The killing of Hamas boss Ismail Haniyeh - Long overdue!

I can hardly believe my eyes! 😀

Hamas’s top boss Ismail Haniyeh has been killed, in Iran, at his residence in Tehran.

Israel has not commented.

✲✲✲

I think it’s obviously Israel. If so, very impressive work. Mossad was created to hunt down Nazis after WW2.

This is a win for Israelis & a win for Palestinians. This maniac could have stopped the war by returning the hostages and surrendering. Instead, he watched millions pay the price of war ... while he spent his days in his home in Qatar & Iran calling for innocent people in Gaza to suffer.

In one week, Israel took out Hezbollah’s second in command and the leader of Hamas. And in the capital of Israel’s greatest enemy ... and only hours after the presidential inauguration.

This is an important message to Iran and all Israel’s enemies.

Mossad were probably waiting for him to leave Qatar before killing him as he was under their protection and this would have been seen as a declaration of war. Since Israel is already at war with Iran, killing him in Tehran was a much safer option.

✲✲✲

Iran has talked about “retaliation” over the assassination. 

Yet Iran thinks absolutely nothing of its terrorist proxies killing Israelis as the first initiating stance — for the sake of it — to end Israel. And others abroad — e.g. “Met police and MI5 foil 15 plots by Iran against British or UK-based ‘enemies’”. No matter what happens, Israel has to fight. If you don’t fight & just sit around, things become doubly worse. People talk about the killing of I.H. as a “serious escalation” — but the murdering of teenagers at a music festival was not?

I personally think this will speed up the ceasefire deal for two reasons:

1. There is no ceasefire where Hamas stays in power.
2. As Hamas gets worn down, they have less negotiating power ... and have to make more capitulations in order to get what they want. It is logical for Netanyahu to be adding more demands to the ceasefire negotiations.

Hezbollah’s Golan rocket attack on Israel

The 12 victims of the massacre at Migdal Shams. Most of them children or in their teens. They went to play football in the Druze village, and were killed by a hit from a Hezbollah missile.

May their memory be a blessing.

October-7 would have been much much worse — with attacks by Hezbollah and perhaps even Iran — if hundreds of IDF troops, police officers, and local security personnel (many of whom died that day) had not curtailed the scope of the attack — without any coordination from IDF central. If the terrorists had been able to penetrate Israel’s core, a Hezbollah attack would have probably begun. Israel is at war with Hamas — but implicitly with Hezbollah and Tehran.

✲✲✲

How to react

Israel needs to secure Southern Lebanon’s airspace to ensure the sovereignty over Israel’s north. 

Over the past months of Hezbollah attacks, Israel has chosen not to deviate focus off Hamas or “escalate hostilities”. I think the focus needs to remain on finishing off Hamas’s military ability to ever attack Israel again. Then, a regional coalition — with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the Gulf States — to bring substantive reforms and de-radicalise the population towards a separation of territories and a two-state solution.

Although Israel has Washington’s support to “defend itself” ... at the same time, the US moans of “further escalation” of the conflict ... The message from Trump and Harris has been ceasefire. 

For me, I don’t this strike, in-and-of-itself, is sufficient a casus belli.

Benny Gantz said that Israel should hit “Lebanon hard and also tearing Lebanon apart”. Perhaps ... but I don’t think so.

Gantz also criticised the government for what he referred to as the lack of a “full strategic plan of action” saying that Netanyahu “can’t continue playing for time”. But since it took the US a whole decade to locate and kill Bin Laden; it should not be a surprise that Israeli efforts to locate hostages held by Hamas have been limited. Hundreds of miles of tunnels and a civilian population supportive of its genocidal leadership have thwarted Israel’s objective. I think this criticism is wrong.

Vincent van Gogh’s death — “The sadness will last forever”

Today is the 133th anniversary of the day Vincent van Gogh committed suicide.

In the year 1890, a few days after painting “Wheatfield With Crows” (above), Vincent van Gogh decides to go walking into that same field. Behind a haystack, he decides to shoots himself in the chest. Incredibly, van Gogh manages to struggle to return to his room at a nearby inn ... telling no-one of what he had done. 

