Supreme Court Is on the Case

Actually, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two big cases yesterday. The first centers on a conflict between federal statutes and Idaho law over the performance of emergency abortions. And the second is the Donald Trump ballot eligibility case.

Starting with the abortion case, Idaho's Defense of Life Act forbids virtually all abortions, unless the physician is absolutely certain that the death of the mother is imminent. That's a subjective decision, of course, and doctors who found that their judgment was not in agreement with that of bureaucrats and/or judges—who, one should note, are not medical professionals—would be at risk of steep fines and/or loss of licensure. Needless to say, this makes it nearly impossible to get even a life-saving abortion in Idaho.

Meanwhile, the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act says that emergency rooms must provide life-stabilizing treatment regardless of ability to pay. And the Biden administration has taken the position that the Idaho law is in conflict with the federal law. If so, the federal law would take precedence, of course. An Idaho court already found the Idaho law to be in violation of the state Constitution, but yesterday the Supremes stayed that decision, meaning that Idaho can continue to enforce its statute. SCOTUS will hear arguments in April, and will presumably announce its decision in late June or early July (the usual timetable). The message to pregnant Idaho women who find themselves in life-threatening situations in the next 6 months would appear to be: Tough luck.

And then there is the Trump case. That one will be fast-tracked, with arguments scheduled for Feb. 8. We have much to say about this subject, and will say it in an item later this week. For now, we will just point out that Colorado's primary is on Mar. 5, and Colorado is a vote-by-mail state. So, even if SCOTUS rules overnight, Feb. 9 will not be soon enough, as voters will already have ballots in hand.

The Colorado ruling is stayed, courtesy of the state's Supreme Court, so Trump's name will be on those ballots. The ruling surely has to come down before Super Tuesday, and if it's adverse to Trump, there will undoubtedly be hundreds of thousands of votes for him in Colorado nonetheless, at least some of them cast before the decision is known. That means an adverse decision will disenfranchise some voters. In short, by taking their sweet time, the Court is going to take a situation that is guaranteed to be messy, and make it just a little bit messier. (Z)

Saturday Q&A

We knew that this week's headline theme was tough, and we have been proven right. An additional hint: Other words we considered for headlines include cleave, dust, handicap and weather. Anyhow, there are still plenty of spots left in the "First 25."

Current Events

G.W. in Oxnard, CA, asks: In the item "Democratic Report: Don't Overlook the Emoluments Clause," you wrote: "The [House Oversight Committee] could hope the Senate Committee on Finance takes up the matter, and perhaps refers it to the Department of Justice. Or they could hope the DoJ downloads a copy and takes action of its own volition. Certainly, Jack Smith has not been shy about opening up new lines of inquiry."

I'm no lawyer, so I may be missing something. I don't see how DoJ could charge Trump with a crime for accepting emoluments while president. What is the crime? Would a bribery statute apply? It seems to me that accepting emoluments as president is an impeachable offense, but I fail to see how it could be criminally prosecuted.

(V) & (Z) answer: It's true that there is very little jurisprudence here, so we're left to guess. However, the emoluments clause applies to all federal officeholders, not just presidents, so violations are clearly punishable in some way other than impeachment and removal. There's little question that the DoJ could go after Trump civilly, suing him for the money he took, plus penalties. And they would certainly able to find some criminal counts to charge, if that's what they wanted to do, probably under USC Title 18, Chapter 11, which is the same part federal law being used against Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ).

---

R.D. in Philadelphia, PA, asks: More and more reports are coming out every day of Trump's illegal activity before, during, and after his presidency. In the end, not much has happened to him so far and seems like possibly not much will happen to him in the near future, with all the delays and appeals. Do you think this is why most Americans have little or no faith in the justice system? If a common person, not a former president of the United States, committed many of these crimes, they would be at least in jail awaiting trial and have little or no chance or not serving significant jail time.

(V) & (Z) answer: That's part of the problem, another part is how very easy it seems to be to throw certain classes of people (poor, minorities) in jail and then throw away the key.

That said, there's also some selection bias in play. People remember the high-profile folks who get off with a slap on the wrist, but perhaps forget the sizable number of muckety-mucks who end up behind bars for an extended stay: Harvey Weinstein, Oliver North, Danny Masterson, O.J. Simpson, Phil Spector, Todd and Julie Chrisley, Elizabeth Holmes, Bernie Madoff, Martha Stewart, Bill Cosby, Mike Tyson, Wesley Snipes, Paris Hilton, etc.

---

S.K. in Sunnyvale, CA, asks: A concept that's come up several times recently is, "Is the Fourteenth Amendment self-executing?" What exactly does this mean?

(V) & (Z) answer: It means that it takes effect without any additional action from Congress being required.

---

M.C. in Walla Walla, WA, asks: I don't understand how there can be a debate about whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is "self-executing." It seems to me that every Constitutional provision would have to be self-executing in some sense, or else Congress could render it moot simply by declining to pass the relevant legislation. What am I missing? Are there examples of Constitutional provisions where it actually makes sense that they aren't self-executing?

(V) & (Z) answer: There are plenty of Constitutional provisions that are not self-executing. To take a very clear example, the Sixteenth Amendment gives Congress the power to impose an income tax. However, Congress actually has to execute that power; people did not start paying income taxes just because that Amendment became law.

Generally, when something is NOT self-executing, the Constitution specifies that fact. For example: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes..." That the Fourteenth Amendment DOES NOT specify a need for Congress to act to disqualify someone, and it DOES specify a need for Congress to act in order to remove a person's disqualification, is a very strong argument that disqualification is self-executing.

---

D.K. in Sebastopol, CA, asks: If SCOTUS upholds Colorado's ballot ban on Trump, would that automatically trigger application in all other states?

Do you think there is a lane for Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to slip through if Trump is somehow excluded? He has the evangelicals, the Trump base and big money behind him.

(V) & (Z) answer: Most states prohibit someone who is not eligible to be president from being on their ballot. So, depending on how the Supreme Court were to word its ruling, if Trump is disqualified in Colorado, he would likely be disqualified nearly everywhere. And in those states where it wasn't automatic, anti-Trump groups would quickly file lawsuits to see that the job got done.

And we think Johnson is way, way down the list if Trump becomes unavailable. The people who would choose the replacement want to win, and Johnson has too many non-mainstream ideas to be a viable candidate.

