On the subject of the US Constitution, I saw this Op Ed column in today's Washington Post, by Jennifer Rubin.\nSo Republicans want to read the Constitution? They should look at these parts.\nhttps:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/opinions\/2022\/12\/06\/house-republicans-will-read-constitution-assistance\/ \n\nHere are some excerpts:\nRepublican leaders have announced their intention to read the Constitution on the House floor during the first day of the new Congress. That’s all well and good, but they need to understand it as well. Unfortunately, Republicans have shown a troubling lack of comprehension of our founding document in recent years. So here’s some assistance with some sections that seem to trip them up. \nLet’s start with Article II, Section 1, Clause 7: “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”\n\nThis provision should have prevented former president Donald Trump from reaping income from foreigners, including foreign government officials who stayed at his properties. Yet Republicans chose to ignore it.\n\nThis is particularly important now, as Forbes recently revealed that Trump failed to disclose that he had a nearly $20 million loan with Daewoo, a South Korean conglomerate, while running for president in 2016. Forbes reports, “There’s little doubt that if the world had known about the debt while Trump was president, it would have sparked conflicts-of-interest concerns, perhaps heightened by Daewoo’s historical ties to North Korea. (In the mid-1990s, the firm was the only South Korean company permitted to operate a business inside the country.)” Perhaps Republicans might want to pass legislation prohibiting any president from continuing to do business with foreigners while in office? Just a thought.\nNext up is Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, [the president] shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Enough said, right?\nHere’s another critical one: Article II, Section 4. “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”\n\nInciting an insurrection, refusing to come to the aid of Congress and the vice president during an attack on the U.S. Capitol, cooking up a scheme to throw out electors, and extorting Ukraine for political favors all meet the definition of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Again, Republicans seemed not to care.\nLet’s skip over to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”\n\nThis should serve as a warning to Republicans and the partisan right-wing hacks they put on the Supreme Court. Should Democrats win back the House and keep the Senate and White House in 2024, they can alter (even abolish!) the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. They could reasonably argue that a court that operates like a partisan body, not a judicial one, shouldn’t be reviewing the decisions of lower courts. \nPresumably, Republicans will include in their reading the amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”\n\nNote that it does not say “Twitter shall make no law.” Nor that “publishers can reject no book.” The notion, as many on the right suggest, that it is unconstitutional for private companies to refuse to serve as a platform for misinformation or noxious views is nonsense.\n\nIt’s also worth calling attention to the “establishment of religion” clause. The framers might be shocked to learn that, according to the right-wing Supreme Court, this doesn’t prohibit organized prayer at school events, government funding of religious schools and the imposition of health-care decisions based on sectarian views.\nRepublicans should also mull over the 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”\n\nThat doesn’t divide Americans into “real Americans” and “elites,” as Republicans so often do. No individual or group is entitled to maintain a grip on power, no matter what Christian nationalists say.\n\nLet’s end on one of my personal favorites, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who … shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”\n\nRepublicans should understand that no former president or member of Congress who attempted to prevent the transfer of power in January 2021 should be eligible to serve. Though they shouldn’t need to consult the Constitution to know that.