Only when the innkeeper discovers Van Gogh’s condition, he calls for Dr Gachet — Vincent’s physician and friend (see Van Gogh’s Portrait). Dr Gachet realises the extremity of Van Gogh’s condition and sends word to Vincent’s brother, Theo. Theo arrives the very next afternoon, and rushes to Vincent’s bedside. Vincent lived for two days after the gunshot wound. His brother Theo was able to talk with him. It’s worth noting that both Theo and Gachet believed he shot himself. 

“The sadness will last forever,” Vincent tells his brother as death nears.

Vincent finally dies at 1.30am on 29th July 1890.

In retrospect, I think we can feel the ominous desperation of Van Gogh’s mind in his “Wheatfield With Crows”. The crows flying up from the sombre field due to the reverberating gunshot of a pistol?

We can probably never truly understand the depths of his depression.

If only he knew, how much his paintings were to be loved and admired by so many people.

Bust of Titian by Rinaldo Rinaldi

A bust of the legend.

From my archives of last Venice trip.

Titian at the National Gallery

Note: This is a write-up on Italian Renaissance masterpieces of the National Gallery.

In 2022, I saw the monument to Titian in the “Basilica of Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari”.

✲✲✲

The Death of Actaeon

Love the action and drama. And there is an beautiful “lightness” to the crepuscular setting and colours which adds to the beauty & dramatic effect.

From Romano-greek mythology, the legendary hunter Actaeon intruded on the sacred grove inhabited by Diana — goddess of the hunt — and accidentally saw her naked. She then transformed him into a stag, and huntsman Actaeon is punished by being torn to pieces by his own hounds.

I love Diana. Her beautiful hair, the elegance of her wrists and arms as she readies herself for attack. The flowing dress, and the hint of a bosom as her hand moves to recover her privacy. 

Love the figure of the dog chasing through Diana’s legs.

You can see the stag head.

Beautiful in its gilded frame.

✲✲✲

Diana and Actaeon

Beautiful.

Diana about to be startled; with nymphs changing, and one of them pulling on hanging robes to protect Diana.

Beautiful reflective puddles of water. Cute dog. Amazing columns with gargoyles, and Actaeon seeming rather innocent?

This painting is paired with the one below.

✲✲✲

Diana and Callisto

Tragedy & cruelty, but also sensuality. 

Callisto was Diana’s favourite nymph. She was raped by the king of the Gods, Jupiter. Her pregnancy is discovered at the communal bath. For the transgression of chastity, she is banished. Diana painted powerful and condemnatory. 

I notice half of the nymphs seem to be helping Callisto to gather her strength, and clothe her. Callisto’s face is occluded and she seems to have lost her balance. 

The others are by the Goddess Diana, with one clutching arrows and hand resting on a bow.

✲✲✲

Portrait of the Vendramin Family

Love it. I have reviewed it before.

It is a tremendous group portrait. It is beautiful as well as a “history painting” in devotion to a religious relic. There is a story of a cross being presented to Andrea Vendramin who — after it fell into the Venetian canals — jumped in to save it.

I love lynx-fur linings, hair, beards, genuflections, candles flickering in the wind...

✲✲✲

President Biden finally taken down by the Democrats

Finally. Biden has “stepped down” ... or taken down in a coup.

A sad end to one of the longest & most consequential careers in US politics. 

Propped by his party recently for so long despite voters being well-aware of the fact that the Democrats knew Biden wasn’t mentally capable. They tried to push him through the finish line anyway. 

Then, the disturbing and unsettling debate on June-27th against Donald Trump. The world was finally exposed to what insiders had known for months: Biden was in serious physical and mental decline ... Then, the attempted assassination of Donald Trump softened and buoyed the public’s perception of Trump (interesting that Trump took a more measured and “statesmanlike” approach than his erstwhile “conspiracy theory” rituals — I was expecting him to blame Biden for the assassination attempt), and made Trump seem stronger and more vigorous than Biden.

So finally, the “compassionate” Democrats knifed President Biden. One-by-one. Obama at first, followed by Pelosi ... which then created an “official” momentum to gut him. The omerta lifted. 

