considering a resolution regarding Donald Trump

[Joe Dehn]

Thank you to the Secretary for providing copies of the original LPSF resolution on this subject, my revision, and Richard Stafford's revision.  My version was an attempt to better focus attention on libertarian concerns, and on current/prospective actions rather than things that he did before his current term.  And in doing that I did some significant restructuring. Richard, on the other hand, seems to have mostly made more local changes, keeping my paragraph structure intact.  In my opinion either mine or Richard's would better serve our purposes than the original.  But if we want to try to "perfect" the language, this parallelism in the structure of the latter two versions suggests a relatively straightforward way to go about it -- consider each paragraph at a time, and decide which version we favor or if we want to combine them somehow, and then move on to the next.

Following is a paragraph by paragraph recap of the two versions, with my comments on the differences following each pair:

Whereas President Donald Trump has pursued a policy of terrorizing peaceful immigrants by sending armed and masked ICE agents into communities and workplaces and even arresting immigrants in the very act of trying to comply with government paperwork;

Whereas President Donald Trump has pursued policies that intimidate and disrupt the lives of peaceful immigrants, including authorizing armed and masked ICE agents to conduct workplace and community raids, and arresting immigrants in the process of complying with legal paperwork;

These sort of say the same thing, but I think my version is stronger and more direct with respect to his responsibility. The second version makes it sound like these ICE agents were just hanging out somewhere, wearing masks as they have always been wont to do, waiting to do their normal business, until Trump "authorized" them to do so. No -- whatever the formal mechanism, even if he signed some paper to "authorize" it, the relevant point is that the raids and the manner in which they are being conducted now are a significant escalation initiated by Trump and agency officials he picked. These policies are outrageous, and we should use wording that makes clear that we consider them outrageous. So on the whole I'd prefer we stick with my version.

Whereas he has attacked universities both in an attempt to discourage them from educating
foreign students and for the purpose of changing what they teach;

Whereas President Donald Trump has pressured universities through funding threats, visa
restrictions, accreditation manipulation, and regulatory interference to discourage international
enrollment and to impose ideological influence over curricula and institutional governance;

First, the second version unnecessarily repeats his name, just for this paragraph.  I think including his name once, in the first paragraph, is enough. But if want to repeat it, I don't see why we would want to do that only in the second paragraph.

With respect to the actual content, maybe "attacked" is too strong but I think that's how they probably perceived it. And I'd like to make the point that there are real people involved here, who came for an education -- "international enrollment" sounds like a statistical abstraction.  And while it may be useful to spell out the mechanisms he is using, I do not think we should be complaining about threats to cut funds. On the other hand the institutional governance part is something I neglected.

Here is a suggested combination version:

Wheres he has disrupted the functioning of higher education by blocking foreign students from participating and by putting pressure on universities to change what they teach, who they admit, and how they govern themselves;

Next, with respect to military action:

Whereas he has, contrary to his campaign rhetoric against the warlike behavior of previous presidents, sent American armed forces to attack foreign interests around the globe and honored himself with military parades in the style of foreign dictators;

Whereas despite campaign promises to reject endless wars, he has authorized military operations abroad without congressional approval, expanded drone strikes, and publicly celebrated military displays in the style of authoritarian regimes;

There's that word "authorize" again -- too indirect I think, too passive. And authorizing "military operations abroad" is not obviously inconsistent with not having "endless wars", if they are of limited in scope and duration. I suppose I could live with either version. (But if we are going to use the second version, "Congressional" should be capitalized.)

Whereas he has escalated the War on Drugs and used it as further justification for foreign
intervention, including tariffs and military action against foreign vessels;

Whereas he has intensified the War on Drugs, using it as justification for expanded federal
enforcement and foreign intervention, including tariffs and military actions related to narcotics
trafficking;

I think "military actions related to narcotics trafficking" is too polite, too indirect -- almost a real justification! Both "narcotics" and "trafficking" are buzzwords of the anti-drug crowd.  We should not allow him to hide what he is actually doing behinds such slogans --and what he is actually doing is blowing up boats and the people in them.

Whereas he has deployed military resources, including National Guard units, into American
cities as allegedly necessary to keep order, even when the relevant governors and mayors say
there is no such need and have explicitly opposed such deployments;

Whereas he has deployed active-duty and National Guard troops into American cities under the
pretext of maintaining order, even when governors and mayors opposed such deployments and
found them unnecessary;

I think the "pretext" phrasing is an improvement, but there is another point I left out -- this actually makes things worse. And I think what the governor and mayors actually said is more important than what they "found".  I also don't think it is correct to contrast "active duty" with "National Guard" -- aren't they on "active duty" when they are "activated"?

So I suggest combining both into:

Whereas he has deployed military resources, including National Guard units, into American cities under the pretext of maintaining order, but with the actual effect of creating disorder, even when the relevant governors and mayors say there is no need for them and have explicitly opposed such deployments;

Next, annexation:

Whereas he has threatened annexation of territories not now under the jurisdiction of the US
government, and not ruled out the use of military force to accomplish this, including the
territories of traditional allies like Canada, Denmark, and Panama;

Whereas he has made statements and policy gestures suggesting possible annexation of
foreign territories, including Greenland, portions of Canada, and areas of Panama, and has not
ruled out the use of military force in pursuit of such aims;

I believe that at least in the case of Canada it was more than "portions" -- and my wording covers both portions and entire countries. And I think the fact that these countries are ones with which we were supposedly "friends" is significant, in terms of making the actions seem more outrageous.  So I still prefer my version.

