Travels with George, Washington ended his second term as President worried that a future leader could emerge “whose chief priority was to divide rather than unite the American people.” Such an event, according to Washington, could have dire consequences:

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.

Washington’s words from centuries ago have striking relevance to our times. One must hope that the strength our local community fabric will continue to counterbalance weakness afflicting our national politics.

J.T. Smith II served in the CIA, the Department of Health Education and Welfare, the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice, the Department of Commerce and the Department of State before becoming a partner in the law firm of Covington & Burling. He retired to Easton in 2005.

 

Barring last minute glitches, the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST or Webb), successor to the Hubble Space Telescope, will be launched from the European Space Agency’s spaceport in Kourou, French Guiana, next Friday. 

The Webb was developed by NASA, the European Space Agency, and the Canadian Space Agency. Its 21-foot-diameter primary mirror has more than six times the light gathering power of Hubble’s 7-foot 10-inch mirror. That, plus Its enhanced sensitivity to lower frequency light, will allow it to observe galaxies much more distant (and therefore farther back in time), perhaps near to the birth of our universe 13.5 billion years ago. 

Webb is also capable of detecting many more exoplanets within our own Milky Way galaxy, and in more detail, than the 5000 or so already discovered. It will look for biochemical signatures, molecules associated with life, on planets that lie within habitable zones (where liquid water can exist) of the stars they orbit.

The 25-year development of the Webb has accrued a cost of 10 billion dollars. That sounds like a lot of money. Is it worth it? I most emphatically answer yes. Here’s why:

First, for perspective, we have spent 400 billion dollars on a single USAF fighter program, the F-35, over the last nineteen years. Our US defense budget for next year is $753 billion.

Second, I have always wondered, as you may have, if we are alone in the universe. Webb could help answer that question, not by looking for messages as in the SETI program, but by analysis of exoplanet composition. Can we find indications of even primitive life, or at least another Earthlike planet? Doesn’t that excite your curiosity? 

Third, this project is a testament to how human beings can overcome the toughest technical challenges in accomplishing something positive. With all the bad stuff going on (divisive politics, Covid, pollution, climate change, mass murders) the Webb should be uplifting, a bright island in a sea of dark news. 

Launch of the Webb is not the nervous part. The Ariane 5 booster has a great record for reliability. The nail-biting comes with the sequence of unfolding Webb’s 18-segment primary mirror, its secondary mirror, and its multilayered sun shield. The telescope will be sent to the L2 Lagrange point, in sun orbit a million miles from Earth, so if anything goes wrong in the deployment sequence, we have no capability to send astronauts to fix it, as we did five times with Hubble. 

There are folks who have invested their entire careers working on the Webb. If it fails to deploy it will be a crushing blow. If it succeeds it will be an achievement to rival our moon landings. If all goes well, it will still be six months of deployment steps and instrument calibration before we start getting science results. Something to look forward to next year!

See the NASA Webb Space Telescope fact sheet for more detail.

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

The recent arrival of another COVID variant and the familiar spikes in infections and deaths, after 2 years of pandemic, is yet more depressing. If Americans ever needed some good news, it’s now. And we have it, but it doesn’t appear to be cheering anyone up. As Bill Clinton once said: “It’s the economy stupid.” And it is.

Starting with the macro numbers, over the past three quarters, America’s real GDP increased at an annualized rate of 7.8%. Between 2000 – 2019, the average GDP was 2.2% and never reached 3%. The Federal Reserve projects 2021` will see an average of 5.9%. US disposable income grew 3% after inflation from January to October 2021. In 2018, the increase was 1.7% and in 2019, 0.5%.

And since January, unemployment has fallen by 1/3 and the Boston Globe reports (12/09/21 edition) that over the year now ending, lowest paid wages have increased by some 8%, but inflation gobbled up 5.5%. Bottom line, increase in wages is ahead of inflation, The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced that the job increase in November was 210,000, OK, but not extraordinary. However, the most impressive data point is that in the months since January, the economy, has added 4.5 million jobs, the largest number in any administration’s first seven months.