He made the most important and consequential announcement of his Presidency ... in a letter posted on Twitter/X. He neither appeared on camera, nor did we hear his voice. We didn’t see him at all that Sunday.

✲✲✲

If the Democrats lose the election, it will be a complete bloodbath.

Matthew Hennessey (below) argues that “the Democrats underestimate the price they will pay for lying this way ... The damage has been done. It’ll be a long time undoing it.”

Jill (his wife) and the White House staff must take the blame for allowing this humiliation. Biden was allowed to dig his own grave further and further — in public. He recently called himself “‘first Black woman’ to serve in White House”. He should have been treated with a bit more respect ... and honesty.

National Review has written about how President Biden was the “PiNO — President in Name Only” era:

Since at least the Afghanistan debacle, those of us paying attention have noticed that Biden’s age meant he couldn’t perform his duties like a normal president would. He made considerably fewer public appearances, appeared at few early morning or late-night events, took more time to recuperate from travel, conducted fewer interviews and press conferences, etc ... Normal presidents don’t skip Super Bowl interviews. Normal presidents don’t go nine months without a cabinet meeting. Normal presidents don’t spend almost every weekend at their beach house in Delaware, and normal presidents don’t have to use a teleprompter when making remarks to donors at closed-door fundraisers ... This is one of many reasons that, as the NR editors declare, Joe Biden should resign the presidency. He can’t do the job anymore. We have had a not-president for a while, and unless Biden resigns the office, we will have a not-president until January 20. He’s a PiNO — President in Name Only.

And, then Biden’s endorsement of Harris is her anointment in all but name in the perfunctory primary season. National Review again:

Harris has been a colossal disappointment to everyone who believed that the first woman vice president would be a heroic giant on the American political stage ... Beyond that, the laugh, her reliance on stock phrases like, “what can be, unburdened by what has been,” the constant vibe that she’s giving a book report on a book she didn’t read — there’s a nervousness or insecurity to Harris. She always seems like she’s bluffing.

In my opinion, the statesman who would add most stature to the Democrat ticket would be Secretary of State, Antony Blinken.

✲✲✲

Understanding parents who horrifically abuse their children for years

David and Louise Turpin were mum and dad.

They kept their children (all 13!!) imprisoned, chained to beds, starved, allowed to shower once a week, and abused for so many years.

In the sentencing hearing (clip below), they both said they “love” their children, regret abusing them, and “pray for their children”.

What I don’t understand is ... they seem genuine at court. 

But how can you “love” your kids but dish out all this barbaric inhuman horrors?

As parents, there must be some part of them that actually loves their children (in the normal way)!?

I don’t get it.

✲✲✲

Documentary — “Inside the depraved world of David and Louise Turpin | 60 Minutes Australia”

“The Last Caravaggio” exhibition at London’s National Gallery

I recently went to the National Gallery’s Caravaggio exhibition. It is about his final and dark masterpiece.

It was attributed to him in the 1970s by Roberto Longhi and brought to light.

We were all taken to a dark & intimate room to see the painting. I really enjoyed it.

✲✲✲

The Martyrdom of Saint Ursula, 1610

The star of the show. 

Ursula is a beautiful and isolated female figure in the painting surrounded by soldiers. 

St Ursula is the medieval Christian legend of the princess martyred with her clutch of 11,000 virgins. On her return from pilgrimage in Rome, she met the Hun king who fell in love with Ursula’s beauty. On rejecting marriage, he killed her, and massacred her followers.

Caravaggio paints this gruesome story of through dramatic hand gestures and emotions. The furrowed & unkept soldier, with a gaping mouth, fired the guilty arrow. Beautiful crimson robes connects them both, like fire. The bystanders seem to notice — but only too late. Hands flailing hopelessly to stop it ... and then finally ... Ursula’s own hands framing the fatal wound while her own beautiful face downard in calm resignation. What is amazing is that the King’s killer seems to have some regret. It seems he didn’t “mean” to hurt her? Or perhaps it is her own reaction which has ignited his shock? Ursula seems glow and shine. Caravaggio’s chiaroscuro is sublime.