---

O.Z.H. in Dubai, UAE, asks: I don't understand something. If Donald Trump can appeal the Maine secretary of state's decision to the Maine Supreme Court, why is no one appealing the decision of the California secretary of state to the California Supreme Court?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is too late for a court challenge to keep him off the state's primary ballot. But if this question is still a going concern when the deadline for the general election ballot rolls around, there will be appeals.

---

P.M. in Port Angeles, WA, asks: What constitutes plagiarism? A single word used is obviously a repeat of someone/anyone else having used that word. But that is impossible to label plagiarism. So does a two-word phrase constitute plagiarism? No? then a longer string of words in a phrase or even a sentence? Is plagiarism perhaps copying an idea or a concept? Clearly (or obtusely) plagiarism is a fairly fuzzy concept.

This is important because one Joseph Biden was driven from a presidential run by a charge of plagiarism! For academics, original writings are their lifeblood and thus must face a brutal edit to be considered free of stealing another's thoughts. But, for the general population, I suspect plagiarism is a much more nebulous concept.

Do you wish to weigh in on this subject?

(V) & (Z) answer: Plagiarism is representing someone else's words or ideas as your own. It's certainly possible to plagiarize a word if that word is, for example, a very distinctive way of expressing an idea that someone else came up with. If a person writes an essay in which they talk about how they've come up with a great new way to talk about political trickery—ratfu**ing—and they presented that as their own innovation, then that would be plagiarism. And if a single word can be plagiarized, then it follows that any longer string could also be plagiarized, if it expresses distinctive ideas, or it expresses ideas in a distinctive way. Something that you learn pretty quickly as a professor is that even very short phrases, if they include a couple of words that aren't merely functional (like 'the' or 'and'), are commonly unique. For example, until this post goes live, there will be no webpage on the Internet that contains the exact phrase "presented that as their own innovation" or "it follows that any longer string" or "if it expresses distinctive ideas."

Needless to say, not all plagiarism is created equal. A politician who plagiarizes is being dishonest, but an academic who plagiarizes is betraying one of the fundamental conventions of the profession.

---

A.J. in Baltimore, MD, asks: Your take on the Claudine Gay resignation essentially seemed to be that her plagiarism constituted misdeeds and fireable offenses, especially in light of Harvard's position on the evils of plagiarism, even if Gay was also the victim of a right-wing witch hunt. When I read about this situation in The New York Times (see here and here, for example), I felt that the Gray Lady was minimizing the import of the alleged plagiarism. For example, the paper described the various language that Gay has been accused of copying as "technical boilerplate," "technical definitions," "acknowledgments," and "paragraphs summing up other scholars' research that are only lightly paraphrased." There is also a quotation from Harvard suggesting that the alleged plagiarism doesn't rise to the level of "research misconduct," and a quotation from a Harvard professor that the decision wasn't made based on "established scholarly principles." The implication seemed to be that it's not a significant problem to copy someone else's language if the language is not really that important to the writer's underlying research. What do you think of that distinction? What are the standards in academia for whether such copying is accepted, if ever?

(V) & (Z) answer: As we note above, not all plagiarism is created equal. Copying a few sentences is not as bad as copying a few paragraphs. Copying a few paragraphs is not as bad as copying a few pages.

Truth be told, if we had caught a student engaging in plagiarism comparable to Gay's, we might have taken mercy, as it's at least possible the student honestly did not know they were doing wrong. It's a case-by-case kind of thing, and depends on the student's other work in the class, how they respond when the plagiarism is pointed out, and a number of other factors.

The problem is that Claudine Gay is not "a student." She was the leader of Harvard University, and ostensibly a symbol and a role model. She cannot claim that she did not understand that she was plagiarizing. And it's simply impossible for professors to enforce a plagiarism policy if the university's president is a well-known plagiarist who has faced no consequences for her actions. You can't stand in front of the class on Day 1 and say: "OK, no plagiarism in this class... well, unless it's gray-area plagiarism like Dr. Gay's."

We think the Times made a pretty sloppy error in speaking to Harvard professors about Gay, since those professors are not necessarily neutral here. Why not someone from Boston University or MIT or Boston College? In any event, we've talked to dozens of fellow academics, and the consensus was unanimous that she had to go. And recall, it's not like Gay is now unemployed. She was merely demoted to fully tenured Harvard professor. That's a pretty soft landing.

---

R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: How widespread a problem is plagiarism? Fully conceding I may likely be suffering from recency bias, it seems like we hear more about it now than 20-25 years ago. Is there more of it or is there just more coverage of it because there is more coverage of everything? How often are students caught committing plagiarism?

(V) & (Z) answer: It is possible to create assignments where it is hard to plagiarize, and we both know how to do that, so we don't get too many plagiarists in our classes. A few, but not many. It is also helpful to take time on the first day of class to explain what plagiarism is, that it will be watched for, and that it will be dealt with firmly. Oh, and always, always, always put a statement on plagiarism in the syllabus.

Some professors are not as willing, or not as able, to police plagiarism, and studies suggest that about a third of college students have plagiarized at least once, with about 10% having turned in work that was entirely not their own. That 10% is the source of 90% of headaches, since someone who behaves so egregiously is not likely to limit their malfeasance to just one assignment.

---

J.L. in Paterson, NJ, asks: Concerning Claudine Gay's resignation, you wrote: "Gay's publication record was shockingly scant for any Harvard faculty member, much less the president of the institution."

Putting aside the question whether "publish or perish" is a sensible standard for tenure, your comment leads me to wonder about the qualifications for academic administration, as opposed to teaching. What skills does a university president need? In particular, how much overlap is there with the skills needed to produce good scholarly work? I'd guess that a president's job entails administration and fundraising more than research and writing.

Suppose one candidate is a professor with extensive publications but no experience beyond teaching (or maybe a department chairship). The other, the longtime successful head of a major nonprofit, has no Ph.D., let alone academic publications, but only a B.A./B.S. or perhaps an M.B.A., and has never taught. Who would be the better president? Would the latter candidate be handicapped by faculty resentment against an "outsider"? And, related question, what do you think of the appointment of Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) to head Youngstown State University?

(V) & (Z) answer: As we have written many times, the foremost job of a university president is to raise money. So, a person with a non-academic but fundraising background is undoubtedly more qualified for the core task than a long-time academic with a traditional CV.

