The Canadian writer Scott Gilmore is also thinking along these lines, and makes the case for sanctioning the Trump Organization in Maclean’s.

“Canada could add a tax to Trump properties equal to any tariff unilaterally imposed by Washington,” he writes. “The European Union could revoke any travel visas for senior staff in the Trump organization. And the United Kingdom could temporarily close his golf course.”

The potential points of leverage here are quite real. Trump has two golf courses in Scotland and one in Ireland. The wine list at BLT Prime in Trump’s DC hotel is full of European vintages. Travel sanctions could also be painful. Donald Trump Jr. was vacationing in Spain as recently as April.

Hitting Trump personally might work on its own terms. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is chaired by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN), who has committed to working to halt Trump’s tariffs. So has Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who also sits on the committee. Both Corker and Flake have also, from time to time, offered commentary on Trump’s basic unfitness for office. What they’ve never done is exerted their power as US senators to engage in meaningful oversight over his corruption and conflicts of interest. Directly injecting Trump’s business interests into an international conflict might spur them to actually do their jobs.

The Cal-3 ballot measure set to be voted on in November needs a mercy killing from the California Supreme Court, and if it comes fast enough, it could save a lot of expense and wasted effort.

The proposition, designed by venture capitalist Tim Draper to split California into three states, may or may not be the most sensible way to divide up our diverse and powerful state. But the legal barriers to its enactment are overwhelming.

For example, will Congress, which must approve the creation of new states out of an old one, go along, given the partisan politics of everything these days and the impact of four new senators on the balance of power in the U.S. Senate? Will consent of the state Legislature be required (and forthcoming), or would voter approval through the initiative process suffice?

The legal fate of the initiative will probably never even get to questions of legislative approval. One way or another, the California Supreme Court will be called upon, and it will almost certainly rule that the way in which Draper is trying to create three Californias violates the state Constitution and has no place on the ballot to begin with.