A curious result of recent Bureau of Labor Statistics polling doesn’t help much. The Bureau asks two different groups questions about the economy, Employers and Households and generally expects the two responses to be similar. Last month’s however, were not. Employers said economy was good to very good, while consumers, Households, said it wasn’t.

The public’s dismal sense of the economy, contradicts the standard measures as per above. Moreover, businesses are making huge capital investments which reflects confidence in the economy and its future, while consumers are buying at a high rate. Something they wouldn’t do if America was on the edge of recession.

So what is going on? First, rising inflation is frightening to many Americans who have gone through its negative personal impacts in the past, this despite the fact incomes are keeping pace. Second, there is considerable attention being paid in the media and on social media, to inflation. Much more than to the “Good News” economic statistics. Repetition eventually convinces people, inflation is a VERY BIG PROBLEM. Third, the price of gasoline, not Bureau of Labor Statistics reports, is what makes an impression.

And beyond this dull data, the hyper publicized Congressional decision whether to raise the debt ceiling and the familiar squeal that the NATIONAL DEBT WILL GO UP and the country will go bankrupt, doesn’t help. Given we finance our deficits largely from US debt instruments bought by Americans, the deficits/national debt shouldn’t induce panic.

Our economy is making an amazing recovery from the pandemic-induced crisis, much better than other major countries’.

We should be enjoying the holidays with our families and friends and not be seduced into unnecessary worry.

Tom Timberman is an Army vet, lawyer, former senior Foreign Service officer, adjunct professor at GWU, and economic development team leader or foreign government advisor in war zones. He is the author of four books, lectures locally and at US and European universities. He and his wife are 24 year residents of Kent County.

 

For far too long, prevailing conventional wisdom has been that environmentalists and farmers will always be at odds over the impact of government policies, oversight, and regulation. It’s time to change that. We need a strategy that supports our farmers as they deal with the negative effects of climate change and one that also supports the agricultural practices that will help address the severe, immediate climate crisis that we all face.

Maryland—and especially the Eastern Shore—is highly vulnerable to the current and future effects of climate change. When it comes to rising sea levels, our region has the dual misfortune of the threat of rising waters of the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries as well as sinking land. Our farmers stand to lose the most if we fail to act on the threats of saltwater intrusion, coastal flooding, and severe weather events—but our vibrant agricultural community also stands to benefit the most when we think creatively about how to partner for success.

I come from a long line of family farmers, and agriculture runs deep in my DNA. It’s one of the reasons I’m running for Congress here in Maryland’s First District—our farmers need a true advocate and leader who is willing to stand up for them in Washington, and that’s something we haven’t had for the past decade.

My spouse and I own a small 34-acre organic farm in Kent County that is our forever home. We see ourselves as stewards and work to always be in right relationship to the land and its habitats and ecosystems. It is in the spirit of a farmer-conservationist that I sponsored a roundtable discussion which gathered local stakeholders ranging from farmers and environmentalists to academics, non-profit leaders, and industry entrepreneurs to discuss ideas for how agricultural policies can partner to help solve our climate crisis.

Out of that collaboration came a specific policy platform that I call “Agri-Climate Solutions for Maryland’s Eastern Shore,” which can be read in full on my campaign website. These ideas are just a few of many ways that our agricultural communities can be a part of our climate solutions and how farmers can benefit from these practices.

Creating a National Soil Health Initiative

Successful agricultural communities depend on the quality and health of the soil that is feeding their crops. As the effects of climate change are dramatically impacting soil conditions, we must get ahead of the curve on mitigating these challenges by supporting a robust and visionary plan to create a new project called the National Soil Health Initiative (NSHI) through the USDA that would address the problems of saltwater intrusion, reform key conservation programs, and leverage greater use of carbon farming which can boost soil health and store carbon in the soil, positively impact the climate crisis, and contribute to agricultural resilience. This project could begin as a pilot program for the Delmarva / Chesapeake Bay region to prove its benefits before rolling it out as a national program.

Farming Carbon: Soil-Based Sequestration

While certain agricultural practices can release net carbon emissions, others do the opposite by sequestering carbon from the atmosphere into the soil. Scientists estimate that each year, soils could sequester over a billion extra tons of carbon. However, we must support the implementation and continuation of carbon storing practices to achieve maximum soil carbon outcomes.