That said, a university president does have to be involved in academic affairs, including deciding which departments to give money to, which people to promote to administrative roles, what kind of students to try to recruit, etc. Someone with zero experience in academia is going to have a tough time with those things, and a tough time being accepted by people (like, say, the professoriate) who think academic matters are more important that kissing up to fat-cat donors. And so, it would be very unusual for someone to move over from being president of, say, the Red Cross to being chancellor of, say, UC San Diego.

The most notable exception to this rule is what you might call "celebrity chancellors." That is to say, someone whose non-academic career was dazzling to the point that their appointment brings glory and prestige to the university. Bill Johnson has no obvious qualifications to lead Youngstown State (in contrast to Ben Sasse, who took over the U. of Florida), but a sitting member of Congress is a pretty good get for a second- or third-tier school. This is why Columbia tapped Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example, or why Washington University recruited Robert E. Lee (resulting in the school being renamed as Washington & Lee). British universities often have a ceremonial head, so they can hire a celebrity to "lead" the university while not actually having that person do anything. For example, the Chancellor of the the University of Huddersfield for about a decade was actor Patrick Stewart. When he stepped down, he was replaced by... Prince Andrew. Oops. It's now Sir George William Buckley.

---

J.K. in Seoul, South Korea, asks: Regarding Claudine Gay's publication record: Even calling it "shockingly scant" seems euphemistic if she was indeed hired as full professor at Harvard in 2006 with a grand total of (at most) 7 scholarly articles and 1 report. Can you come up with any explanation of what was going on? Could the Scholia page you linked to somehow have missed 80% of her works? Were they so groundbreaking that one article could count as 10? Was the hire entirely based on expectations of future success? Even if we assumed that race and gender were the major factors in the selection, it seems unlikely that the hiring committee could not find a single non-white female candidate who was qualified. I'm flabbergasted...

(V) & (Z) answer: We can only offer up a few thoughts. First, the Scholia page isn't missing some large volume of stuff. We wanted to link to her Google Scholar page, but... she doesn't have one because she doesn't have enough published work to justify it. And if she had come up with some important idea or groundbreaking insight, that would be reflected in her number of citations. But she's been cited an average of once a year for the last decade.

So, the answer doesn't lie in unlocking the secrets of Gay's publication record—it's meager, there's no way around it. However, you don't move up the academic ranks without being able to talk a good game. So, we have no doubt that Gay is excellent at selling herself. On top of that, as academics in the audience will know, there is a general philosophy of "cast the net wide—really wide." For example, there were a staggering 600 candidates that Gay beat out for the Harvard presidency. But, of course, there's no way to vet 600 people in a meaningful way, just as there's no way to vet the 200 people who apply for a professorship. It is a situation that allows for anomalous or wonky hires, and also a situation that tends to encourage results-oriented hiring. In other words: "There are so many candidates, we're just going to go with one that checks a lot of good boxes, because how can we possibly identify the BEST one?"

Politics

I.M.O. in Norman, OK, asks: In referencing the new GOP primary delegate map at the top of the Electoral-Vote.com homepage, I'm curious as to the apportionment of delegates to the states. I had assumed it would be somewhat proportional to population, but noticed that Alaska is awarded 29 delegates to Hawaii's 19. I realize the national GOP determines this apportionment, but do you have any insight into this discrepancy?

(V) & (Z) answer: Both parties use a complicated formula, but each has the basic goal of "rewarding" states that vote regularly for that party with additional delegates. For example, Massachusetts and Tennessee each have about 7 million people, but Massachusetts will have more Democratic delegates than Tennessee and, as you can see above, Tennessee has more Republican delegates than Massachusetts. Similarly, Massachusetts will get more Democratic delegates than the larger (and redder) Ohio, and Tennessee will get more Republican delegates than the larger (and bluer) Washington. If you want more detail on the way the RNC awards delegates, look at the Green Papers Website.

---

B.C. in Walpole, ME, asks: You wrote: "Southern state #1 [South Carolina] tends to be a pretty good bellwether for Southern states #2 through #15." That's interesting. How long has that been going on?

(V) & (Z) answer: For purposes of this answer, we are going to consider Southern states #2 through #15 to be the other 10 states of the Confederacy, plus West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Missouri. Also, South Carolina has only been third in line since 1980, and has skipped years in which the Republican nomination was not in doubt.

With those caveats:

• In 1980, Ronald Reagan won South Carolina and then swept Southern states #2 through #15.
• In 1984, there was no South Carolina primary.
• In 1988, George H.W. Bush won South Carolina and then swept Southern states #2 through #15.
• In 1992, George H.W. Bush won South Carolina and then swept Southern states #2 through #15.
• In 1996, Bob Dole won South Carolina and then won all of Southern states #2 through #15 except for Louisiana and Missouri.
• In 2000, George W. Bush won South Carolina and then swept Southern states #2 through #15.
• In 2004, there was no South Carolina primary.
• In 2008, John McCain won South Carolina and then won eight other Southern states.
• In 2012, Newt Gingrich won South Carolina and then won... Georgia.
• In 2016, Donald Trump won South Carolina and then won all of Southern states #2 through #15 except for Texas and Oklahoma.
• In 2020, there was no South Carolina primary.

Roughly speaking, the Southern states have about 900 delegates in any given presidential cycle. So, if someone can claim the lion's share of those, which is very plausible with the Republicans' winner-take-all approach, they are halfway to the nomination... or considerably more than that.

---

M.J.F. in Clementon, NJ, asks: There is, of course, a lot of talk about whether anyone besides Donald Trump could be the GOP nominee this year. It certainly seems that the only things that could derail him are becoming a convicted felon or death. Even if one of these were to come to pass, the nominee pretty clearly wouldn't be Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) or Chris Christie. The bigger question then becomes: Would President Biden have a better chance running against Nikki Haley than he would running against Trump?

(V) & (Z) answer: Our opinion is that, ultimately, Haley is a weaker candidate than Trump. Yes, she would pick up some of the Never Trump voters who would otherwise hold their noses and vote for Biden. However, we think she would lose a big chunk of Trump's base. Further, as she's "surged," the magnifying glass has gotten bigger and... she's wilted. If she were to actually become the candidate, the magnifying glass ain't getting smaller, and her mealymouthed answers about things like the Civil War and abortion are not going to cut the mustard with a national electorate.

---

M.S. in Burlington, VT, asks: I often hear that some politicians, like Donald Trump, are populists. This despite having unpopular positions, saying unpopular things and having sub-50 approval ratings. Why does populist politician mean something other than "popular?"

