Local opinion: “No Kings” has to topple more than a king

Never in the last 800 years did a British king have control of Parliament’s power of the purse and oversight.

The money, the purse if willingly filled by the people, is the source of a government’s power. But, give it to the king — he will be and will remain a tyrant.

It's time to begin the celebration of the 250th anniversary of our founding, our formal Declaration of Independence promulgated on July 4th, 1776. Now, however, our struggle against King Donald is vastly different. Parliaments toppled English kings by seizing the power of the purse. Kings were left with ceremonies and palaces, but no power. Our king toppled our Congress by seizing its power of the purse and congressional leash-control over his autocratic behavior. Our struggle is against both the king and our parliament.

Historians pretty much agree that we actually fought the American Revolution against the British Parliament, not mad King George III, although our liberation document makes King George the culprit because he was symbolically and nominally in charge.

The beauty of the massive “No Kings” protests is that there is no king at the head of the No Kings movement. As journalist and political analyst David Frum recently pointed out, kings have heads. And, he said, the last British king (more than a century before the American Revolution) to have the temerity to try to seize Parliament’s power to tax and spend got his head chopped off.

Contemplate that we fought a revolution against a mad King George III, who didn’t dare to challenge a strong Parliament, jealous of its sole power to tax, or risk losing his head. Then contemplate that we created a “no kings” Constitution, which made Congress the most powerful branch — so powerful in fact that the legislative branch was deliberately divided into two branches, as a check on its own power.

How do we know this? James Madison said so in Federalist #51. Madison is considered by scholars to be the Father of the Constitution. He also said that Congress would be the most powerful branch because it was closest to the people, the source of all power underpinning the Constitution.

Mad King George and mad King Donald have some things in common, not only palpable mental illness, but both started revolutions that went badly and both were surrounded by sycophants who gave bad advice (or in Donald’s case, no advice at all—out of fear). Only one had courtiers who could control the king. Guess which one.

Can we find any irony in this discussion about our own “no kings” movement and our own history in which we trace our early history, our lineage, through English kings fighting with Parliament over the power of the purse (the power to tax and spend)? The first victory for Parliament in the 13th century resulted in King John’s concessions to the rule of law and Parliament’s power to tax and spend. These limitations on autocracy, the Magna Carta, became an early foundation for our own constitutional rights, the Bill of Rights.

English colonists fled to America to lengthen the leash on the crown’s control over them, their liberty and autonomy. But, the English kings and parliaments, desperate for more and more revenue to pay for costly wars against other European monarchs and their own gilded gluttony, levied more and more tariffs (taxes) on the colonies. The colonists cried “taxation without representation”, declared their independence, fought a revolution, and won. Sound familiar? “No Kings”.

Any irony here? The MAGA Republican Congress is on its knees, factually and rhetorically, in total thrall to King Donald in relinquishing to him its constitutional power of the purse and oversight of the executive branch. The irony is profound, considering why we fought a revolution. Our king has more power over our parliament than King George had over his parliament.

Worse, mad King Donald claims more power over Congress than King Charles I had over Parliament in 1649. Charles tried to seize the power of the purse away from Parliament. He was tried for “treason” and literally had his head chopped off for his effort. See any irony here?

Worse, King Donald created a supplicant SCOTUS majority that gave him near total immunity from prosecution. No literal or metaphorical chopping off of a king’s head in this picture.

But, after all this, here we are. A weakened submissive Congress and a pretender to the throne. Yet, the most that the supplicant members of Congress “face” if they challenge the king is to lose their jobs. The most King Donald can lose after looting the treasury and destroying the Constitution, the rule of law, and institutions is “face”, not his head.

But, oh dear, King Donald has no “shame.” What about King Donald II, III, and IV?