Day 271: No Kings: A Declaration Reborn

 

Once upon a time, the American right wing used to hold historical texts in high regard. Why, I recall countless rants by conservative talk radio hosts who were keeping lists of the number of times President Obama ran afoul of the Federalist Papers, the Constitution, or even Black's common law. Nowadays, not so much. Suddenly, the right has lost interest in the foundations of the American republic and is instead content to continue to implement the GOP convention platform of 2020, which read: 

“RESOLVED, That the Republican Party has and will continue to enthusiastically support the President’s America-first agenda.”

In other words, the putative conservative right represents only what Donald Trump says it represents, with its home, the once 'Grand Old Party', being reduced to a rubber-stamp plaything for Trump. But while the party of Lincoln and Reagan may have misplaced its historical texts, the American people have not. That enduring civic knowledge manifested itself just yesterday, on October 18, 2025, when as many as 7.5 million patriots took to the streets across the country for the 'No Kings' rally. If one excludes the original Earth Day, it is the largest mass protest in American history.

The name itself —No Kings— is a direct echo of the foundational principles in the Declaration of Independence, which details a long list of grievances against a monarch who sought to establish an 'absolute Tyranny' over the states. The protestors' message—America has no kings—is a potent modern rejection of executive overreach, aligning them not with a political party's current platform, but with the very text that created the American republic.

🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽

It can be interesting to read the bill of indictment that America's founders published on July 4, 1776, concerning the crimes of King George III, in light of the contemporary authoritarian regime at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. It is very much a case of "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss." 

Here are a few that caught my eye for their striking similarity: 

[NOTE: I apologise for the erratically formatted text below. I don't know why that is happening, and I cannot find a way to correct it! 😖]

• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

Here, recall Trump's declaration that he would no longer treat U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants or children of lawful, temporary immigrants as citizens, as the 14th Amendment commands.

As Jody Freeman, professor at Harvard Law School wrote, "The disregard for law is itself part of the agenda. They do not seem to care whether they violate the Constitution and statutes, make mistakes, do irreparable harm. That recklessness itself sends a message."

Indeed, since that was written, the lawlessness of the present regime has only acellerated across the republic, forcing the courts to remedy the situation.  The Institute for Policy Integrity at the NYU School of Law found that the Trump administration lost around 93% of the cases it faced involving federal agencies on deregulatory or policy issues. In other words, 93% of this administration's polices violated the law, a statistic that seems all the more damning when compared to the 73% success rate of previous adminstrations.

The Trump administration is lawless to a degree that would make King George flush with embarrassment.

• He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

This principle—the refusal of a sovereign to allow essential public benefits unless political demands are met—is directly echoed in our present crisis. I am reminded of the ongoing government shutdown, which began on October 1st. The stalemate is centered on the Administration and its Congressional allies refusing to negotiate in good faith to extend essential services, unless the opposition party forgoes its demand to extend the enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies. These are the very subsidies that would prevent millions of Americans from losing their health coverage and facing soaring premiums after the cuts, enacted in the recent Republican reconciliation bill, which totaled an estimated $1.1 trillion to health care spending. The message from this Administration and its leadership is stark: only those who align with the president’s agenda are entitled to a functioning government and the benefits of their own representation. In effect, they are demanding that a large district of people relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature as the price of preventing a humanitarian crisis.

• He has dissolved the Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

The modern equivalent of dissolving a legislative house is to simply refuse to call it into session, thereby preventing the people’s business from being conducted. At the demand of President Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson has kept the House of Representatives out of session for nearly a month, explicitly stating he will not recall lawmakers until his demands are met in the government shutdown fight—a conflict driven largely by the Republican refusal to extend expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies for millions of Americans. Even more egregious, Johnson continues to refuse to administer the oath of office to Representative-elect Adelita Grijalva, a duly elected Democrat from Arizona. The delay in swearing her in is a profound refusal to acknowledge the will of her constituents and a denial of her right to serve. This calculated obstruction has a clear motive: Grijalva represents the 218th, and final, signature needed on a discharge petition that would force a floor vote on releasing the remaining Jeffrey Epstein files, a measure Johnson and the White House are desperate to block. For all intents and purposes, he has dissolved a portion of the Representative House to protect pedophiles and maintain his control over the chamber's agenda.

• He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose, obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

The King’s goal was to limit growth; the current Administration’s goal is to reverse it. As mentioned in the first count of the indictment, the Administration has repeatedly attempted to unlawfully nullify the 14th Amendment and end birthright citizenship. Beyond this anti-constitutional act, the raft of new immigration restrictions—on both legal and undocumented immigrants—is an active attempt to “obstruct the Laws for Naturalization.”

A recent study from the National Foundation for American Policy projects that these draconian immigration policies will decrease the country’s workforce by nearly 16 million people over the next decade. This is not simply a humanitarian concern; it is economic sabotage. The report estimates the net effect will lower the annual rate of economic growth by almost one-third, harming U.S. living standards for everyone. The long-term costs of deliberately shrinking the workforce are staggering, projected to increase the federal debt by $1.74 trillion and reduce Gross Domestic Product (GDP) by $12.1 trillion throughout the span of the next 10 years. This Administration is actively refusing to “encourage migrations hither” even when it means a staggering and deliberate collapse of American economic growth.