(V) & (Z) answer: It means they are "popular," but along the lines of an older meaning of that word: "of the people." In other words, Trump presumes to speak for the working class, the forgotten man, the little guy, while his "enemies" are the power structures that have "oppressed" those people: the government, the moneyed classes, foreigners, etc.

---

J.M. in Norco, CA, asks: The recent reports that "the former guy" literally stinks seem credible. But that also seems implausible, given that he has been in such close quarters with reporters, opponents, and the general public for so long.

Do you believe these reports are accurate? If you do, why would this have been unreported for so long?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is primarily coming from former representative Adam Kinzinger, who is no fan of Trump, and who knows that the only potential way to pierce Trump's armor is to make the former president seem pathetic or ridiculous. Kinzinger's characterization of the smell: "It's not good. The best way to describe it... take armpits, ketchup, a butt and makeup and put that all in a blender and bottle that as a cologne.

We are a little skeptical that someone could pick out all of those distinct odors. That said, we also doubt Kinzinger is completely making it up, as others have mentioned before that Trump smells sweaty and like makeup. But the former representative is probably exaggerating some, and he might also have a more sensitive nose than most people do.

We will also acknowledge the longstanding rumor that Trump requires adult undergarments. If that is true—and we take no position on whether it is or isn't—then it could mean that the former president is more malodorous at some times rather than others.

---

J.B. in Radnor, PA, asks: In your item "Biden Has Come Out of Hibernation," you note that President Biden has a huge opportunity to make his case in his State of the Union speech. Given this, and the Republicans' (particularly Donald Trump's) reluctance to follow historical norms, how likely is it that Mike Johnson refuses to extend President Biden an invitation to give his State of the Union before a joint session of Congress? Yes, Biden could give the State of the Union speech from anywhere, and technically he doesn't need to give a speech at all, as long as he reported to Congress in some way on the state of the country. But doing so would lack the pageantry and gravitas of doing it before Congress.

(V) & (Z) answer: There was some talk of this in the Obama years, when Republicans also controlled the House. All that would happen is that Johnson would look petty, and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would invite Biden to address the nation from the Senate gallery instead.

---

J.R. in Manchester, NH, asks: As an independent New Hampshire voter I can vote in either primary. This will be the 26th time I have voted in either a primary or general presidential election and the most important. I fear a Trump victory will be the end of American democracy, at least for a time. Therefore, I want my vote to be one that has the most influence in defeating the would be tyrant. If I vote for Haley, that might have a negative impact on Trump's nomination and, more likely, damage his image somewhat for the general election. However, if I don't vote in the Democratic primary and write in Joe Biden, then a victory (or a good showing) by either Robert F. Kennedy Jr. or Marianne Williamson will damage Biden's image. I would very much like to hear your opinion.

(V) & (Z) answer: If Haley does well, it will attract some press coverage, but will be ignored by the people who run the Republican Party, and will be forgotten very quickly. If Kennedy wins, by contrast, it will fuel an already existing narrative that Biden is weak and that Democratic voters are desperate for an alternative.

In short, our opinion is that a vote on the Democratic side of the contest is more impactful than one on the Republican side.

---

P.B. in Spring Lake, NJ, asks: I can't believe that advisors to Mayors Eric Adams and Brandon Johnson haven't thought of this and I wonder if I am not seeing a downside to this strategy. They both get private donors to set up a foundation to "help" parolees. They then announce that the foundation will be giving each person released from Rikers or Cook County jail the option to accept a free plane ticket to Austin and a check for $1,000 to start a new life in Texas. They could phone their parole officers weekly. Gov. Greg Abbott (R-TX) and the MAGA set would go ballistic. They are paranoid about migrants who could become criminals and now New York and Illinois would be sending them confirmed criminals. Even if they did not do it—they could announce it. I don't see a downside.

(V) & (Z) answer: When Abraham Lincoln signed and released the final Emancipation Proclamation on Jan. 1, 1863, it included the provision that Black men would be accepted for service into the Union Army. The next day, Jefferson Davis announced that any Black man in Union uniform who was taken prisoner would be enslaved, while any white officer in command of such troops would be executed. The day after that, Lincoln announced that for every Black soldier so treated, two white Confederates would be put to work at hard labor, and for every white officer so treated, two Confederate officers would be put to death. Davis never followed through on his threat.

That, then, is the biggest problem we see: tit-for-tat. What's to stop Texas from sending some of its own criminals in the other direction? Or to amp up the number of immigrant buses? It's also the case that using human beings as political pawns (even if they are paid for their trouble) is distasteful, and the sort of thing Democratic voters might not like.

Civics

M.M. in Leonardtown, MD, asks: You responded to J.S. in Houston with 2-3 relatively "easy" fixes to some of America's democratic flaws; that is, statutory/procedural changes that need only a bare majority to implement. Expounding on this issue, what are the 2-3 "hard" changes (requiring Constitutional reform) that you think would be most impactful if implemented?

(V) & (Z) answer: We will go with:

1. Getting Rid of the Electoral College: No more presidents who pander to a reactionary minority and don't give a damn about anyone else.
   
   
2. Eliminating "Two Senators Per State": It's not a problem to amp up the voice of the smaller states some, so the apportionment can be less aggressive than the House is, but it's not a democracy if people representing 25% or 30% of the population can stymie the other 70% or 75% of the population.
   
   
3. Overhauling the Federal Judiciary: This wouldn't take a constitutional amendment, but it would be a big deal to pull off. There are many directions this could go, but one possibility is to put all cases before pools of judges, with cases assigned randomly, the way it works at the appeals level. That would mean no more one-judge-venue shopping, and it also would mean that Supreme Court cases would be heard by, say, 9 of 25 Supreme Court justices, selected at random.

History

J.A. in Woodstock, VA, asks: Assuming that the Supreme Court itself can be rated, rather than the individual decisions, will Chief Justice John Roberts' Court be rated as one of the worst in history? By way of example, despite the Dred Scott decision, the Taney Court made other decisions that stood the test of time. The opposite seems true for the Melville Court (Plessy v. Ferguson), as many Melville Court decisions were reversed, giving the Melville Court a lower rank in my view.

My hope is that, like the Melville Court, the Roberts Court will be reversed in a number of areas such as voting rights, campaign finance, federal powers, abortions rights, environmental protection, etc., with more to come.

(V) & (Z) answer: There is an excellent chance that, in 25-50 years, the Roberts Court will be regarded as one of the worst in U.S. history. Maybe THE worst.