Caravaggio even paints himself. He extremely pale, open-mouthed, and looking of Ursula’s shoulder. Very similar to his self-portrait in “The Taking of Christ”. He is part of the drama.

Displayed at the National Gallery alongside the painting is a letter about how Caravaggio — on the run for murder — finished this particular canvas in haste in Naples in May 1610. He delivered the painting still wet to Marcantonio Doria who had commissioned it.

Caravaggio died on July 18 1610, a mere weeks after finishing “Ursula”.

✲✲✲

Salome Receives the Head of John the Baptist

This is part of the NG’s own Caravaggio collection.

Salome is a famous legend (see Sebastiano del Piombo)

The decapitated head of John the Baptist is shown to Salome. Offered on a gilded plate. The outstretched hands of the soldier (with sword in other hand) as if to distance himself? His face is a bit uncomfortable ... is it regret, or merely distaste? St. John looks like he is still sleeping. The clever lighting (against a dark ground) creates a uniform skin colour to mask death. But it is also quite claustrophobic.

Salome seems to be blushing. But why? Remorse? A hint of irritation in her lips perhaps?

The old lady, hands crossed in prayer, is the complete opposite of Salome. Age, expression, line of sight ...

Sir Joshua Reynolds — Self-portrait and Portrait of Omai

Sir Joshua Reynolds was a founding President of the Royal Academy in 1768 and one of the foremost portraiture artists of England in the 18th-century.

He was born in Plympton St Maurice, just outside Plymouth, on 16 July 1723. Happy birthday!! 🙌

Reynolds’s career spanned six decades and his acclaim and fame reached a degree rarely seen by any artist, especially in their lifetime. If you were a wealthy aristocrat looking for a portrait, Reynolds was your man.

He travelled widely and studied the Old Masters as the best way to emulate greatness.

In the RA Schools, he set out his influential art theories between 1769 and 1790 which were seen by many as changing the course of British art. In his “Discourses on Art”, Reynolds argued that painters should adopt classical and Renaissance works as their model, imbuing their works with symbolic references to classical myths. He also emphasised the importance of drawing on the works of Old Masters such as Rembrandt, Rubens and Van Dyck. This “Grand Manner” was the unification of painting and scholarship.

✲✲✲

Self-portrait

This self-portrait was done before Reynolds travelled to Rome to study and learn.

It shows a young man; eager and excited. Looking out into the distance (and future?), with brush and mahl stick in one hand, and other hand shielding his eyes.

Love his tousled hair too.

✲✲✲

Portrait of Omai

I was excited to see this painting.

It was a recent acquisition by the National Portrait Gallery and the Getty Museum.

Apparently, the price was £50m! This is a stunning painting, for sure — but that price probably reflects our cultural zeitgeist of “cancel culture” and framing British history as an unspeakable litany of horrors and evils. Galleries today are marked by some ahistorical puritanism in which history is understood through our present-day’s mortal buzzwords.

At any rate, it is a beautiful portrait. This Tahitian was called Omai and he joined Captain Cook on a return voyage in the 18th century. His face is quite beautiful. Clothes are gorgeous. The gestures are welcoming, and he peers at someone out-of-frame.

Omai met George III and Samuel Johnson, dined with the Royal Society. It’s probable Reynolds knew Mai personally.

“A Franciscan Friar” by Rembrandt

Happy birthday Rembrandt. Born on 15th July. See my most recent post on him. 

✲✲✲

A Franciscan Friar by Rembrandt van Rijn

Came across an addition to the Rembrandts the other day at the NG.

Painted in about 1655, it is a study of a Franciscan friar, of the Order of Saint Francis of Assisi.

Rembrandt is really gifted at capturing vulnerability and fragility. A frailty in the distant gaze and face, slight melancholy. Some facial disability, even blindness?

Beautiful.

Photo: beautiful bench

President Biden, it’s time to go!

I have just been reading a fascinating deep-dive into the White House’s machinations – orchestrated on the nation – of obscuring and concealing the President’s obvious physical frailty and mental ailing.