There is a growing carbon credit market providing an opportunity for farmers to get paid for mitigating the effects of climate change through soil-based carbon sequestration.

Large corporations who want to offset their carbon footprint are in the market to buy carbon credits. Farmers generate carbon credits they can sell in this marketplace when they go through the process of certifying and calculating the carbon they store in the soil through practices using cover crops, diversified crop rotation, use of natural inputs such as compost, conversion to perennial grasses and other conservation cover, reducing chemical inputs, and pastured rotational animal production, to name a few.

To address this potential, the NSHI will invest in research to test and identify optimal carbon storage practices and will facilitate the tracking and measurement of organic matter and soil carbon to help drive best practices and maximize participation in carbon markets. The program will assist with the transition to and continuation of practices which achieve optimal per-acre carbon storage.

Reforming Conservation Programs

The USDA has an alphabet soup of programs that collectively work to conserve land by compensating farmers and landowners who voluntarily engage in conservation practices. The NSHI will advance some key reforms to these programs by:

Increasing rental payments under the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) for projects tied to climate-conscious practices that focus on increasing organic matter, soil carbon, and soil health as well as better management of nutrient runoff into waterways. CRP will also add educational and technical assistance programs to inform landowners of available programs and assist with participation and enrollment;

Updating the Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) and Conservation Stewardship Program (CSP) to give weighted priority to projects devoted to soil-boosting practices which provide optimal per-acre carbon storage outcomes;

Using the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) to provide federal bonus payments to farmers enrolled in state cover crop programs, effectively leveraging additional state funds for this purpose and maximizing enrollment in existing state cover crop programs. CREP will also authorize incentive payments for rewarding best practices in measured outcomes for soil carbon storage;

Amending conservation programs to put an increased emphasis on helping farmers create individualized soil health plans, including plans for soil carbon storage;

and Amending conservation programs to allow farmers to receive rental payments for land that is no longer suitable for agriculture because of saltwater intrusion if they install some form of alternative and sustainable energy source on that marginal land.

Boosting Technical Assistance and Decreasing Administrative Burdens

USDA programs supporting soil health and soil carbon storage, education, and assistance are underfunded and oversubscribed. There is a significant need for more federal investment in technical assistance and support throughout all USDA programs to meet the growing demand. The Natural Resources Conservation Service and its Soil Conservation Districts is just one example of where we must invest in more technical assistance offerings to help farmers implement robust soil health plans that are envisioned under the NSHI. In addition to program expansion, the NSHI is dedicated to decreasing administrative burdens that can limit access and engagement in these programs.

Addressing Saltwater Intrusion

In addition to severe weather events, rising sea levels also pose a significant threat to our farming traditions as saltwater intrusion dramatically impacts growing conditions. As saltwater leaches from the Bay onto our fields and into our aquifers, the rising salinity level in the soil makes it challenging to grow an array of cash crops that have become staples for our region.

To address these challenges, the NSHI will invest in research to test and determine which cash crops are most capable of withstanding salty soils and periodic flooding; track salinity changes over time in groundwater wells and surface water; and map these areas as a way to highlight where it will be most cost-effective to implement adaptation measures such as planting salt-tolerant crops. The NSHI will also make changes to existing conservation programs to inform landowners of available programs and ease transition of impacted farmland to marsh fields that will protect biodiversity and improve carbon storage.

Crop Insurance: Keeping it Affordable and Rewarding Good Climate Practices

The Federal Crop Insurance Program (FCIP) protects farmers from the impacts of unpredictable weather but as insurance claims increase because of severe weather events, farmers may be faced with higher premiums to keep the program solvent. The USDA projects that the severity of predicted climate change could cause FCIP costs to increase by up to 22 percent. We must ensure that farmers are not bearing the burden of these increased costs through higher premiums for their crop insurance. A better approach is to make fossil fuel companies pay for climate mitigation and devote a portion of that funding towards FCIP solvency.

In addition to keeping crop insurance premiums from rising, the USDA should reward farmers with lower FCIP premiums if they are using best practices to make crops more resilient against severe weather.

