Tag Archives: Founding Fathers

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.

Founders got it right, as Trump is demonstrating

Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison … wherever they are, must be enjoying what they are witnessing in the country they helped create.

They are possibly witnessing a supreme test of checks and balances as they intended for them to be used.

Donald J. Trump, the nation’s 45th president, is setting up a yuuuge fight with the federal judiciary. That would pit two of the three co-equal branches of government against each other.

Trump issued an executive order that bans refugees from seven Muslim-majority countries. He cited national security as his reason. He seemingly wants to ban Muslims from entering the country and is using “extreme vetting” procedures to find the bad guys among the refugees who are fleeing their native lands for the Land of Opportunity and Freedom.

A federal judge has ruled that the executive order is discriminatory on its face. A federal appeals court is considering whether to uphold the ban or side with the judge.

Trump, meanwhile, is embarking on a social media campaign to blast the judge who issued the order staying the president’s order, thus possibly enraging other federal judges — namely the eight individuals who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court who might be asked to issue the final ruling on the president’s order.

Thus, a showdown may be born.

The founders established an “independent judiciary” for the best reason possible: to protect federal judges from political coercion. They serve as judges for life. They are supposed to interpret the U.S. Constitution without pressure or coercion from politicians.

But wait! Trump is seeking to apply that very pressure by badgering the judges. He called the federal jurist who struck down the ban a “so-called judge”; he said the nation should “blame” him and the federal court system if a bad guy sneaks into the nation.

Trump is using Twitter to make his specious case against the federal judiciary.

All the while, the founders are looking down while patting each other on the back. “Yep,” they might say to each other, “this is precisely what we had in mind.”

Divest, Donald! Divest

Of all the unexploded political ordnance laying in front of Donald J. Trump as he prepares to become president, one of them poses a seriously grave threat.

It’s this issue of divestiture … or Trump’s stubborn refusal to do what he should. That would be to divest himself fully of the enormous fortune he has acquired around the world.

He has chosen instead to hand all business operations over to his eldest son. Don Jr. is going to handle all the business dealings and Dad won’t have anything to do with it. None whatsoever.

That’s good enough for the president-elect to clear him of any potential conflicts of interest. Or so he says.

I am afraid it likely won’t provide nearly enough separation.

Indeed, this is just yet another demonstration of the non-traditional approach that Trump is taking toward his transition from fully private billionaire business executive to fully public leader of the free world/head of state and government/commander in chief.

The situation facing Trump is written in Article II of the U.S. Constitution. It’s called the “emoluments clause,” which has become common knowledge now among many Americans who before this election had never even heard of it.

The emoluments clause is founding father-speak that translates to “anti-bribery.” It prohibits a president from taking money from a foreign government, the acceptance of which opens the president up to being compromised as he conducts the affairs of state.

Trump is facing tremendous exposure, say, if Don Jr. consummates a business deal with a foreign government that deposits a few billion dollars into an account that has Daddy Donald’s name on the letterhead. The president-elect believes simply allowing his son do the transaction clears him of any suspicion. Wrong!

Divestiture of one’s assets is not a novel concept. My goodness, Trump’s team is going to make incredible sacrifice serving him and the government he will run. It is a reasonable expectation for the president himself to separate himself completely from his business holdings.

Short of complete divestiture, a much better option than the one Trump has chosen would be to put his holdings into a blind trust, to be operated and administered by someone with no ties at all either to the president-elect or his family.

The next president is playing a dangerous game of chicken with those who are waiting for a big mistake to occur.

Here’s a possible constitutional crisis of major proportion

electoral-college-banner

Those 538 men and women who are set to meet Monday to elect the next president of the United States are poised to make some serious history, one way or the other.

Most of them come from states that voted for Donald J. Trump, the Republican, over Hillary Rodham Clinton, the Democrat. They comprise the Electoral College, which the nation’s founders established in the 18th century to choose the person who would govern the country.

Here’s the big-time catch: some of them are “faithless,” which means they aren’t necessarily bound by the dictates of their states’ majorities. Add to that some major-league questions about whether Russian intelligence agents and computer hackers influenced the outcome the election and you have a situation of monumental proportions brewing … possibly.

