Clear and Present Danger

A clear and present danger is lurking over the United States of America. The language is pure Supreme Court reasoning and language. It gives the nation power and authority to take appropriate action should a clear and present danger appear that threatens the safety and well-being of the people of the United States of America. These are limits over free speech, assembly and the press.

Settled law. But what about process to implement it? Once we are certain a clear and present danger exists, what then? Who leads us through the process? What is the process. What is the timeline. What are the short term adjustments we must take to enable unfettered governance to continue, just with different people.

The court case that gave us this doctrine, involved freedom of speech and press. What constituted imminent danger as a direct result of the speech used? The year was 1919. Newspapers were the means by which we communicated via mass media. Today the media selection is huge and ever more present in our lives. Newspapers and magazines not so much. Internet webpages, yes. Twitter and Facebook carry billions of messages each day. Not always well thought out or even true, but the effects are real and most are intended.

Intention of message and the result one can reasonably expect from it. Is it a danger? A discussion? And opinion? Shouting ‘bomb!’ in an airplane causes instantaneous results, chaos, injury and panic. Shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater causes the same panic and injury. Maybe even death. Of many.

Having a gun in public and waving it about is not speech, but has the same effect. Even if he who brandishes the weapon is a mute.

A danger of imminent impact from someone’s action. Is it intended to upset and move others to action?

We have a president who tweets constantly seven days each week. He speaks off script daily. He ad libs comments and claims. Very few of these messages are true, just influential, propaganda and intended to misinform some while salving his fan base. He does this overseas, too.

On foreign soil the rules of communication of a president are different. He is restricted from treasonous acts that meet a lower threshold than if he were communicating on home soil.

The actions, tweets, public statements at home and abroad by the current president seriously  creates the image, if not actual act, of treason. He has undercut American policy, both foreign and domestic, he has injured treaties and relationships with allies, and he has dissed federal agencies, and employees.

What constitutes treason? Who in the judiciary and legislative branches have both the knowledge and power to define this with respect to our current circumstances? And if they agree treason has been committed, then what do we do?

While this process is going on, what do we do with the president’s power and authority? Is it suspended? If so, to whom do the reins of the job transfer?  Is it the vice president, a person involved at the very base of policies and communication under dispute? If treasonous, the position of president and vice president are packaged as one; both positions are suspended. If that happens, who then takes their place until the facts are adjudicated and settled?

One stark truth stares me in the face: there are few elected officials in Washington DC who have the trust of the nation in these matters. The state of chaos among elected leaders appears universal. They are all without power in such times.

Who then guides the ship of state back to safe harbor?

I think we are at this stage of crisis. Who among us knows the answers to these pressing questions?

July 20, 2018