The first problem is decisions that are clearly driven by political considerations, wherein the Court stood on its head to achieve the result it wanted. We suspect you are right that a lot of these decisions will eventually be reversed.

The second problem is a stunning lack of ethics on the part of some members, with absolutely nothing done to punish or rein in the behavior. In particular, there has never been a court with a member who flouted the rules the way that Clarence Thomas does, with Samuel Alito a distant second.

The third problem, which stems from the first two, is the staggeringly low level of confidence that people have in this Court, and the correspondingly low level of respect that people have for its decisions. We all know that the polls put public confidence at the court in the teens or twenties. That could potentially be discounted as an artifact of the general anger we see these days directed at all institutions, but it's also the case that today's SCOTUS decisions get no respect from the officials who run states and municipalities. When a biggie comes down, what almost always happens is a rapid search for loopholes, rather than an effort to figure out how to honor SCOTUS' ruling. And perhaps most damning, federal judges don't respect this Court. Both liberal and conservative jurists issue rulings that are directly contrary to what Roberts & Co. have already said because, hey, in a world where stare decisis is out the window, why not roll the dice?

---

F.S. in Cologne, Germany, asks: Obviously the major parties in the U.S. have drastically changed since they were founded. But did they completely change? In other words: What has the Republican Party of Donald Trump have in common with the Republican Party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Fiorello LaGuardia? And what has the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson, Andrew Johnson and John Calhoun have in common with the Democratic Party of Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris?

(V) & (Z) answer: With the changes wrought by Trumpism, it's pretty hard to find things that have been unambiguously true of one party or the other for 150-200 years. For example, Republicans are generally the strong national defense party now, and they were in Lincoln's time, but not in the 1930s and 1940s. Or, to take another example, the Democrats were pretty consistently the party of the working class for generations... but not anymore, it seems.

So, all we can really say with confidence is this: Democrats have consistently been the pro-immigrant party for 200 years, although the demographics of those immigrants have changed a lot in that time. And Republicans have consistently been the pro-business party for 150 years, although the best way to advance that goal has obviously varied widely, with Lincoln and TR having very different ideas about it as compared to Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump.

---

J.P. in Horsham, PA, asks: It's my understanding that Donald Trump's candidacy for the president in the year 2024 will mark the fourth time an ex-president threw his hat back into the ring for another go at the top position, with the first three being, chronologically, Ulysses Grant (1880), Grover Cleveland (1892), and Teddy Roosevelt (1912), and with Cleveland being the only one of the three who was actually previously defeated in his re-election bid.

What can the resident historian tell us about the reasons why each of them sought the presidency again, and how does each compare with Trump's reasons now?

(V) & (Z) answer: In the cases of Grant and TR, the motivations were pretty much identical. They spent four years being feted as rock stars, but got bored being "out of the arena," and were also disturbed by the rightward turn their parties had taken in their absence.

In the case of Cleveland, he felt he'd been cheated out of a win in 1888, and wanted to right the wrong in 1892. Also, he thought Benjamin Harrison was too liberal for the good of the country.

It's worth noting that Millard Fillmore made a third-party bid in 1856 as the nominee of the Know Nothing Party, and even won some EVs (albeit only 8 of them). He was a bit of a xenophobe, but his primary motivation was to try to get elected in his own right, since his presidential term was only made possible by the death of Zachary Taylor.

Also, Martin Van Buren was the Free Soil Party nominee in 1848. He did not win any EVs, and did not expect to. He only ran because, while a longtime Democratic stalwart, he hated Democratic nominee Lewis Cass and the entire Southern wing of the Democratic Party, and he wanted to split the vote so the Democrats would lose the election.

---

T.S. in Bettendorf, IA, asks: To my knowledge, Donald Trump is the only president to change his residency to a different state while in office AND to do so in between campaigns for election. It got me wondering if there were any other interesting residency situations. George H.W. Bush comes to mind, in that he chose a hotel room in Texas as his official residence all the while basically being a resident of Maine (without having to pay Maine taxes). What about Bill Clinton? He went from the Governor's Mansion of Arkansas to the White House but I'm assuming his official residency remained in Arkansas. Of course, later he became a New York resident (I'm assuming when Hillary announced her candidacy for Senate).

Any light you can shed on this fairly inconsequential query?

(V) & (Z) answer: Obviously, the question of where someone "really" lives, while they are living full-time in Washington, is a little squishy. Anyhow, we'll run down the presidents since 1900, and you can decide who fits your parameters:

• William McKinley died in office, and so did not change residences during or after leaving office.
  
  
• Theodore Roosevelt was, without question, a lifelong New Yorker.
  
  
• William Howard Taft ran for president as an Ohioan, but his post-presidency jobs had him living in two non-Ohio places, namely Connecticut (professor at Yale) and Washington, DC (Chief Justice of the Supreme Court).
  
  
• Woodrow Wilson never resided in New Jersey after becoming president. He took up residence in D.C. upon leaving office, at least in part because he was too physically broken to handle long trips. That is where he died, and that is where he is buried. He is, in fact, the only president to be buried in D.C. (William Howard Taft and John F. Kennedy are in Arlington, but that's across the river in Virginia).
  
  
• Warren Harding died in office, and so did not change residences during or after leaving office.
  
  
• Calvin Coolidge pretended to be a Vermonter, since that is where he was born, and since it burnished his plainspoken, no-nonsense image. But Massachusetts is where he made his name and his career, and it's where he retired on leaving the White House.
  
  
• Herbert Hoover never really had a proper home state, as his childhood and professional life were both spent moving around (in the latter case, often to destinations outside the U.S.). He was born in Iowa and ran for president as a Californian (since that is where he was educated). After leaving office, however, he was primarily a New Yorker.
  
  
• Franklin D. Roosevelt died in office, and so did not change residences during or after leaving office. There's really no doubt he was, and would have continued to be, a New Yorker, though he did spend much time in Georgia.
  
  
• Harry S. Truman was 100% Missourian for his whole life.
  
  
• Dwight D. Eisenhower also did not have much of a home state, again by virtue of a childhood and professional life spend moving around. He was born in Texas, spent much of his youth in Kansas, and ran for president as a New Yorker (as he was president of Columbia University at that time). During his time in the White House, he spent much time in Pennsylvania, and that is also where he retired to after leaving office.
  
  
• John F. Kennedy died in office, and so did not change residences during or after leaving office.
  
  
• Lyndon B. Johnson was 100% Texan for his whole life.
  
