Tag Archives: US Constitution

President gets real-time lesson on government limits

Donald Trump had zero government experience when he became president of the United States.

He seemed to think he could step into the presidency, assume the role of CEO and everyone would do his bidding.

He is now finding out that it doesn’t work quite that way. He is learning in real time that the founders established a government that limits presidential power. They created a government that allows two other branches to rein in an executive branch that could overstep its authority.

Congress is controlled by men and women who belong to the same political party as the president. Thus, the legislative branch might roll over. This leaves the final check to the judicial branch, which is flexing its muscles in this struggle over Trump’s executive order that restricts travel to the United States from those who hail from seven Muslim-majority nations.

The struggle now seems headed to the Supreme Court. The nation’s highest court likely will get to decide whether to uphold two lower-court rulings that have stalled the execution of Trump’s executive order.

If the Supremes uphold the earlier rulings — either with an actual ruling or a tie vote created by the unfilled vacancy — then the president will have to consider another way to “make America safe again.”

Perhaps the next tactic he employs will be considered more carefully and executed with more thought than the cluster-fudge he rolled out with this refugee ban.

Will any of this humble the president? Will it give him pause to consider his next action? Probably not, but it still gives me some comfort to know that the founders knew how to create a government that works.

And just for the record, if the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor and overrules the lower courts, then I’ll consider that — as well — to be a demonstration of a functioning federal government.

However, my concern were that to occur would be that it would embolden a president to misread the limitations on power that the founders wrote into the framework that built this nation.

Who’s POTUS calling a ‘so-called judge’?

Donald J. Trump, meet your newest nemesis, U.S. District Judge James L. Robart.

The president has called Robart a “so-called judge” because he had the nerve to halt the president’s ban on refugees entering the United States from Muslim-majority countries.

If I might be so brazen, my inclination is to wonder aloud — given Trump’s love of Twitter as his primary attack medium — whether he could be labeled a “so-called president.”

Nah … I won’t go there.

There’s not a damn thing “so-called” about Robart, who was appointed to the federal bench in western Washington state by President George W. Bush.

According to NBC News: “He (Robart) suggested in court that Trump’s 90-day entry ban on people from the countries of Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen was not ‘rationally based,’ since no one from any those countries had been arrested in the U.S. on terrorism-related charges since 9/11.”

There’s more: “‘I’m sorry, there’s no other way to put it,’ Robarts said from the bench. ‘It’s Keystone Cops. It really is. And that’s not just me speaking, that’s Republican members of Congress.'”

The president doesn’t like being criticized by anyone. Not by the media, or political foes or by judges who disagree with his decisions. His mode of response? Twitter! He tweeted: “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/who-is-the-so-called-judge-trump-rips-over-ruling/ar-AAmCbUO?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Judge Robart is doing what he believes his oath requires him to do, which is to interpret federal law to see if it squares against the U.S. Constitution.

Robart is a Seattle native, he received his undergraduate degree in Walla Walla, Wash., got his law degree at Georgetown and practice law in Seattle from 1973 until 2004, when President Bush tapped for him for the federal bench; the Senate approved his nomination.

There’s nothing “so-called” about this fellow, Mr. President.

Pipe down and let the system play out.

Army secretary pulls out; business interests get in the way

Vincent Viola is worth about $1.8 billion.

He was tapped by Donald Trump to be the next secretary of the Army. Oops! He dropped out today, citing the difficulty of severing his business ties from his upcoming public service.

Hmm. That sounds a bit familiar, yes?

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/317893-trumps-army-secretary-nominee-withdrawing-report

The president himself is reportedly worth a lot more than Viola. He, too, has myriad business interests. Some folks believe he might be violating the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against presidents taking money from foreign governments; it’s that “emoluments clause.”

If Viola couldn’t break his business interests loose in order to serve as Army secretary, how does the president of the United States make good on that requirement?

Just wondering … you know?

Trump’s policy guru steps up media fight

Steve Bannon’s role as the Trump administration’s chief strategist now appears to involve his taking on a new duty as attack dog.

His target? The media, which he calls the “opposition party.”

Knock it off, Mr. Strategist. You know nothing of which you speak.

Bannon said the media should be “humiliated” and should just “keep quiet and listen for a while.”