It has become embarrassing – even painful to watch. The recent embarrassing Zelensky/Putin gaffe is just too much. Everyone is waiting for the next slip-up. As Michael Moore recently said, his remaining in office is tantamount to elderly abuse.

It is an awful thing to have to witness this. It’s like watching a friend or loved one struggle enormously in a job at the end of their careers and hang on for too long. This is far worse, and with enormous consequences. Biden is supposed to be reading briefs and papers, and analysing world changes. Travelling in his job is “tiring him”; a “simple cold” incapacities him thinking and speaking clearly at a debate; and that he needs “more sleep”. In effect, this is a declaration that this poor guy is simply not up to the rigors of the office. Instead, we have his obvious confusion. Long drawn silences. The distant-vacant stares. And the awkward smile from spectators and eye-rolls.

Biden’s handlers are disgraceful. Lies, and lies. The more we hear, the clearer it is that they have been deliberately gaslighting journalists who have been persistently asking questions about Biden’s health over the past few years. Even labelling it a Republican conspiracy. If they’d just come clean, they wouldn’t be in this mess now.

E.g. after the Trump-Biden debate, it seems the White House were forced to acknowledge a “neurologist” had visited the President …

Following Joe Biden’s disastrous performance against Donald Trump in their debate on June 27, White House reporters started poring through the visitors log at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. One name kept cropping up again and again: Dr Kevin Cannard. The neurologist and specialist in movement disorders works at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, which serves the president. Eagled-eyed journalists spotted that he visited the White House no fewer than eight times between last July and this March. The revelation forced a statement from the White House which suggested Dr Cannard had only seen Biden for his three annual physicals and the other visits were related to military personnel.

✲✲✲

And why are people naturally suspicious?

Part of the reason why the White House’s excuses are wearing thin is that a sceptical public is aware of the long history of various White House administrations keeping the ailments suffered by past presidents secret. Woodrow Wilson suffered a paralysing stroke in 1919 and the severity of his illness was downplayed. For the final two years of his term, all communication with Wilson went through his wife Edith. It was also well known that Franklin D Roosevelt was paralysed from the waist down after contracting polio in 1921. But he carefully cloaked his disability in public using leg braces and gripping the lectern in order to stand for speeches. The press agreed not to photograph or film him in his wheelchair or being lifted out of cars. When the president’s health deteriorated following the Tehran Conference in November 1943, his doctor told the press that Roosevelt was in “robust health” and his stamina was “far above average”. In fact he was suffering from severe hypertension and congestive heart failure. He was advised to limit his work to four hours a day (which was a little tricky with the Second World War still raging) and his smoking. He died of a cerebral haemorrhage in 1945, shortly into his fourth term.

✲✲✲

Why should Biden step down?

As the article noted:

One undernoted issue is that the psychodrama is preventing other senior Democrats from taking the fight to Trump. Partly that’s because they don’t want to be seen as undermining Biden, and partly it’s because the White House won’t let them. “I worry that the core cadre of counsellors around the president continues to put roadblocks in the path of some of our most effective spokespeople,” says Brett Bruen, a former diplomat who worked in the Obama White House. “Part of it seems to stem from a worry that the contrast with the president’s energy and effectiveness on the campaign trail would be put in stark relief.”

People can complain about Trump’s arrant lies … but they won’t affect his support base. President Biden, on the other hand, will dissuade people from voting for him. In the end, it will give Trump the Presidency. It’s an outrageously stupid & dangerous gamble. 

✲✲✲

The DT article:

The conviction of Lucy Letby – miscarriage of justice?

Earlier this week, I was reading “Lucy Letby: Serial killer or a miscarriage of justice?” by Sarah Knapton, Martin Evans, Sophie Barnes, and Will Bolton (Daily Telegraph).

It argues that the conviction of neonatal nurse Lucy Letby may have been a miscarriage of justice.

She was convicted on largely circumstantial evidence and no direct evidence and with no (discernible?) motive. 

Nobody saw Letby harming a child, and the coroner didn’t find “foul play” in any of the deaths.

