Impeachment isn’t enough.

Impeachment would remedy Trump”s “high crimes and misdemeanors.” But impeachment would not remedy Trump’s unconstitutional presidency because it would leave in place his vice president, White House staff and Cabinet, as well as all the executive orders he issued and all the legislation he signed, and the official record of his presidency.

The only response to an unconstitutional presidency is to annul it. Annulment would repeal all of it – recognizing that such appointments, orders, rules, and records were made without constitutional authority.
— Robert Reich, 8/24/18

The problem with such irrational thinking is it comes back to bite you.

The most recent example came thanks to former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, first in 2005.

If all goes as planned, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) will rise after several days of debate beginning today over one of President Bush’s judicial nominees and call for an end to Democrats’ delaying tactics. The presiding officer will then rule in his favor.

Democrats will protest the ruling and ask for a vote to overturn it. The Republican leader will seek to table that appeal. If Frist and the GOP majority prevail, a long tradition of filibustering will be narrowed and a new precedent will be set allowing the Republicans to force a vote on a nomination with a simple majority instead of three-fifths of the Senate.

But Democrats contend that the Republicans are essentially breaking the rules to change the rules. “If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-NV). “The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington.”
— Washington Post, 5/18/05

But Harry Reid’s position began to unravel when Democrats assumed the majority….

In 2008, Reid continued to condemn the fact that the Republicans even contemplated using the nuclear option: “The Senate was set up to be different, that was the genius, the vision of our Founding Fathers. That’s why you have the ability to filibuster, and to terminate filibuster. They wanted to get rid of all of that,” Reid said.

Then he was asked if he would ever consider invoking the nuclear option himself: “As long as I am the leader, the answer’s no,” Reid promised. “I think we should just forget that. That is a black chapter in the history of the Senate. I hope we never ever get to that again because I really do believe it will ruin our country.”

Fast-forward to 2013. Now, Democrats held the White House and a Senate majority. The Republican minority had been stalling nominations and appointments by Obama, including filibustering the nomination of former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel for secretary of defense. Senate Democrats decided to go nuclear after the Senate GOP made clear that they had no intention of allowing three vacancies on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to be filled.
— PolitiFact, 11/22/13

But the most fun example came courtesy of the super-majority Democrats in the Massachusetts Legislature.

In 2004, the state’s junior senator, John Kerry, was the Democratic presidential nominee. Party leaders knew that if Kerry won in November, state law allowed the governor — then Republican Mitt Romney — to appoint Kerry’s successor, and that person would presumably be a Republican. So, the Democratic leadership of the legislature drew up a measure to strip the governor of his senatorial appointment power.

The measure passed both chambers and was vetoed by Romney. The Democrats then muscled a two-thirds majority to override the veto. Of course, Kerry never won the presidency, but the law remained on the books.

Fast-forward to 2009. Democrats realized that the law they had enacted in 2004 forced the state to have only one senator for roughly five months — and after Kennedy’s death, that meant the state would be short one senator. From a political standpoint, that meant the U.S. Senate would have one less Democrat at a time when a Democratic president was trying to reach a 60-vote threshold to enact landmark legislation on Kennedy’s signature issue, health care. And this time, the governor, Deval Patrick, is a Democrat and presumably would appoint someone from his party.

So legislators quickly passed legislation that would keep the special election but still allow the governor to appoint an interim senator to serve until the special election. The measure passed both chambers, and on Sept. 24, 2009, Patrick named former Democratic National Committee chairman Paul Kirk, a Kennedy family friend, as the interim senator.
— Politifact, 9/24/09

So, if Robert Reich and Democrats really want to strip Donald Trump of his presidency and annul all of his accomplishments, fine.

But politics continues to remain a rather consistently cyclical thing and one day, there will be a Democrat in the White House; a Democrat who may do really bad things. If Democrats do manage to have President Trump’s presidency stripped, precedent will be set and there will be calls to do the very same thing to that Democrat, deserved or not.

Who’ll be screaming like a stuck pig then, Robert?

Eventually a very risky and dangerous insurrection was instigated in signing a Declaration of Independence, an 18-year bloody revolution was fought and won culminating in the brilliantly-composed representative government we now have today. It could be argued the Founding Fathers had no use for a king as they knew full well from experience the potential of abuse the elevation of one man over all brings.

The Founding Fathers could be shaking their heads in disgust over the way today’s politicians put themselves over those they were elected to serve. They would be aghast over the coverage the press, whom they specifically gave First Amendment protections to, and their elevation to royalty status of an elected federal official when they pass away.

These are the same elected officials who name streets and buildings after themselves and most recently while still alive. The hold hearings where they sit and look down upon those invited to testify and often forget the cordial tone they displayed while asking to be reelected.

Some quickly become bullies because they don’t see themselves as public servants. Some see themselves as better than us. Some see themselves as royalty to be served and never questioned.

Too many say one thing to get elected and once in office do as they wish and even denigrate the constituents who dared ask them to keep campaign promises. It’s this and other reasons that make some of us ask, why are we treating these politicians in death in a manner some really don’t deserve?

Everyone dies but politicians made themselves special.

The flag shall be flown at half-staff 30 days from the death of the President or a former President; 10 days from the day of death of the Vice President, the Chief Justice or a retired Chief Justice of the United States, or the Speaker of the House of Representatives; from the day of death until interment of an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, a Secretary of an executive or military department, a former Vice President, or the Governor of a State, territory, or possession; and on the day of death and the following day for a Member of Congress.
— 4 U.S. Code § 7 – Position and manner of display

Our elected officials volunteered for the job; a job they’ve also issued themselves many perks to garnish the power that comes with that job. It’s one thing to show respect for an office holder because it’s the law. The elevation to royalty status is problematic because we’re already dealing with inflated egos. Giving those egos validation only feeds into actions that result in campaign promises, never intended to be kept, blown off after elections.

It gives the potential for those in the media (who have their biases) to beatify their preferred politician over another and commit the unethical whitewashing of the career of one while demonizing another. And now in the age of social media, it almost forces people who had genuine disagreements with a politician in life to show reverence in death at the risk of a pile on from the suddenly sanctimonious.

When we grant nobility status to our elected, we don’t get the government we voted vote. We get the government they decide we deserve.

Showing respect when politicians pass away should be optional.

When a Republican dies nowadays, the left is more than free to express their disdain (and worse) for that politician and/or their family. When a Democrat dies, the right reminds all of what the liberal media decided not to report in protection of a revered, partisan legacy.

It’s a dangerous road to be traveled when we elevate the status of one over another, especially when that someone asked for the position in the first place. It’s a road our nation’s Founders didn’t travel. They risked all in sailing across a perilous ocean, endured an unforgiving environment, started a real revolution and escaped political persecution just so they could enjoy freedom from a king they never elected.

UPDATE 10/17/19

#RestInPower: Politicians, Celebrities Pay Heartfelt Tribute To Elijah Cummings
Flashback: Top Democrat’s wife may have gained ‘illegal private benefit’ from his committee activities

Let the beatification continue.