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump%E2%80%99s-chief-strategist-says-news-media-should-%E2%80%98keep-its-mouth-shut%E2%80%99/ar-AAmhL9O?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

That’s not the way it works, Mr. Strategist.

Here’s the deal. The media are empowered to speak freely and openly. It’s in the Constitution. Take a look at it, Mr. Strategist. It’s easy to find … right there in the very First Amendment.

Thus, the media have the protection to blab all they want about whatever floats their boat. If they believe the president is mistaken on a policy matter, it becomes the media’s job to comment and to offer a different perspective.

Just maybe, Mr. Strategist, y’all ought to hear what the media have to say, take a moment and listen to what much of the rest of the country is saying as well about your boss’s ideas.

Building the wall and making Mexico pay for it? Banning all refugees from entering the United States, if only temporarily? Rolling back trade policies? Repealing the Affordable Care Act with nothing in the wings to replace it?

Some of us out here, Mr. Strategist, think some of Donald Trump’s ideas are flat wrong. We rely on the media to speak out for us. And, oh yes, some of us have our own vehicles with which to speak. Yours truly is using one of them right now — at this very moment — to do just that.

The media aren’t the “opposition party,” Mr. Strategist. The media simply are doing their job, just as you are doing your job.

Trump creates a ‘word game’ for some of us

Word games. We all play them. OK, some of us do. Maybe even most of us do.

I have concocted a word game of my own. It involves the 45th president of the United States and it goes like this: I refuse, early in the presidency of Donald J. Trump, to type the words “President” and “Trump” consecutively. (Please note I didn’t do so just now.)

I am using High Plains Blogger as my insignificant form of protest over Trump’s election this past November.

Please do not misconstrue my intent. Nor should  you ascribe anything other than one voter’s displeasure at the outcome. I do not intend to launch any kind of public demonstration. I won’t carry a sign on the courthouse square or shout down a Trumpkin whenever I encounter one — and believe me, living here in the Texas Panhandle, they’re everywhere.

Moreover, my refusal to type those two key words consecutively does not mean I refuse to accept the fact that Trump is the duly elected president of the United States. I know how the U.S. Constitution works. Trump won the election. He got enough Electoral College votes to qualify him as president. He is a “legitimate president.” And as near as I can tell, he was born in the United States of America, too!

There. I’ve just repeated something I’ve stated already. So, those of you who are inclined to put words in my mouth, you are welcome to resist doing so now.

Back to my point.

It is quite possible I will grow weary of playing this word game. Given that I tire occasionally of playing games of any kind, I have given you some advance notice of what might transpire. I cannot predict when that will occur. I cannot predict when I’ll succumb to the temptation to attach the presidential title directly in front of Donald Trump’s name.

It might occur when the president does something that I can support with a full-throated cheer. I don’t know what that would be. It could occur if he declares that Vladimir Putin is a really bad guy and that he’ll add more anti-Russia sanctions on top of what his predecessor enacted; he might deliver a soaring State of the Union speech that hits many of the hot-button issues near and dear to my heart; he could nominate someone to the U.S. Supreme Court who isn’t a right-wing ideologue but instead is a mainstream centrist in the mold of, say, Merrick Garland — who got stiffed by Republicans when he was nominated by Barack Obama.

I don’t know. I’m waiting for the moment when my pique will pass.

In the meantime, I’ll keep playing my word game. Humor me.

Next up: Supreme Court nomination

U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer has thrown down the gauntlet: He is prepared to fight to keep the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court unfilled for the next year, maybe longer.

Don’t do it, Mr. Leader.

The president is going to nominate someone to fill the vacancy created nearly a year ago by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to replace Scalia, but Senate Republicans blocked the nomination in a brazen display of petty partisanship by refusing to give Judge Garland a hearing and a vote.

They were as wrong and petty as could be.

We now have a new president and Donald J. Trump is as entitled to make his selection as Barack Obama was entitled. Thus, the Senate should proceed with confirmation hearings and then a vote.

I’ve noted many times already on this blog about my belief in presidential prerogative. Yes, the Constitution also grants the Senate the right to “advise and consent” to whomever the president nominates.

Schumer, though, should at least wait to see who the president nominates before deciding whether to block an appointment.

I agree with Schumer and Senate Democrats on this point: Trump should select a mainstream candidate. The president need not pick a fight with Democrats just for the sake of picking a fight. If he presents a nominee who is considered to come from the right-wing fringe of the judicial/political spectrum, then perhaps the Senate has grounds to protest the nomination.