Farmers who increase organic matter and carbon in the soil can produce more climate resilient crops, which withstand the extreme and unpredictable swings between drought and heavy rains. These practices contribute to more resilient yields and reduced federal crop insurance claims; however, the USDA gives no consideration to whether a farmer deploys these practices when determining crop insurance premiums. By modernizing this program to give farmers credit for good climate practices through lowered FCIP premiums, the USDA would create an incentive that is good for the farmer as well as the land.

Transforming Poultry Litter Into Biofuel and Potting Soil
The Eastern Shore is home to some of the highest concentrations of broilers in the country with the poultry industry employing thousands of Marylanders in our region. For decades, excessive chicken litter was applied directly to agricultural fields, resulting in high nutrient levels in the Bay, algae blooms, and dead zones. How to properly manage excess poultry litter has been an ongoing challenge for our region, but an innovative public-private partnership may offer a sustainable solution to this problem.

Planet Found Energy Development is a Maryland-based company of scientists, farmers, and business leaders dedicated to developing manure management technologies that will safeguard the environment as well as the economic viability of our agricultural communities in the Chesapeake Bay Region. Planet Found has built a patent-pending system for treating poultry litter and converting it into renewable energy, potting soils, and fertilizers while eliminating liquid discharge. In the process, the majority of phosphorus introduced to the system is captured as a phosphorus-based fertilizer, removing it from the nutrient cycle in sensitive agricultural and ecological environments.

This project is currently being piloted on the Lower Shore in Pocomoke City. As innovations like this one come to market, there is an opportunity to use agricultural technology to solve some of the most stubborn environmental challenges created by certain farming practices. Reducing agricultural runoff into our waterways and lowering our phosphorus nutrient loads will dramatically improve the health of our Chesapeake Bay. Doing so by investing in and scaling up technologies that transform poultry litter into value-added products for commercial sale is a win-win-win.

This Agri-Climate plan envisions a world where Eastern Shore- and Maryland-based companies with next generation solutions to agricultural and environmental challenges benefit from strong public sector support and advocacy. The agricultural community is in many cases the most affected by the climate crisis, and farmers should be our priority partners in combating it.

Heather Mizeur is a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the 1st Congressional District race in 2022. She previously served as a member of the Maryland House of Delegates representing the 20th district in Montgomery County. She now resides is Kent County with her spouse Deborah Mizeur.

Can American Political Parties Advocate the Overthrow of the US Government?

Yes, the Supreme Court indicates, as long as advocacy isn’t activated, but what if it is? 

The Founders were familiar with the vicious in-fighting that occurred between and among European political parties, and wanted to avoid possible crippling political dissent in the country they were busy creating. Ben Franklin, speaking before the Constitutional Convention on June 2, 1787 had this to say:

“There are two passions which have a powerful influence on the affairs of men.  These are ambition and avarice; the love of power and the love of money….Place before them a post of honor, that shall be at the same time a place of profit, and they will move heaven and earth to obtain it.”

Four days later James Madison added these thoughts:

“All civilized societies would be divided into different sects, factions and interests, rich and poor, disciples of this or that religious sect, …the followers of this political leader or that political leader… where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger.”

Intellectually, these statesmen recognized the problems that had arisen in Great Britain and could arise in the United States.  However, human instincts led to diverging behavior later that summer, when powerful groups came together to oppose or support the draft Constitution.  By the 1796 presidential election, two political parties had already formed: (1) the Federalists followed Alexander Hamilton and the Democratic-Republicans looked to Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The latter had clearly overcome his earlier concerns about debilitating partisan warfare. 

In the centuries since the US Constitution entered into force on June 21, 1788, 94 political parties have been certified.  Ten lasted until the post-Civil War period, when they disappeared because they reflected attitudes toward the union or slavery, that the War had overtaken. 

The two most durable parties are the Democratic (established 1828) and Republican (1854).   Interesting to note that the Democrats originally were pro-slavery and pro-states rights, while the Republicans were abolitionists and pro-Union. 

Over the decades, a process evolved enabling groups of Americans to be certified as state and/or Federal political parties, allowing their candidates to participate in elections. The qualifications focus on: (1) their demonstrated degree of support and political activity (e.g. a percentage of the primary vote) and (2) their understanding and acceptance of the complex of financial laws and regulations governing their fundraising and expenditures.