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

America, under Trump, has witnessed the outrageous deployment of troops, both National Guard and Marines, to American cities over the objection of the governors of those states, and without cause other than to intimidate the peoples of those states. This is perhaps the most blatant assault on the civil liberties that the American people have seen since the days of King George. 

It must be remembered that a direct cause for the open rebellion of colonial America was the infamous "Boston Massacre" where British soldiers massacred colonial protestors. The danger of deploying military forces in American cities is that those soldiers, trained for combat and lacking the specialized conflict deescalation training most civilian police officers receive, will respond to protestors in the same fashion that the Red Coats did, or the Ohio National Guard did at Kent State, and blood will be spilled. As the revolution demonstrates, it is very difficult to walk back the violence once it has been unleashed. 

In a recent ruling by the Seventh Circuit federal appeals court, a three-judge panel declared that "Political opposition is not rebellion.” That is in the best tradition of the Founding Fathers who signed the Declaration of Independence. Trump, by his words and deeds, has demonstrated that he has more affinity for the monarch who rejected that document than he does for those who signed it.

• For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

Since taking office, Trump has launched an unprecedented assault on international trade by attempting to impose an 1870's tariff regime onto the 21st Century world. The results have been as destructive as predicted. As neatly summarized by Google's Gemini AI (hey, when in Rome!), the economic consequences are severe and ongoing, reflecting the highest consumer tariff rate since the 1930's:

A recent 2025 study by S&P Global estimated that Trump's tariffs would cost companies at least $1.2 trillion in additional expenses in 2025 alone, with two-thirds of that burden, over $900 billion, projected to be absorbed by American consumers.

Key economic costs of the trade war include:

Reduced GDP: The Yale Budget Lab (October 2025) projects the U.S. economy will be persistently 4% smaller in the long run. The Penn Wharton Budget Model projects a steeper 6% reduction in long-run GDP under the 2025 tariff plan.

Higher Consumer Prices & Lower Household Income: Customers are currently bearing approximately 55-70% of the tariff costs. The Yale Budget Lab's 2025 analysis forecasts an average per-household income loss equivalent to over $1,800 per year due to tariff-induced price increases.

Decreased Jobs: The Yale Budget Lab (October 2025) projects payroll employment to be $490,000 lower by the end of 2025. The Tax Foundation projected a loss as high as $820,000 jobs due to the tariffs.

Supply Chain Disruption: The conflict has upended global supply chains, increasing freight costs, and disrupting international trade flows as partners seek non-U.S. suppliers.

Financial Market Volatility: The trade war triggered substantial economic policy uncertainty, discouraging business investment and hiring.

• For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

See above.

 In addition to that, Trump likes to crow about the amound of revenue "flowing" into the country, but what he doesn't understand is that revenue is coming from the American people and American businesses. Tariffs are a domestic tax, plain and simple. (Again, see above.)

This is yet another transformative moment in the history of the Republican Party. It has morphed from an anti-tax party to the party that is now responsible for the largest tax increase in American history! Here's why:  

The series of broad tariffs enacted in 2025 raised the average effective U.S. tariff rate from approximately 2.5% to between 17% and 27%—a level not seen since the 1930s. This translates directly into a massive domestic tax burden. Estimates from economic policy groups project that the increased tariff revenue will total over $2.5 trillion over a decade, an amount that several economists and organizations have characterized as the single largest tax increase in U.S. history, or at least the largest since the 1950s or 1968. This cost is borne not by foreign governments, but by American households through higher consumer prices (a de facto sales tax) and by U.S. businesses through increased costs for raw materials, disrupting supply chains and slowing overall GDP growth. The economic consensus is clear: the revenue "flowing" into the Treasury is being extracted from the pockets of the American public.

• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us...

Of course, no discussion of Trump would be complete without mentioning his failed violent insurrection on January 6, 2021, when having legitimately lost a national election, he unleashed a violent mob on the Capitol, something that injured 130 Capitol policemen, and nearly ended democratic rule in America. As former Congresswomen Liz Cheney stated, "President Trump summoned the mob, assembled the mob and lit the flame of this attack". She also told fellow Republicans, "There will come a day when Donald Trump is gone. But your dishonor will remain".

🔽🔽🔽🔽🔽 

In light of the similarities of the crimes of King George to those of King Trump, is it any wonder that American patriots are taking to the streets in record numbers? It is a testament to the enduring power of the Declaration of Independence in articulating the specific mechanics of tyranny, be it the 18th Century or the 21st. When we hold the modern allegations of executive overreach—from obstructing justice and seeking dependent judges to circumventing established immigration law and, ultimately, inciting domestic insurrection—up to this 18th-century template, the pattern is unmistakable. The specific methods may have evolved from royal decrees to social media calls to action, but the fundamental transgression remains the same: the placement of King Trump's personal will above the rule of law and the constitutional order. 

The Founders’ 27 grievances were not just a list of complaints; they were an evergreen diagnosis of what it looks like when a leader attempts to govern as a monarch in a republic. The modern political backlash, encapsulated by the spirit of "No Kings Day," is not merely partisan dissent. It is a continuous restatement of the American identity. It is the republic defending itself, reiterating the 1776 refusal to accept a king. The only question to ask: what side are you on? Will you side with the latter-day royalists? Or will you stand shoulder-to-shoulder with those who exhibit the liberty-loving virtues of the brave men and women who founded this nation? As Thomas Paine wrote during the dark days of the rebellion, "THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman."

So it was then, so it is now.

🔼🔼🔼🔼🔼