Also, it seems that the statistical evidence used was a bit questionable:

On the other hand, there is damning evidence against Lucy Letby. There is a problem with insulin. There’s no evidence this could have been “accidental”. And there is no reason other than insulin being purposefully administered, and no reason for it to have been done other than to poison. It would be attempted murder because it was likely to have been fatal if not corrected. She was also caught multiple times standing over babies as they died, without doing anything to help.

It doesn’t mean Letby didn't do it, it's not very clear how they can convict on the basis they have.

The new Home Secretary may have to order a review.

The US Supreme Court’s ruling on the Presidential qualified immunity

This blog post reflects my own thoughts on the Supreme Court decision on the question of presidential immunity, Trump v United States. 

✲✲✲

The SC recognised a qualified immunity. In summary, Justice Roberts’s majority opinion held that:

• “Official acts” stemming from core Article II powers carry an absolute immunity from prosecution.
• “Official acts” within the “outer ambit of executive authority” carry a “presumption of immunity”. 
• The burden to be discharged by the prosecution.
• Prosecution would need to prove that the action would pose no “dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch”. (A v. high burden).
• The above immunities are recognised because of the “compelling public interest in fair and effective law enforcement” to “safeguard the independence and effective functioning of the Executive Branch, and to enable the President to carry out his constitutional duties without undue caution.”
• Former presidents have no immunity for private misconduct.
• The courts may not inquire into the President’s motives. (a v. important point).
• With respect to whether an action is official, the question is “which of [his] innumerable ‘functions’ encompassed a particular action”. 
• The SC’s approach seems to be a negative test of whether relevant action is “not manifestly or palpably beyond [his] authority”.
  

✲✲✲

The originalist position: conceptualising “immunity” in Article II of the Constitution

For the “originalist”, it’s not the job of the Supreme Court to imagine things as being in the Constitution merely to avoid some possibly unattractive consequences. The Supreme Court’s proper function is not to “solve” society’s problems (or, rather, the perceived problems). The Supreme Court’s job is to look at what is and what is not in the Constitution, and apply it to the cases before them — irrespective of whether it “fixes” the problem. If there is a society problem, then it is the responsibility of Congress as the democratic legislative organ to enact legislation (or a constitutional amendment proposal) to address that societal problem. 

If there’s a provision in the Constitution that makes it clear that immunity from criminal prosecution was to be granted to former presidents of the United States, then the Court should identify it and rule accordingly.

However, the concept of “immunity” per se doesn’t arise in Article II of the Constitution.

To that extent, I liked Justice Barrett’s position. She said:

The Court describes the President’s constitutional protection from certain prosecutions as an “immunity.” As I see it, that term is shorthand for two propositions: The President can challenge the constitutionality of a criminal statute as applied to official acts alleged in the indictment, and he can obtain interlocutory review of the trial court’s ruling.

Instead of searching for “immunity” for Presidential “official acts”; instead she focused on the ambit of Presidential actions which can be subject to criminal prosecution. In other words, it asks whether Congress is constitutionally void from taking certain actions vis-a-vis the president’s nominal act.

Therefore, I think the better argument would be that the President doesn’t have “immunity” per se. The “immunity” simply describes a state of affairs that arises whenever he acts within his constitutional authority. If the President is exercising the authority vested in his office by the Constitution, no outside body has jurisdiction to adjudicate his actions.

Thereafter, this would entail, as Justice Barrett argued, a preliminary determination by the court whether — as a matter of law, not fact — the indictment properly alleges conduct outside the President’s scope of constitutional authority. The sufficiency of an indictment would be a legal question.

✲✲✲

Beyond originalism: the implicit “separation of powers” principles

On the other hand, I do think there might be something missing in the argument that there is no “immunity” articulated in the Constitution.

It seems obvious to me that when the President undertakes his “official acts”, he cannot necessarily be prosecuted for them. Since all executive power is vested in the executive , Congress cannot make a lawful exercise of executive power illegal. Congress cannot pass a law which limits the constitution’s vesting of executive power in the presidency. To do so would violate the separation of powers and would amount to a direct attack on the President’s Article II powers. Acts undertaken pursuant to his Article II powers must be immune from prosecution. Otherwise Article II “grants” nothing.

