Thoughts on The No Kings March

Originally posted on October 24, 2025

After the assassination of Charlie Kirk, I wrote a piece on Freedom of Speech

quoting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defending his right to express

views that may be inimical to my own beliefs and, frankly, to the values of our religious teachings and the founding principles of this country, and arguing in favor of people learning to disagree without being disagreeable. Last Saturday, some seven to eight million Americans came out in cities and towns throughout all of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and various other places overseas, to exercise another clause of that same amendment: “Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Enormous crowds numbering in the tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands or more gathered in each of the large cities around this country. There were smaller demonstrations, of course, in smaller cities and towns including places that one might think of as supporting the administration in so-called “red states.” Citizens of Aurora held such a protest at McCarty Park last Saturday afternoon. I have not found a crowd estimate for that gathering, but I know that at least seven of our Temple members participated, most going directly from the Shabbat kiddush at shul. They were exercising their right of free assembly and protesting policies of the administration that appear to violate the law, overstep the Constitution, and aggregate more power in the hands of the chief executive, tending toward

crowning him as King, an unlimited autocrat.

Using the language of “No Kings,” the organizers sidestepped the debates on which acts in recent months are illegal and what is “just” immoral or indecent.

Many of us, in considering kings and queens, may be thinking of the British Royal

Family or other European nobility with a lower profile. These are genial monarchs for the most part, supporting charitable funds, engaging in ceremonial events, wearing outlandish costumes, who may have some limited influence on the policies of their countries, but are essentially powerless figureheads who provide fodder for the gossip columns. In some countries like Israel there is no king, but the President fills that ceremonial role as head of state, often elected as a special honor. These modern-day rulers serve now as “good will ambassadors” to foreign countries or support causes within their own realms. Very recently, for example, King Charles went to the synagogue in Manchester that had been attacked on Yom Kippur to offer his condolences on behalf of the nation. That’s not the kind of kings we are protesting.

Back in medieval times, Kings were all-powerful, frequently ruthless potentates, who had free rein over their oppressed subjects. My latest Audible “read” is Simon Sebag-Montefiore’s book on the Romanovs, the dynasty which ruled Russia for some 300 years until the Bolsheviks deposed the last Romanov, Czar Nicholas II in 1917. The book is not for those with a weak stomach. Montefiore graphically describes the tortures and summary executions, beheadings and severing of limbs ordered by these tyrants who are lauded today as “so-in-so the great,” who were all-powerful and often acted on a whim or with great malice. They were fabulously rich, built cities on the backs of hundreds of thousands of serfs, put up palaces and

tore them down when they decided to remodel. They commanded vast armies of untrained peasants and were constantly at war with some adversary.

Great Britain, starting with the Magna Charta in 1215, began limiting this kind of

tyrannical power of their rulers. Even so, it was not until the end of the 17th century, following the “Glorious Revolution” of 1688 and the British Bill of Rights in 1689, that the power of the monarch was greatly curtailed and Parliament took on a much greater role. Nonetheless in the 18th century, in the early years of George III’s long reign, he still retained a good deal of power and it had a great impact on his subjects living in the British colonies on these shores. Many colonists resented these dictatorial laws and decrees of the King and their own lack of representation in the Parliament and the opportunity to govern their own affairs. By the 1770s, many American colonists had had their fill of this king and of monarchial rule in general and the result was a Declaration of Independence issued in 1776, filled with a list of

27 grievances against the king. The Continental Congress had toned down Jefferson’s original fiery rhetoric and would not include his mention of slavery among the “particulars,” but many of the other items sound awfully familiar to acts by our would-be monarch today.

I decided that we might take a look at this list and see what acts specifically the colonists objected to in the conduct of King George III which led to American independence. I thought that might clarify what we meant then and now about “NO KINGS.” In conversation yesterday with a classmate and colleague, Rabbi Gordon Tucker, now a vice chancellor at the Jewish Theological Seminary, he mentioned that he had had the same idea and had begun writing about it himself. He was kind enough to share his thoughts about its current relevance with me in what he called a preliminary draft. It seems that both of us were preceded in this endeavor by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, who recently put on a wig and began reading from the founding document with knowing asides.

I'd like to share the material compiled by Rabbi Tucker for your consideration. As

Jefferson wrote, “let facts be submitted to a candid world.” Tucker writes:

“It struck me as remarkable and highly significant that if you look through the “bill of particulars” indicting George III, you cannot help noting today that some dozen of those complaints are things that [this president] is in fact doing right now. 

So consider these items:

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

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. 

(For both of the above): [the president] has kept Congress from doing its legislative job by threatening to run candidates against members of his party.  One of the most egregious of these occurred even before his re-election, when his threats kept Congress from passing the bipartisan immigration bill that aimed at the “public good”.  He has also taken it upon himself to decide which laws [that actually have been passed] he will agree to follow and to “execute”.)

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.

(Far from seeking to encourage legal immigration -- necessary for economic growth and cultural and other enrichments -- he has given immigration the worst of names, and has even endeavored to take steps against persons born in the U.S. and legally naturalized citizens.)

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

(Is there a more concise description of the Department of Government

Efficiency, and the havoc that it wreaked?)

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

(For both of the above: Using the military “among us”, against the wishes

of governors and state legislatures.) 

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world.

(Ill-advised trade wars destructive to the public welfare, in order to address

personal grudges.)

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent.

(The chaotic tariffs that have become burdensome taxes,)

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences.

(The deportation “beyond seas” to lands they have never been to, of people he declares, without trial, to be criminals.)

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering

fundamentally the Forms of our Governments.

(Seeking e.g. to overturn birthright citizenship, the normal processes of

immigration law, and most generally, making the executive branch supreme over its counterparts [a fundamental form of our government])

He is at this time transporting large Armies…..to compleat the works of death,

desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

(All the trampling of due process and the cruelties of ICE, about which he boasts)

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us.

(Need anything more be said?)”

Seven or eight million Americans came out to march in the streets last week to uphold the principles laid down in our founding documents which clearly and succinctly express the will of the people then and now to end the rule of kings. While the President and his supporters called this outpouring of peaceful, enthusiastic protest “Un-American,” clearly there could be nothing more American than calling out the administration for overstepping the bounds of law and failing to maintain the balance of powers established by the Founders in the Constitution of the United States.

“We the people” peaceably assembled to petition the Government and our other elected officials who are enabling them for a redress of grievances. All of this is in the tradition not only of our founding fathers but of our ancient prophets as well who did not hesitate to call the Israelite rulers to task. In describing the role of the ruler of Israel, we find in Deuteronomy, “When he is seated on his royal throne, he shall have a copy of this Teaching (Torah) written for him on a scroll…. Let it remain with him and let him read in it all his life, so that he may learn to revere the Lord,

his God, to observe faithfully every word of this teaching as well as these laws and not act haughtily or deviate from the instruction to the right or to the left….”

Certainly there must be a copy of the Constitution somewhere in the oval office.

Next July, we mark the 250th anniversary of American independence, the date on

which we announced clearly “no kings” then and two hundred and fifty years later, we continue to insist, “no kings” but let the will of the people prevail.