Blocking a Trump nominee just for the sake of blocking someone — or to exact revenge — is no more acceptable than the idiotic effort to block an Obama nominee.

This isn’t ‘peaceable’ assemblage, folks

Protestors have every right to protest.

They have no right to damage or destroy personal property, which has been occurring today during the inauguration of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States.

I am going to submit that this is the most profoundly disappointing element of today’s events. No, it’s worse than that. It’s disgraceful.

Indeed, I get that many Americans are unhappy with what is transpiring today. I am one of them. Some members of my family are, too, along with some of my best friends.

I don’t believe any of them have burned motor vehicles or broken storefront windows or tossed things in the direction of others to voice their disagreement with public policy.

Those who are angriest are more than welcome to spare me the “this is free speech” malarkey. It’s nothing of the kind. It’s criminal mischief.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right “… of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Not a single word can be found in there that condones vandalism or violence.

Shame on those who have sullied a time-honored tradition.

Will the new president violate the Constitution right away?

An argument making the rounds for the past several months goes something like this: Donald J. Trump is going to be in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution at the moment he takes the oath of office as president of the United States of America.

The source of the violation? His myriad business interests.

This isn’t just a Democratic Party point of view. Republicans also are buying into a notion that Trump’s refusal to separate himself completely from his business dealings is creating a monstrous potential for conflict of interest.

http://www.npr.org/2017/01/19/510574687/ethics-lawyers-call-trumps-business-conflicts-nakedly-unconstitutional

According to National Public Radio: “A president is not permitted to receive cash and other benefits from foreign governments,” Norm Eisen tells Fresh Air‘s Terry Gross. “And yet, Donald Trump is getting a steady flow of them around the world and right here in the United States.”

The “emoluments clause” is front and center in this debate. It’s written into the U.S. Constitution. It should be called the “anti-bribery clause.” Trump has refused to divest his myriad business interests; he has refused to put them into a blind trust.

NPR, quoting Richard Painter, former ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, reports: “The president needs to focus on protecting the United States and American interests in a very dangerous world,” Painter says. “I really hope that President Trump takes the steps he needs to, to be free of conflict of interest in that endeavor.”

There are questions about whether Trump’s business dealings abroad could interfere with U.S. policy. Trump refuses to release his tax returns. He declines to provide detailed financial reports. He keeps saying this discussion is a media creation.

Holy cow, dude! You’ve got some serious experts on this stuff suggesting you’re going to violate the Constitution you will swear to “defend and protect.”

Does a direct violation of that sacred oath create a reason for, um, impeachment?

Let’s all wait for this to play out.

Two men, same issue, different debate

I want to revisit — I hope for the final time — this issue of presidential citizenship and eligibility.

It has returned to the public discussion yet again. U.S. Rep. John Lewis questioned the “legitimacy” of Donald Trump’s presidency; Trump fired back a nasty response. Lewis’s friends and allies say he is justified to question Trump’s standing as a legitimate president because Trump made such an issue for so many years about whether Barack Obama’s presidency was legit.

The issue with the president’s legitimacy stemmed from bogus allegations that he was born outside the United States. His father was a black Kenyan; his mother was a white American. Trump demanded for years that the president produce a birth certificate to show he was born in Hawaii, as he has said all along. Still, Trump didn’t let up … until late in the 2016 presidential campaign.

Another prominent politician also faced questions from Trump. U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas ran for the Republican presidential nomination this past year. Trump questioned whether he was eligible to run because Cruz, in fact, was born in Canada. His father is a Cuban native; his mother is an American.

Cruz’s answer to the equally bogus claim about his eligibility? He said his mother’s U.S. citizenship made him a U.S. citizen the moment he was born. U.S. law grants citizenship by birth status to anyone who’s born to U.S. citizens, no matter where the birth occurs. Cruz said his mother’s citizenship answers the question about whether he is a “natural born citizen,” as required under the U.S. Constitution for anyone seeking to run for president.

Problem solved. Yes? Not exactly.

I am puzzled about how it was that Cruz was able to settle this “birther” matter with an explanation that stuck while Obama’s assertion that he was born in Hawaii never was quite accepted by everyone.