Whereas he has interfered with the ability of American consumers and businesses to trade with
people in other countries by imposing tariffs and other measures which increase prices, disrupt
supply chains, and create general economic uncertainty;

Whereas he has imposed tariffs, export controls, and other trade barriers that restrict the
freedom of American consumers and businesses to trade globally, thereby raising prices,
disrupting supply chains, and generating economic uncertainty;

I like to emphasize that trade is actually between people, not countries. And "other measures" covers more things than what are traditionally called "trade barriers".  On the other hand it probably makes sense to mention export controls explicitly. And "freedom" sounds better than "ability".  So combining them:

Whereas he has interfered with the freedom of American consumers and businesses to trade with
people in other countries by imposing tariffs, export controls, and other measures, thereby raising prices, disrupting supply chains, and generating economic uncertainty;

Next, size of government:

Whereas he has talked loudly about cutting the size of government but failed to address the
largest components of government spending, leading the federal government ever further into
debt;

Whereas he has spoken of reducing government size while leaving the largest drivers of federal
spending untouched, continuing unsustainable deficits and accelerating the national debt which
subverts the labor of its citizens;

Comparing these, I don't really like either "talked loudly" or the simpler "spoken of".  With the former I was trying to get across the idea that he made a big deal about it.  Maybe "bragged" or "promised". And I don't understand the referent in the phrase "labor of its citizens" -- the citizens of what?  Maybe we can make it about the children...

Whereas he has bragged about cutting the size of government but left the largest components of government spending untouched, continuing unsustainable deficits and accelerating the national debt which will be an intolerable burden on our children;

Next, money:

Whereas, rather than addressing inflation and high interest rates by moving us toward a monetary system built on private foundations like precious metals and cryptocurrencies, he is pushing for total politicization of the heretofore semi-independent Federal Reserve, the result of which is likely to be monetary disaster

Whereas rather than supporting a depoliticized and market-based monetary system, he has sought to exert political influence over the Federal Reserve, risking further instability and inflation;

I wanted to be explicit about what might be the basis of a different monetary policy -- and both precious metals and cryptocurrency are components of that which have big followings. And the Federal Reserve has never been totally free from political influences, which is why I used the phrases "pushing for total politicization" and "heretofore semi-independent".  But that does make it kind of wordy.  Here's an attempt at a somewhat shorter version:

Whereas, rather than addressing inflation and high interest rates by supporting a depoliticized and market-based monetary system, making use of foundations like precious metals and cryptocurrencies, he is pushing for even more political control over the Federal Reserve, the result of which is likely to be monetary disaster;

Next social division:

Whereas he has used his position to attack and ridicule segments of the American population who are just trying to live their own lives as they prefer, including sexual minorities, encouraging division in our society;

Whereas he has used the presidency to demean and marginalize groups of Americans—including sexual minorities and ideological opponents—undermining the principle that individuals should be free to live peacefully according to their own values;

Maybe "demean" and "marginalize" is better than "attack and ridicule".  But I think the idea that this creates/encourages division is important. And I don't see "ideological opponents" in the same way as other "minorities" -- if they are actually "opponents", then you should be able to fight with them, that's pretty much what the word means. How about:

Whereas he has used the presidency to demean and marginalize groups of Americans, including sexual minorities, undermining the principle that individuals should be free to live according to their own values, and stirring up division between people who would otherwise be able to live peacefully together;

Now the conclusion, where Richard has changed the paragraph structure, by adding more paragraphs:

[my one paragraph]

Therefore, the Libertarian Party of California calls on all members of Congress, regardless of political party affiliation, to join together to enact legislation to counter these actions and policies specifically and to reduce the power of the president more generally. Nobody should have the kind of power that past Congresses have delegated to the executive branch, and it is up to Congress as representatives of the people to correct this situation, so that neither Donald Trump nor any future president can threaten the peace, safety, economic well-being, and freedom of Americans ever again.

[Richard's corresponding two paragraphs]

Therefore, be it resolved that the Libertarian Party of California calls upon all members of Congress, regardless of party affiliation, to enact legislation curbing these abuses and restoring proper constitutional limits on executive power.

This Congress must reclaim the authority which has been delegated to the presidency and re-establish a government bound by law rather than personality—so that neither Donald Trump nor any future president can again endanger the peace, safety, prosperity, and liberty of the American people.

Yes, the phrase "be it resolved that" should be in there.  And "prosperity and liberty" is probably an improvement over "economic well-being and freedom". But otherwise I still like my version better. While constitutional limits are useful, I don't see "proper constitutional limits" as much of a definition.  Nobody should have that power.  And I do think it makes sense to mention him by name again here, at the end, and to make very clear that we want Congress to deal with both the immediate problem (his particular policies) and the longer-term issue. So:

Therefore, be it resolved that the Libertarian Party of California calls on all members of Congress, regardless of political party affiliation, to join together to enact legislation to counter these actions and policies specifically and to reduce the power of the president more generally. Nobody should have the kind of power that past Congresses have delegated to the executive branch, and it is up to Congress as representatives of the people to correct this situation, so that neither Donald Trump nor any future president can threaten the peace, safety, prosperity, and liberty of Americans ever again.

Then he adds two completely new topics:

Be it further resolved that the Libertarian Party of California urges state and local governments,
civic organizations, and individuals to resist and nullify unconstitutional assertions of executive
power by any administration.

Freedom is preserved not by the ambitions of rulers but by the vigilance and courage of a free
people determined to limit the power of all who seek to govern them.

Since these are basically independent of the previous ones, we could include neither, either, or both.