On a tangential point, as noted above, the Supreme Court expressly ruled that the President’s motives were (in English legalese) “non-justiciable”. This is for the obvious reason that the determination of a “motive” would need to be established by evidence; and secondly, that the judiciary are ill-equipped (notwithstanding traditional separation of powers reasons) to divine the whether a motive was indeed improper. It would amount to the Court substituting its own opinion for that of the primary decision-maker on questions of expediency. This is recognised in English law as the common-sense apportionment of responsibilities in the constitution (Secretary of State for the Home Department v Rehman [2003] 1 AC 153). Lord Hoffmann wrote:

It is not only that the executive has access to special information and expertise in these matters. It is also that such decisions, with serious potential results for the community, require a legitimacy which can be conferred only by entrusting them to persons responsible to the community through the democratic process. If the people are to accept the consequences of such decisions, they must be made by persons whom the people have elected and whom they can remove. (emphasis added)

At any rate, it seems to me that we are drawing inferences from the manner in which the government was established — which may not have been spelled out in specific words. It is not to say that the Constitution is a “living document” and rights arise from its various penumbras etc. Rather, we are talking about fundamental concepts and principles that govern relations between the branches of government.

The Constitution clothes the President with immense powers. That power cannot be exercised meaningfully (& without fear) if it can be second guessed by lawyers at the Department of Justice after the President finishes his term. This doesn’t make the President “above the law”. Rather, it protects the effective functioning of the government which, as Justice Roberts argued, was a “public interest” of the highest importance. 

In my view, the presidency would probably never be the same if immunity (properly defined) is curtailed, even slightly. We have seen the consequences of the reduction in the police’s qualified immunity in the US ... and they become risk-averse. And, apropos the state of US politics, we all know that once one side can “get” the President successfully, the other side will make sure to take advantage just as soon as they retake power.

Justice Robert’s rationale thus stems from (1) the structure of the Constitution and the (2) effective and proper functioning of the Executive (which may otherwise be impeded).

Although imperfect, if a President cannot be impeached for conduct while in office, it is a very slippery slope to believe that he can then be prosecuted for the same conduct after he leaves office. Once a President is out of office, he is no longer subject to a qualified immunity. For the acts undertaken while in office, the “remedy” was impeachment. Since an impeachment is a divestiture of official power of a bad actor, I don’t see why they cannot be prosecuted afterwards too. Even so, since his successor becomes functionally immune, he can cause the predecessor to be prosecuted for acts taken while in office — whether or not those acts were legitimately criminal. Impeachment must remain the proper remedy for Presidential misbehaviour — its ineffectiveness, so far, notwithstanding.

In some respect, it may be argued that there is no need for a specific immunity clause because it is obvious from the impeachment clause that it is the default “remedy”. Permitting otherwise would subject Presidential authority to an ever-present risk of prosecution in a manner not authorised in the Constitution. 

Finally, a question comes up about whether it is justified to extend a presumed immunity for actions within the “outer ambit of executive authority”. I suspect this is because the President’s “official actions” are much larger and broader and may entail prerogatives established under the Constitution and other laws. I think the Supreme Court was probably correct to recognise this, and attach a presumption. 

✲✲✲

Interesting column by Randy E Barnett at the WSJ on the eroding originalism of recent Supreme Court judgments. He noted that the judgement of Trump v United States was a departure from originalism.

Photo: Walking on Millbank

Opposite an art gallery.

Why I really dislike the Labour government

This past week I voted for the conservatives at our general election. 

I wasn’t voting for a party — I was voting against the Labour party.

As it happens, I needn’t have bothered as my constituency overwhelmingly favoured Labour. But, I wanted to feel that I registered my protest.

However, it seems Labour won with fewer votes than it secured in 2019, when it lost. Its share of the vote was smaller than Tories and Reform UK combined. People have not turned to Labour — they simply rejected the Conservatives and SNP after a spell of awful few years. They reached out primarily to the Lib-Dems and Reform UK.