  
• Richard Nixon was living in New York when he launched his 1968 campaign, but spent most of his non-DC presidential time in Florida and his home state of California, and he retired to California when he was done (though he did end up dying in New York City).
  
  
• Gerald Ford was consistently a resident of Michigan while in office, but he also retired to California. That's where he died; in Rancho Mirage.
  
  
• Jimmy Carter was, is, and will always be a Georgian.
  
  
• Ronald Reagan was a Californian before, during, and after his presidency, even if he was born in Illinois.
  
  
• George H.W. Bush was covered in your question.
  
  
• Bill Clinton was covered in your question. He did not have a residence in Arkansas because Southern politicians' salaries are rather meager, and the Arkansas governor's mansion was just fine, thank you very much.
  
  
• George W. Bush was born in Connecticut because his father was matriculating at Yale, but he's 100% Texan.
  
  
• Barack Obama is still officially a "resident" of Illinois. However, after leaving the White House, he and Michelle Obama moved to... D.C., where they still live.
  
  
• Donald Trump was covered in your question.
  
  
• Joe Biden was unambiguously a Pennsylvanian when young, and unambiguously a Delawarean thereafter.

And there you have it.

---

B.W. in Los Angeles, CA, asks: I've seen in two places recently—one attributed to historian Carol Anderson and again this week in The New York Times by economist Paul Krugman—that the original intent of the Second Amendment was (at least in part) to equip slaveholders to put down slave rebellions.

I'm a bit surprised that, until now, I've rarely seen this link emphasized in discourse around gun control legislation (even where it intersects with social justice advocacy).

I know at least one of you is a Civil War historian, and I'd be grateful for any historiographic context around this analysis (and an opinion on the underlying scholarship). What context would you add to flesh out the link between the supremacist politics of slavery and the politics of modern gun culture? Is it even possible to do so concisely?

(V) & (Z) answer: To start, understand that when a historian writes a book, there is much motivation to reach BIG conclusions revealing something that was previously UNKNOWN. Some books legitimately manage to pull that off. Others, not so much, despite their pretensions.

The primary source of the argument you raise is... Carol Miller, who advanced it in her book The Second: Race and Guns in a Fatally Unequal America (2021). If she had said that suppressing slave rebellions was one motivation for the Second Amendment, then that would be a fair point. But that would not be a BIG conclusion revealing something previously UNKNOWN. And so, Miller oversells the case, and proposes that suppression of slave rebellions was the primary reason for the Second Amendment.

The evidence simply does not support this. When many hundreds of political leaders make a decision, there will undoubtedly be many different motivations behind it. But there's no question that the primary reason for the Second Amendment was to make possible local militias, in case they were needed for defense against Native Americans or British invaders or... an overly assertive federal government.

Miller's book is potentially worth reading, if you want to better understand the intersection between gun access (or lack thereof) and American race relations. But if you want to understand the origins of the Second Amendment, read The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction (2000), or The Second Amendment: A Biography (2015).

---

N.D. in Duluth, MN, asks: Today I heard on our local NPR affiliate a caller to a show on 1/6 expressing the idea that 1/6 was not anywhere near the "insurrection" it is being described as and, in fact, the whole event has been totally blown out of proportion by the media. This argument seems to be getting entrenched in the talking points of the MAGA/far right.

My question is about the proponents of the Civil War. Was there a faction that, after the war was over, was taking a similar stance as the 1/6 defenders? That it really wasn't what the government said it was, that it wasn't "that bad," that the fault lies elsewhere that the rebels' actions?

The Civil War seems the most potentially "equivalent" event (albeit much larger, longer, bloodier, etc., but still potentially the only other event that was considered insurrection against the U.S. government). So I just wonder if there was any similar down-playing of events at that time—for example, as folks were running for office in the reunited U.S.?

(V) & (Z) answer: This is exactly what happened. After the war, seeking re-admittance to the union as equal partners with the states of the North, the leaders of the South quickly advanced an argument that the Confederacy was not the aggressor in the Civil War (false), that their only purpose was to defend their homes (false), and that the war most certainly had nothing to do with slavery (false). This was the starting point for the "Lost Cause" interpretation of the Civil War.

---

D.C. in Brentwood, CA, asks: If Adolf Hitler had won, mostly wiped out the Jews (let's presume internationally, somehow, as well), brought prosperity to Germany, then eventually fallen, with a new German democratic republic taking over, how would people today look on him?

With few people left to tell the story of the victims, and also few who would really care about some ethnic group that was basically wiped out decades ago, would he still be seen as the worst person in history? Or would that "hiccup" be overlooked the same way other atrocities eventually get mostly ignored, like with Native Americans, indigenous Australians, and the peoples crushed by various expansionist empires through history?

(V) & (Z) answer: If we grant your supposition (the Holocaust was 100% effective), then it is very probable that Adolf Hitler's reputation would be nowhere near as bad as it is today. Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, the Young Turks, Hideki Tojo, etc. were responsible for similar atrocities, and yet are nowhere near as reviled as Hitler is. Heck, even the non-Jewish groups that Hitler targeted are often unknown, or nearly so, to many people. How many people under 25 know of the 5 million Roma, homosexuals, Poles, conscientious objectors, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. who were killed? Jewish intellectual and cultural figures have done an excellent job of making sure that people worldwide never forget.

With this said, a great many of those intellectual and cultural figures had escaped beyond Hitler's reach before the Holocaust commenced, and had taken up important positions in American and European society. So, there is no chance, in reality, that the story would not have been told and re-told.

---

H.B. in State College, PA, asks: You've stated several times that Bill Clinton committed perjury. Is this actually proven beyond doubt? Was he convicted of perjury?

(V) & (Z) answer: He was not convicted of perjury. However, shortly before leaving office (and by that, we mean just hours before leaving office), he struck a deal with prosecutor Robert W. Ray. In exchange for Ray agreeing not to pursue criminal charges, Clinton gave a statement admitting to lying under oath, paid a fine of $25,000, and agreed to a 5-year suspension of his law license.

Gallimaufry

C.R. in Alexandria, VA, asks: Regarding the Senate tracking poll: (1) Did I miss West Virginia as a potential flip? and (2) What party should I have considered Kyrsten Sinema as (I or D)?

(V) & (Z) answer: We noted that we are not including West Virginia, because of course that one will flip. As to the Arizona seat, you should only consider it a flip if you think the Republican (presumably Kari Lake) will win it. Otherwise it will remain as part of the Democratic caucus.

