Mamaw’s Porch n Politics Well, y’all, apparently we have reached the point in American politics where a midterm convention can include a president leading thousands of people in a pledge that begins not with allegiance to the United States, not with the Constitution, and not even with the Republican Party — but with praise for Donald Trump. At the Republican midterm convention in Dallas, Trump instructed the audience to raise their right hands and repeat after him. The pledge began with Trump describing himself as the “greatest president in the history of the United States.” He then instructed the crowd to promise to bring their families and friends to vote and, in one of the strangest moments of the convention, had them repeat his words about trying to “cheat like hell.” Trump has repeatedly alleged widespread Democratic election cheating without substantiating those claims. Now Mamaw has a question. When did an American political convention start looking like a loyalty ceremony to one man? The presidency is an office. Congress is an institution. The Constitution is the law governing both. No elected official is supposed to be the object of the system itself. Trump also told supporters that if they did not vote, they would “go to hell,” and urged them to “pretend I’m on the ticket,” saying that, in a sense, he was. Then came the money. Trump promised a $5,000 “Trump Dividend” for American adults if Republicans retain control of Congress. The proposal has not been enacted, its funding mechanism remains unresolved, and Speaker Mike Johnson has acknowledged that congressional approval would be necessary. Estimates put the potential cost above $1 trillion. So the voters heard a remarkable combination: Vote Republican and Trump says you could get $5,000. Don’t vote and Trump says you could go to hell. And please raise your right hand while we discuss it. Mamaw has attended church suppers with less pressure. THEN THERE IS DETENTION AND DUE PROCESS While the convention was making headlines, something far less theatrical — and potentially far more consequential — was happening in the federal courts. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s position that broad categories of immigrants could be subjected to mandatory detention without bond hearings. The ruling is part of a wider legal fight: nine federal appeals courts have rejected the administration's interpretation while two have upheld it, making eventual Supreme Court review increasingly possible. What caught Mamaw’s attention was the historical comparison made by the court. The majority invoked the detention of Japanese Americans during World War II while discussing the danger of allowing the government to deprive enormous numbers of people of liberty without individualized review. That comparison should make Americans uncomfortable. Due process isn't supposed to be a prize the government hands out to people it likes. It is a constitutional restraint on government power. You can support stronger immigration enforcement and still ask a fundamental American question: How much power should the government possess to imprison a person without giving that individual a meaningful opportunity to challenge the detention? That question does not disappear because immigration is politically contentious. In fact, that is exactly when constitutional protections matter most. AND THEN CAME SEPTEMBER 11 On the 25th anniversary of September 11, Trump spoke at the Pentagon. There are places and moments in American life that carry a weight beyond ordinary politics. The Pentagon on September 11 is one of them. Trump honored the victims, military personnel and first responders, but he also connected the post-9/11 struggle against terrorism with today's conflict involving Iran. He praised service members currently working to ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon. Mamaw believes September 11 commemorations should first belong to the dead, the survivors, the families and the Americans who answered their country's call afterward. The policy debate over Iran deserves its own scrutiny: What are the objectives? What is the legal authority? What constitutes victory? What will it cost? What is Congress's role? Those are questions worthy of Congress and the American public. September 11 should never become shorthand that prevents Americans from asking them. NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT CONGRESS There is another story developing ahead of November, and it may ultimately matter more than all the convention theatrics. House Democrats are preparing extensive oversight plans should they win control of the House. Reporting indicates that Democratic leaders are considering hearings, subpoenas and document demands rather than immediately making another Trump impeachment their central strategy. And one person positioned near the center of that effort is Rep. Jamie Raskin, currently the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. Raskin and Judiciary Democrats have already pursued investigations and legislation involving presidential pardons, taxpayer payments, the Epstein files, foreign influence and the Emoluments Clauses. He has said that a Democratic House majority would have additional powers to conduct hearings, take depositions and compel documents and testimony through subpoenas. Democratic oversight plans reported so far include scrutiny of possible presidential and family financial conflicts, government contracts and companies connected to Trump's political or business orbit, immigration enforcement, Justice Department actions and the handling of Epstein-related records. Raskin has separately launched an inquiry concerning information in Epstein records suggesting possible contacts involving foreign governments, and House Judiciary Democrats have been investigating financial and constitutional questions surrounding Trump's family and businesses. The Trump administration and its allies dispute many of Democrats' allegations and characterize the planned investigations as partisan. Some companies targeted by Democratic inquiries have also challenged their premises. And that is precisely why congressional investigations matter. Investigations are supposed to establish facts. Get the documents. Put witnesses under oath. Follow the money. Give the public the evidence. And let Americans decide what it means. BUT OVERSIGHT CANNOT BE THE WHOLE AGENDA Mamaw doesn't want a Congress that spends every waking minute staring backward. If Democrats win congressional majorities, they will also have to decide what they intend to legislate. So here is Mamaw's proposed First 100 Days discussion list. Voting rights. Congress should debate nationwide protections for ballot access and election administration. Campaign-finance reform. Citizens United v. FEC is a Supreme Court decision, so Congress cannot simply “repeal Citizens United” with an ordinary statute. But lawmakers can pursue disclosure requirements, public-financing reforms and other campaign-finance legislation within constitutional limits. PAC and dark-money transparency. Americans should be able to understand who is spending enormous sums attempting to influence their government. Congressional term limits. This raises serious constitutional questions and would likely require a constitutional amendment rather than an ordinary federal law. Supreme Court and federal judicial ethics. Congress can debate stronger disclosure, recusal and ethics requirements while respecting the constitutional independence of the judiciary. Age or tenure limits for Supreme Court justices. Because Article III provides federal judges tenure during “good Behaviour,” imposing mandatory age limits would raise major constitutional issues and could require an amendment. Bodily autonomy. Congress can debate federal statutory protections concerning reproductive and other medical decisions, subject to the constitutional boundaries ultimately determined by the courts. Ban individual stock trading by senior federal officials. Members of Congress, senior executive officials and others exercising public power should face clear rules designed to prevent public office from becoming an investment opportunity. Clarify the 25th Amendment. Congress can examine the unresolved statutory questions surrounding the body contemplated by Section 4 of the amendment and whether additional implementing legislation is appropriate. And finally: Restore Congress's power of the purse. Article I gives Congress the power to appropriate federal money. The executive branch administers those appropriations, but presidents should not be able to treat congressionally appropriated money as a personal checking account. Raskin and other Democrats have already introduced the Protecting Our Democracy Act, which includes provisions addressing presidential profiteering, transparency, implementation of congressional spending laws, whistleblower protections, election safeguards and payments connected with presidential pardons. Those ideas deserve hearings, debate and votes. Republicans should offer their alternatives. Then put everybody's name on the board. BECAUSE THIS IS BIGGER THAN DONALD TRUMP That is the lesson Mamaw keeps coming back to. Presidents come and go. Parties win and lose. Congress changes hands. Supreme Court majorities change. But the Constitution has to survive whichever individual happens to occupy the Oval Office. That is why the image from Dallas matters. Thousands of Americans with their right hands raised while a president dictates a pledge praising him should provoke a broader discussion about what political loyalty means in a constitutional republic. Americans are free to love Donald Trump. They are free to despise Donald Trump. They are free to vote Republican, Democratic, independent or none of the above. But the government itself belongs