The Federal courts have consistently shown deference to the Constitutional rights  of association and free speech. The question of regulating American political parties has arisen, but largely over the issues of racial discrimination and membership, as well as the “fairness of their nominating process”. Violations of the financial laws have been the most frequent legal actions taken against parties and their representatives. 

Only one law has been passed by Congress penalizing specific political beliefs sand systems in the United States: The Communist Control Act (1954).  And then there’s the Smith Act of 1940. 

The Clear and Present Danger Test

The Federal Courts and particularly the US Supreme Court have considered a number of cases regarding extremely offensive party platforms and allowed these parties to remain in place. Perhaps, none has offered a clearer example of the nation’s deep commitment to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights than that of the American Nazi Party founded in 1959 by George Lincoln Rockwell.  

The Party’s declared mission was to kill all Jews, send all Blacks back to Africa and to further other, similar racial views.  Rockwell ran unsuccessfully for president in 1964 and was assassinated in 1967 by a former party member. The party collapsed, but off-shoots have surfaced regularly ever since. A Neo-Nazi group participated in the violent August 2017 white supremacist demonstration in Charlottesville, Virginia, that saw one counter demonstrator murdered.. 

In 1940, the Smith Act was passed against the background of armed conflict in Europe and more aggressive Communist  movements.  The Act was aimed at restricting subversive activities in the US. It forbade any attempts to “…advocate, abet, advise or teach or  to organize or be a member of any group or society devoted to such advocacy. or” the violent destruction of the U.S. Government”. Prosecutions were brought against American Communists for their beliefs and membership, triggering appeals asserting their 1st Amendment , and thus their Constitutional rights, were being violated.  .

The Supreme Court in Dennis v. United States (1951), found the Act was Constitutional, but that it could only be applied when there was  evidence showing that “…a conspiracy was in place to overthrow the government., i.e.. “…a clear and present danger of the substantive evil.” In Yates v. United States (1957), the court focused on the difference between abstract advocacy and that which called for immediate action. 

And then, in two 1961 cases, Scales v. United States and  and Noto v. Unied States the Supreme Court seemed to backtrack a little by finding that active membership in the Communist Party with intent to overthrow the government was not protected by the First Amendment or the Due Process clause.  In Noto   the Court found there was insufficient evidence that Noto or his particular Communist Party was actively doing much of anything. 

There have been no prosecutions under the Smith Act for the past 60 years, although it remains on the books. 2021: the Smith Act & 18 USC.

Could Either Apply to 1/06/21?

On January 6, Republican supporters of former president Trump violently assaulted the US Capitol in Washington, D.C. Their purpose was to prevent the Congress from carrying out its largely ceremonial duty of accepting the states certified Electoral College 2020 vote tallies and announcing the president and vice president elect of the United States. They failed and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were declared the 2020 winners. . 

Five people died, over 140 police were injured and hospitalized and well over 500 of those who took part in the attack have been charged and are being prosecuted in the Federal Courts. 

The Smith Act is relevant because it forbids attempts to “advocate, abet, advise or teach” the violent overthrow of the US Government and resulted in the prosecution and conviction of 23 leaders/members of the Socialist Workers Party in Minneapolis (overturned in 1957). Subsequent prosecutions were aimed principally at members of the US Communist Party, alleging conspiracies aimed at overthrowing the US Government. As mentioned earlier, the Supreme Court stated there had to be more than advocacy of an abstract idea, something closer to a “clear and present danger”. The Smith Act has not been employed in legal actions since the 1960x.

The US Code (18USCSec.2383  enacted in 1948 deals with the crimes of rebellion or Insurrection. More specifically, it states that: “whoever incites, sets on foot, assists or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined or imprisoned or both;and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United State4s.”