Reader Question of the Week

Here is the question we put before readers last week:

S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: You ran a question several weeks ago about what is it about Trump that his supporters like. I would like to ask the opposite: What is it about Biden that his supporters like?

And here some of the answers we got in response:

W.M. in Philadelphia, PA: Given the explicit reference to the earlier question about TFG, and the use of the word "opposite," I feel compelled to declare that I think this question is based on a faulty premise. Trump has a cult of personality, while Biden represents a policy position. Support for each is based on completely different foundations.

My support for Biden has absolutely nothing to do with what I do or do not like about him. Joe Biden—as an individual, with his specific characteristics and foibles—is utterly irrelevant. The only thing that matters to me is keeping Republicans out of office. As long as the Biden candidacy appears to be the best mechanism to further this objective, then he has my unwavering support.

I first came to the realization that the Republican Party was a major threat to American society back in—approximately, although if I went back through newspaper archives, I might even be able to pin down the exact day—1991. In retrospect, it seems like I should have noticed sooner, but in my defense I was a callow youth, and I didn't vote until 1992 (although I could have voted as early as 1986). And before you dismiss me as a knee-jerk partisan, please consider: (1) I thought I was a Republican until the day of my epiphany, having rooted for the election and re-election of Reagan, and for the election of Bush the elder, and (2) The history of the Republican party since that day—worse than I ever would have \ thought possible back then—has clearly validated my realization.

---

B.B. in Concord, NH: This is easy. Biden has experience, is honest and tells the truth. What else is there to say?

---

M.A. in Pea Ridge, IL: As a lifelong Democrat, former officer of the local Democratic Party organization, and pretty liberal guy, I like Joe Biden because: (1) He's a good person; (2) He has long and valuable experience in government, including in foreign relations; and (3) He's with me on just about every issue I care about. What else is there?

---

A.G. in Scranton, PA: I like that President Biden is almost always genuine, and it shows. When he speaks about his horrific and significant personal losses, one can tell he isn't trying to score political points, but trying to bring about an understanding of pain to a questioner.

I like that the President doesn't attempt to govern a nation by tweeting... or X-ing... or whatever...

I like that the daily news cycle isn't, "President Biden, yet again, said something terrible, punched down, and his idiot supporters and various sycophants are now assimilating the terrible thing he said and punching down themselves."

I like that the President isn't an embarrassment on the world stage and I like that he doesn't make me embarrassed to introduce myself as an American.

Personally, I wish, hope, and pray that Biden finally finds some campaign advisors who know what the heck they are doing and instruct him that, as it has so many Americans' lives, drug addiction affects real people who would have otherwise never done the stupid, dangerous, and horrid things they did, such as those things Hunter did. I believe the President should identify with the millions of Americans who have had to bury their relatives, visit their relatives in terrible and abusive prisons or jails (many run by for-profit corporations and/or staffed by men and women who think the bad guard in The Shawshank Redemption is a role model), and have had their family's former assumptions of what is right and wrong, who is good and bad, and just who it is that a drug addict is. The President should say, simply and plainly, "I love my son. My son is a drug addict in recovery. Until you have a drug addicted child or a child who commits terrible and stupid crimes because of his or her addiction you will never know what it is I am going through. If you say I am wrong for loving and supporting my child because he did something wrong, I say you are a bad person and I will pray tonight that your children never make any mistakes. Next question."

One thing I DO NOT like about President Biden is his terrible and cringe-worthy attempts to try to speak like President Obama. When the President tries to use soaring rhetoric and/or the cadence of a southern, Black preacher... well, I can't stand to watch it. It's embarrassing. Just be my awkward, old uncle who says stupid stuff now and again. That'll do, Mr. President. That'll do.

---

B.C. in Scottsdale, AZ: The biggest thing I like about Joe Biden is that he is a normal guy... like my grandfathers and my dad.

---

J.L. in Albany, NY: We like him because he's a normal person who doesn't do or say crazy sh**. That's pretty much it.

---

J.E. in San Jose, CA: He's experienced. He's steady. He's human. He knows how to politick but it does not define him.

He is also the literal definition of "America First," rather than the figurative one.

---

S.D. in Homer, AK: While I generally like President Biden's foreign and domestic policy positions, I will answer S.P. In Harrisburg's question from a different perspective. I like Biden because he has hired generally competent people to conduct the work of the government. I am a career federal employee and have some experience with those second- and third-tier presidential appointees who play a crucial role in government work. Much of the work of the bureaucracy—always inefficient but sometimes effective—depends on this array of deputy secretaries, heads of small agencies, and various other people who toil somewhat obscurely but at a senior enough level to make a singular difference. The career employees do the work in the trenches, but these political appointees make or break that work. The guy before Biden hired some curiously ineffective leaders. This isn't all bad if you don't like their policy priorities, but in any administration, even that one, there are still all kinds of decisions and processes that need to cross the finish line to avoid chaos. Biden, like presidents before him from both parties (Obama and George H.W. Bush come to mind), has hired generally competent people to oversee the 2 million civilian employees who work for you.

---

J.E. in Ames, IA: I am a woman the same age as Biden, and a long-time Democrat. I had no enthusiasm for him before he became president. Then, I liked his policies better than Barack Obama's. I was glad to see his own ideas emerge after so many years in government service, and glad to see his talent and experience put to use.

---

D.B. in Albany, NY: Biden occupies the polar opposite realm from Trump in so many ways that define what it is to be human. He can laugh, he can laugh at himself, he displays genuine empathy, he respects the opinions of experts and knows that we're all stronger together through cooperation and compassion.

---

S.C-M. in Scottsdale, AZ: I supported Elizabeth Warren in the 2020 primary. My personal politics leans pretty left, but I am also pretty pragmatic. Biden, before he was president, looked to me like a pretty centrist guy. I did not expect him to push for a liberal policy agenda, especially the Inflation Reduction Act, which is likely the biggest climate bill ever adopted. So from a policy agenda, I think he and I are now pretty much aligned.

What I am particularly impressed with is the policy people he has appointed. Staff is often where the rubber meets the road and I think his staff is excellent and know what they are doing.

---

E.K. in Brignoles, France: I'm not a Joe Biden supporter, per se, because I can't participate in U.S. elections. But I really, really like Joe Biden, the man, and not just since he was Obama's VP.