✲✲✲

Statism

The Conservative Party has made a real hash of things, but a Labour victory will now send us straight back to the 1970s. There is a great article by Janan Ganesh in “Britain will dislike the Labour government in no time” (The FT):

In a word, statism. Labour exists to spend money. No disgrace there: it is the quickest route to some of its social objectives. But with taxes and public debt so much higher than when Labour last governed, the pain this time will be sharper. Here is a prediction. After some initial fiscal restraint, Labour, in frustration, will borrow more — on past evidence, much more — than markets currently expect. If taxes rise, too, the public’s reaction won’t be the kind of grudging assent granted to Gordon Brown’s penny on national insurance in 2002.

Worse, public services won’t improve much because Labour won’t reform them. When Tony Blair challenged producer interests in healthcare and education, unions revolted. Sir Keir Starmer shows little intention of even testing their patience. If the Tories are a lobby group for old people, Labour is one for the public-sector middle class. If the most important social schism under this government is between the wage-earning young and asset-rich pensioners, expect the next one to be between private and public sector workers. [...]

So, corporatist institutions are going to proliferate. The texture of public life will feel 1970s-ish. Voters will remember that “fat cats” purr away in the state sector, too. Trade union special pleading will be what bankers’ bonuses were under the Tories. The almost mystical faith in “investment” will come under the scrutiny that it somehow escapes now. (What have been the economic returns on New Labour’s decade of investment?). [...]

Voters, busy with their well-warranted dislike of the Tories, haven’t had to reckon with these things for 14 years.

✲✲✲

Other reasons

Some other reasons why I’m dejected about our upcoming 5-year cycle:

• The “culture war” will be worse under Labour. It’s part of its natural tendency to like telling people what to do — which is more pronounced in the centre left than the centre right. Fine cars, shout at smokers, chip away at property. Indeed, opposition to covid lockdowns came largely from the conservatives themselves rather than any official opposition. E.g. Phillipson recently wanted to depart from the new guidance for schools that bans teaching radical gender ideology, or giving government contracts to “black-led firms” regardless of merit etc.
• By and large, nowadays, the centre right is more tolerant of divergent views than the centre left — which, esp. on social media, adopt an all-or-nothing approach. People who disagree with Labour on trans “rights” are automatically designated a “fascist” who must be cancelled — most excellently illustrated with the former darling of the left: JK Rowling. It’s part of the saying that the left are constantly looking for traitors. Amazingly, left that used to be the fighting against censorship and were pro-free speech during the 60s right up to recent times. Now, they have flipped that script.
• They will continue illegal & mass migration to while fostering a culture of “you’re a bigot if you don’t agree” attitude. Our housing shortage is also quite heavily linked to these record levels of immigration, which the Labour party is even more ideologically committed to than the Tories.
• 
  Finally, Labour will bring in their constitutional changes and policies as New Labour which embed them in the structures of government in a way to prevent repeal. It will reflect their own philosophy of life — e.g., the legal duty on public bodies to “reduce inequality” (i.e. the public sector must spend more & redistribute on groups of “victims” of inequality, the House of Lords (see opposite re: Ed West & J Sorel from The Spectator on Gordon Brown’s notions - namely “illegalising all opposition”), votes for 16 y/o and foreign nationals etc.

The Trump-Biden debate

For those who haven’t seen it: CNN presidential debate.

✲✲✲

Biden lost completely

I have only v. serious doubts that President Biden is mentally sharp enough to be President after what we saw a few nights ago. This was not just a purported “cold” or “speech impediment”. Biden looked gone. And he is supposed to be occupying one of the most important and demanding roles for 4 years.

Everytime Biden glances at Trump .. it’s like he’s seeing him for the first time “😦”.

I felt sorry for him. He couldn’t even articulate a half-cogent counter-reply on abortion and Roe v Wade ... a softball question which he must have prepped for.

Without a script or teleprompter, he can barely recall a line or even a policy. I don’t think he knows half of it ... and it was clear he was also inventing statistics and making up stuff (e.g. on inflation or economy).

What a joke.

Trump won the debate, despite his (expected) flimflamming

WSJ had a v. interesting article covering the ridiculous exaggerations & near-hysterics from Trump during the debate.