As my regular reader (Hi, Jeff!) will recall, I’ve oft praised Gov. Jared Polis for exercising great skill in balancing the outcomes of the many, many issues that cross his desk. As a moderate myself, I’ve stood by Mr. Polis as he has come down on the more conservative side on some issues, though landing on the liberal side on others. That is, I think, exactly what an elected official should do: evaluate every issue and then come to a conclusion based on logic, evidence and the facts, and, of course, follow the law. He’s done a fine job across the board, even as he governs a blue state that has caught the eye and the ire of a petty and insecure president.

Mostly, anyway.

A recent Colorado Politics story has caused me grave concern with what the governor might do regarding Tina Peters. You will do doubt recall Peters is one of the Trumpian minions committed to service to Trump before any apparent allegiance to country, state, or county.

Over the years, I’ve written on the vital importance of federalism more than 20 different times, columns Ms. Peters clearly never read. Recall, please, federalism is a key philosophy of government the Founders instilled into the Constitution in a number of places and ways.

Unfortunately, the actual meaning of the word in our system of governance has gotten worked over since the founding, and to some degree has achieved the status of scotch tape.

Just more than 100 years ago, the good people at Scotch Brand products invented what is more properly called “cellophane tape,” but the folks over at Scotch so dominated the market today the term “scotch” has become ubiquitous for the idea of sticky cellophane strips. Just as Kleenex, Jacuzzi, and Crock-Pot have gone from being the name of a particular product line made by a particular company, such terms have become the name of any such item. They have lost all grounding with a particular company. Thus, today when someone refers to the “federal government,” they are referring to the folks in D.C. and not a system of government.

What you, dear reader, will no doubt recall is a “federal government” is actually a way of defining a system of governance, as opposed to a “unitary government. In a federal system, each level of government: national, state, and local, has areas of responsibility that belong to that level and that level alone. For example, the Nebraska legislature cannot pass a law binding on Colorado, and the good people that form the city government of Parachute cannot issue an edict our governor must require a particular religious point of view be taught in all Colorado schools.  I would normally include my usual example of a president not being able to control a state’s plan for public schools, but the current nutty administration seems to think they can, by fiat, do so. So, I’ll skip that example for the moment. We’ll see what the courts eventually have to say, but that is also a weird place right now.

The opposite, so to speak, of a federal government, is a unitary government. You still have the three levels of government — national, state and local — but in a unitary system, the actions of one level of government can be undone by order of a level above it. Think France. And, of course, this is what President Donald Trump is trying to force onto our current governmental system, a terrible and dangerous idea.

Which explains Trump’s recent action to issue a “federal pardon” for Peters for crimes committed against, and adjudicated by, a county. Though it is possibly hidden somewhere in the dusty files of the Millard Fillmore presidency, I could find no other example of a president trying to make the federalism issue moot via federal pardon.

Trump’s bogus pardon is yet another example of his attempting to declare there are essentially no limits on presidential power, and the GOPers in the national congress seem content to let such a power grab continue apace and without limitations. We’ll see how they feel about that same issue when there is a Democrat in the White House, but that idea must await a future column.

As a former political science professor (technically an associate professor for the sticklers out there) at the AF Academy, I find Trump’s abuse of the pardon authority spectacularly arrogant and, frankly, rather silly and uneducated.

But I am concerned by Gov. Polis’s recent comments in which he appears to be considering, at the end of his final term (as governors often do) a variety of pardons. Trump has abused the pardon power in spectacular ways (for horrible example, Trump just gave a woman a second pardon after she voided the first pardon she was issued, by committing an additional criminal act).

I’m sure, after nearly eight years in office, one might well be feeling generous, and you might have some pity to people like Peters. Afterall, she’s an elderly lady sentenced to nine years in state prison. But what did she do to deserve the sentence and potentially a pardon? Well, her crimes, as a toady for Trump, was to break into voter data bases she had no business seeing, and eventual what she stole made its way to the internet. Not once has she shown the tiniest little bit of contrition and, should she be released and the voters return her to her old job, she clearly would have no problem again breaking the law to help Trump and/or other right-wing extremists.

As a former military cop, I am still quite outraged at a president pardoning people who stormed the Capitol and beat down my brother and sister cops, instilling significant injury on over 140 law enforcement members. Perhaps that bias has made me feel unfairly severe toward Peters.

But the facts are simple: she was convicted by a jury of trying to tamper with an election (and your votes, people of Mesa County), has shown no remorse and, indeed, appears intent on doing what she can, legal or illegal, to support a president who has demonstrated a desire to become a king.

Gov. Polis, I get it. I understand how being merciful to an elderly lady is an appealing idea. But Sir, please remember she wasn’t shoplifting a stick of gum. She was trying to subvert an election. She was trying to steal the votes of your constituents and deliver our Electoral College votes to the worst man ever to hold high office. She deserves all nine years, please let her stay where her own actions have placed her.

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.