I've never been a huge fan of Al Gore, John Kerry, Barack Obama (he's always seemed too cerebral and aloof to me) or Hillary Clinton. But I admire your president for the same reasons I loved Bill Clinton: He is profoundly human. He's not perfect, and doesn't claim to be perfect. But he's the embodiment of what makes the American spirit: Always try to do the right thing. Yes, sometimes he says or does silly things (and I loved the hilarious articles in The Onion about the over-the-top, flamboyant "Uncle Joe"), but he acknowledges his mistakes, and then tries again to do his best.

He's a honest, folksy, down-to-earth, kind man, who's spent his entire life being underestimated. He's a loving father (for better or for worse) and a family man. He's sometimes been called "the eulogizer in chief," and I think it's spot on, because he's got that kind of empathy, that unique way of making you feel that your pain is his pain. He seems to genuinely care about people. And I just don't know where he finds the mental strength to wear that warm smile after having lost so many loved ones.

In short, Joe Biden gives me hope in the humankind—which is a Herculean task.

---

R.M. in Strong City, KS: I am 66 years old and Biden is the best president in my lifetime. This has been a huge surprise to me as he was so, so, so not on my top favorites list during his campaign. What has particularly impressed me: his boldness. I had been worried that he would play nice guy with the Republicans and could only envision disaster with such a tactic. So while I, of course, like everything he's done with the economy, environment, etc. etc. etc., the two things that have impressed me the most was his getting us out of Afghanistan (something Obama would not do) and tossing Reagan's trickle-down economics into the gutter and building the economy instead from the ground up (something Obama also would not do). He's absolutely got my vote a second time, and thank you, Mr. President.

---

R.P. in Alexandria, NY: As a fellow stutterer who had to work hard all through school and college to get a grip on the condition, I know what it's like to stay composed while it feels like I am under attack. Of course, whatever constituted an attack for me is magnified a zillion times for Joe and he keeps fighting.

Also, he has great compassion for his fellow stutterers, and for people in general, so much needed after his predecessor's cruelty.

There is a lot more I admire about him but I will let others with different personal experiences speak to those qualities. Suffice it to say that from my own struggles I can attest to how the hard work leads to perseverance, in my case with a very successful 40-year college teaching career, and in his case what I expect to be two terms as President.

That it seems as if he has to pitch a perfect game every time out says more about our failure to value those qualities than about any of his failings.

---

M.M. in San Diego, CA: I deeply appreciate Joe Biden's foreign policy chops, which are reflected in his choice of Antony Blinken for Secretary of State and Jake Sullivan for National Security Adviser. Without them and their superlative staffs, I cannot imagine what dumpster fires Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the South China Sea would be right now.

---

C.P. in Malden, MA: Donald Trump and the Republican Party directly endanger the lives of several of my friends who are LGBTQ—especially the ones who are trans or genderqueer. Assuming Biden is the Democratic nominee, which I consider nearly inevitable, he is the only person with a chance to defeat Trump. Anyone who skips voting, votes third party/independent, or votes for Trump is responsible for endangering the lives of my friends. I will not be in any of those categories. I will be voting for Biden.

---

D.S. in Newark, OH: Joe Biden puts service above self.

When his wife and daughter were killed in a car accident, he chose to serve the state of Delaware instead of resigning, commuting every day back to Delaware to take care of his two sons.

As a third-generation retired union member, Joe Biden visited striking workers on a picket line, something no other sitting President has done.

---

M.K. in Wilmington, DE: The thing I like best about President Biden is how he seems to genuinely care about people.

My wife and I moved to the greater Wilmington area while he was VP and quickly discovered two things about our new home state: One is how you couldn't hurl a dead cat without hitting a street, road, mansion, office, or plant named for the DuPonts. The other is how almost everyone that isn't a Brandonite has a Joe Biden story. And while new to the area, my wife joined one of the area churches without realizing the Bidens were part of the congregation.

Fast forward a couple of years. I had been up with our toddler son during the night and she took him to Mass so I could get a nap. The story I got afterward was this: During the service, he was being a typical squirmy kid and bolted over to the person sitting near them in the pew. She started to apologize and only then realized the person was none other than Mr. Biden. He gave her a smile and asked if he can hold our son for a minute. My wife said "okay" and so he put his arm around my son and talked softly to him for a moment, calming him. Then he sent him back across the pew with the words, "Now you be nice to your mom, okay?"

This was just a low-key instance of the Vice President of the United States performing a kindness for someone in the community. I try not to be star-struck about the gesture, but I can best describe how I feel by paraphrasing John Wooden: "Character is what a politician does when the cameras aren't rolling."

So I see Biden as a decent person with a clear eye and a steady hand as we navigate rough waters, and that's why I support him.

---

A.R. in Los Angeles, CA: A while back, I saw an interview with Hillary Clinton, who was responding to a question about Biden's campaign style and complaints about his lack of "star" power. She said that Biden is a work horse, not a show horse. That always stuck with me because it's so accurate. His focus is on getting things done that improve the lives of as many regular folks as possible. And he has the political chops to do it, as evidenced by the legislation he was able to get passed despite the intransigence of members of his own party and a hostile Supreme Court determined to strike down any progressive laws and turn back the clock to the Gilded Age. Behind the scenes he has rebuilt the institutions that Trump tried to destroy. He addressed supply chain issues that were driving up prices. He has diversified not just the federal bench but all aspects of government. He understands and reveres the office he holds and the awesome responsibility he bears not only to our citizens but to the rest of the world.

He holds this office in trust for the American people and he takes that role very seriously. His humility and decency and empathy are traits we need to see more of in our leaders. He's a wonderful role model for the type of hard-working and ethical politician we should be voting for.

---

I.T. in La Plata, MD: The best thing about Joe Biden, by far, is that he is not Donald Trump.

Here is the question for next week:

G.R. in Iqaluit, Nunavut, Canada, asks: One commenter on a recent New York Times article wrote: "No one in the 247-year history of our nation has done as much damage to our civil society as Trump has done in less than a decade." Maybe this commenter is right, but... who else might be in contention for that "honor" and why?

Submit your answers here!

---

If you have a question about politics, civics, history, etc. you would like us to answer on the site, please send it to questions@electoral-vote.com, and include your initials and city of residence. If you have a comment about the site or one of the items therein, please send it to comments@electoral-vote.com and include your initials and city of residence in case we decide to publish it. If you spot any typos or other errors on the site that we should fix, please let us know at corrections@electoral-vote.com.

---

Email a link to a friend or share:

---The Votemaster and Zenger