Barack Obama and Ted Cruz both were born to American mothers. Both men were U.S. citizens the instant they came into this world. Why, then, would it even matter about Barack Obama’s place of birth if U.S. law grants him citizenship at the moment of his birth?

Would any of this disparity have anything at all to do with President Obama’s race? Hmmm?

Barack Obama will deserve a high presidential ranking

This is it, dear reader. The hand-off from one president to another is upon us. With that, I believe it is time to assess the performance of the guy who’s leaving office and perhaps try to compare what I believe he accomplished to what was projected of him when he took office.

Bear in mind, bias is implicit in everything anyone says … particularly when it regards political matters. I have my bias, you have yours. Some of our bias might mesh. Much of it might not.

How has Barack Obama done as the 44th president of the United States of America? I’ll give him a B-plus, which is a pretty damn good grade, given what he faced eight years ago.

Let’s start with the economy. We were shedding three-quarters of a million jobs each month when the president was sworn in. What did he do? He got his then-Democratic Party majority in both congressional chambers to enact a sweeping stimulus package. It pumped a lot of money into the economy. It helped bail out major industries, such as the folks who make motor vehicles. Banks were failing. The failures tapered off and then ceased.

Was this a bipartisan effort? Hardly. Republicans declared their intention to block everything he tried. The economy would collapse even faster, they said. The stock market, which had cratered, would implode. What happened? The Dow Jones Industrial Average has tripled since then.

Job losses? They disappeared, too. In the eight years of the Obama presidency, the nation has added 11 million or so non-farm-payroll jobs. Unemployment that peaked at 10 percent shortly after Obama took office, now stands at 4.7 percent.

Has the recovery been even? Has it been felt across the spectrum? Not entirely. It is that unevenness that sparked the populist movement led in large part by none other than the master of decadence Donald J. Trump, who parlayed people’s fear into a winning presidential campaign strategy.

All in all? We’re in far better shape today than we were when Barack Obama took office.

National security anyone?

OK, let’s try these facts.

A SEAL team killed Osama bin Laden in May 2011; we haven’t been victimized by a terrorist attack in the past eight years; we have killed thousands of terrorists around the world as our global war has continued; Obama and his diplomatic team negotiated a deal to prevent Iran from developing an nuclear weapon.

Yes, North Korea continues to pose threats. The president erred in saying he would act militarily if Syria crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons and then failed to act on his threat. We did a poor job of managing the Arab Spring that erupted in Libya and eliminated Moammar Gadhafi.

Immigration reform remains in the distance. Barack Obama has been all-time champion of deportation of illegal immigrants, despite complaints from his foes that he is soft on that issue. And, of course, I believe he is correct to suggest that building a wall is contrary to “who we are as Americans.”

In an area related to national security, I would like to point out that we’ve all but eliminated our dependence on fossil produced in the Middle East. I don’t want to overstate the president’s role here, as much of that is due to private industry initiative. Federal tax breaks, though, have made alternative energy production more feasible, which has reduced our dependence on fossil fuels.

Domestic issues?

Obama’s foes said he would launch raids on Americans’ homes, seeking to take away our guns. It hasn’t happened. There was never any realistic threat that it would.

The president did a 180 on gay marriage and the U.S. Supreme Court — citing the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution — made same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.

And, oh yes, the Affordable Care Act has provided health insurance to 20 million citizens who couldn’t afford it otherwise. The ACA is in jeopardy as GOP members of Congress want to repeal it. They don’t have a replacement bill lined up. Obama has said he’d support any improvement to the ACA that would come forth. Is it perfect? No. The president admitted this past weekend that he and his team fluffed the launch of healthcare.gov, which was a huge error.

Barack Obama didn’t bridge the racial divide that splits Americans. The first African-American president perhaps misjudged the national mood; maybe he was too hopeful.

However, that this brilliant man was elected president in the first place in 2008 with substantial majorities in both the popular and Electoral College votes — and then re-elected — tells me that we’ve come a long way from the time when even his candidacy would have been considered unthinkable.

I’m proud to have been in his corner for the past eight years. I haven’t agreed with every single decision he has made … just the vast majority of them. He has made me proud, too, at the way he has conducted himself and the way his family has adjusted to living in that bubble known as the White House.

Millions of Americans will wish him well as he and his beautiful family depart on Friday.

As for the future, well … we cannot predict it with any more certainty than many Americans did when Barack Obama took the stage. Let’s just hope for the best.