The U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia said officials are looking at “significant felony cases” tied to sedition and conspiracy.” The FBI has opened more than 500 cases against individuals who took part in the January 6, 2021 assault on the Capitol 

My initial interest was to research the possibility the Republican Party could be held liable for the January 6, 2021 violence.  The Smith Act was used to prosecute members of two political parties (Socialist and Communist), but its purview was narrowed by the Supreme Court, requiring a showing of more than advocacy aimed at the overthrow of the US Government. The attack on the Capitol definitely satisfied that element.  However, proving a conspiracy by the Republican Party itself, which does not advocate overthrowing the American Government, would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Then the question becomes, if not the Party itself, what about another group of individuals forming a conspiracy with the specific intent (Eastman Plan) of reversing the 2020 Election and then acting,.on it. Theoretically possible, but unlikely, which probably explains why the FBI and the US Attorneys have been charging each participant in the attack individually. 

18 US Code, Section 2383 punishes “…whoever incites…or engages in rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States”.I have not researched the case history under this statute, but superficially it appears more appropriate for what led up to January 6th.  Another point I didn’t address was the liability of several militias and their members.         

Tom Timberman is an Army vet, lawyer, former senior Foreign Service officer, adjunct professor at GWU, and economic development team leader or foreign government advisor in war zones. He is the author of four books, lectures locally and at US and European universities. He and his wife are 24 year residents of Kent County.

In 2021, we are awash in specific subjects that have become inflammable political issues that 5 years ago were unknown, e.g. replacement theory, vaccinations, critical race theory, mask wearing etc.  However, very quickly, they have become so divisive that school boards, public health officers, town councils, mayors and their families are receiving death threats, general vituperation and threatened loss of positions.  However, there is one that has been around for more than 40 years: abortion  

Prior to Richard Nixon’s 1972 election campaign, approximately the same number of Republicans and Democrats opposed or supported abortion rights.  At the time, it was considered a personal moral, religious choice. However, Nixon made an anti-abortion position part of his reelection strategy in order to appeal to Catholic voters and other social conservatives.  

Republican Congressional candidates adopted it as well and eventually coalitions formed over the issue  between Republicans and evangelical Christian groups and others. Eventually, this campaign tactic morphed into a Party emblem: Pro-Family  

However, in the 1960s and earlier, the Party’s candidates were not caught up in abortion as a keystone of their politics and were unpredictable, but that changed..Ronald Reagan, when Governor of California, signed a law (1967) that loosened abortion restrictions, but during his run for the presidency in 1980, he strongly supported the appointment of anti-abortion judges.. 

Probably inevitable, but in order to distinguish themselves from the GOP, the Democratic Party staked out a position in favor of a woman’s right to decide what happens in her body, i.e. Pro-Choice.  

And then years later, abortion became a national cause and mass movements in America championed, lobbied and organized regular public demonstrations on both sides of the issue.

In the 1990s and early 2000s, abortion tactics began to change. Opponents initially favored incremental restrictions, for instance a ban on partial birth abortion. Bill Clinton stretched to the middle when he said: “Abortions should be safe, legal and rare”. 

Now, the demands have expanded; the Republicans today are pursuing “heart beat” laws, earlier in a pregnancy. Texas recently passed legislation prohibiting abortions after the 6th week and deputizing the public to enforce it. Others among the 23 Republican controlled states are following the Lone Star’s lead. The Democrats are pursuing reproductive justice for women.  

Both parties have the same target: the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision (7-2) in Roe v. Wade. The case  struck down a Texas abortion law as unconstitutional and found that American women have a fundamental right to choose whether to have an abortion or not without excessive government. 

In 2021, the Republicans want the current Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade, while the Democrats want the Constitutional right to be reconfirmed. 

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization:.

This Mississippi case has reached a very different Supreme Court in November 2021 than the one that  decided Roe v. Wade almost 50 years ago. Today SCOTUS has a 6-3 conservative majority. Republicans believe they have a real chance of obliterating Roe and Democrats are concerned. 

However, in a 2019 national poll, 75% of Americans supported the constitutional right of women to have an abortion, BUT possibly a version of Roe in a 21st Century context, i.e. some restrictions may be OK.  However, the red line between acceptable and unacceptable has yet to be decided.  Will today’s Court do that, assuming Roe is not overturned?

Tom Timberman is an Army vet, lawyer, former senior Foreign Service officer, adjunct professor at GWU, and economic development team leader or foreign government advisor in war zones. He is the author of four books, lectures locally and at US and European universities. He and his wife are 24 year residents of Kent County.