Enough of those electors might decide they can’t vote for Trump and, thus, deny the president-elect the 270 electoral votes he needs to take office in January.

What happens then if, say, not enough of them switch their votes to Clinton, making her the next president? The U.S. House of Representatives, controlled by the GOP, then gets to pick the next president.

I don’t believe this will happen. I believe Trump will collect enough votes from the Electoral College to take the oath on Jan. 20. He will become the 45th president of the United States; Mike Pence will become the vice president.

Trump likely will have the Cabinet chosen by then. The U.S. Senate committees charged with recommending whether these nominees should be confirmed will get to work and make those critical decisions.

But some of the electors have asked to be briefed fully by the U.S. intelligence apparatus on what the Russians did and whether they actually influenced the outcome of the election. Just suppose the spooks tell the electors that, yep, the Russkies succeeded in getting their man elected. What happens then if you’re an elector from a state that voted for Trump and you can’t in good conscience cast your vote for the winner?

Lots of answers yet to come forward before the big day next week.

This could be the most fascinating supposedly pro forma electoral procedure in the history of the Republic.

It could be …

Now … about the Electoral College

electoralcollege

Election Night 2016 proved to be one for the books.

Donald J. Trump got elected president of the United States despite being outvoted by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

But wait! He won more electoral votes.

They’re still counting ballots and it appears that Clinton’s vote lead will expand before they’re all done.

Then came the question from one of the folks attending an election watch party at some friends’ house: Is the Electoral College in the U.S. Constitution?

Yes it is. Article II lays out the rules for the Electoral College. You know how it goes: We aren’t voting directly for president; we’re voting for electors who then meet in December to cast their votes for president in accordance — supposedly — with the majority of voters from their respective states.

I’ve found myself defending the Electoral College to people abroad who cannot understand how it works, or why the founders created the system. In November 2000, for example, my wife and I were in Greece, the cradle of western civilization and the birthplace of democracy. The Greeks are quite sophisticated about these things. However, they couldn’t quite grasp the idea of one candidate — Al Gore — getting more votes than George W. Bush, but losing the election. The 2000 presidential election was still in doubt while my wife and I were touring Greece. I defended the Electoral College as best I could.

Sixteen years later, we’ve had another circumstance with the “winner” getting fewer votes than the “loser.”

It’s the fifth time in our nation’s history where this has occurred. Three of them occurred in the 19th century; two of them have occurred within just the first two decades of the 21st century.

I’m not yet ready to jump on climb aboard the dump-the-Electoral College bandwagon. I have to say, though, that that I am beginning to grow less enamored of the archaic system that was devised by men who — in their time — didn’t grant rights of full citizenship to women or to blacks. Women didn’t get the right to vote until 1920, for crying out loud and it took landmark civil rights legislation in the 1960s to guarantee full citizenship rights to African-Americans.

The gap in time — just 16 years — between the last two elections in which one candidate wins the “popular vote” but loses a presidential election is giving me serious pause about the wisdom of a system that hasn’t changed with the nation.

Let’s not despair a Trump victory

(c) 2006 Bonnie Jacobs

Social media are fluttering all over the place with despair.

Those who supported Hillary Rodham Clinton’s bid for the U.S. presidency are predicting gloomy days, months and years ahead as Donald J. Trump prepares to become the next president.

I make no apologies for my own loyalties. I preferred Clinton to win, too.

I just want to put a little perspective on what I believe lies ahead for the nation … and the new president.

Trump says he intends to do a lot of things: He will “build a wall,” he’ll revoke the Affordable Care Act, he’ll ban Muslims from entering this country, he’ll revoke trade deals.

Here’s this little impediment to all those things he intends to do: the United States Congress.

The founders got it exactly right when they built a three-tiered system of government: the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

As a friend and mentor once reminded me: A president proposes, Congress disposes.

So, there you have it. The president can declare his intention to do all kinds of things, but Congress stands in the way of all those bold — and occasionally nutty — intentions.

Factor in, too, that Trump — who has zero military or government experience — has damn few friends in Congress. He has built no relationships on Capitol Hill. The Republican “establishment” pols who run both congressional chambers dislike Trump, who spent a great deal of his political capital trashing the work they do; of course, it’s understood that congressional Democrats despise the president-elect.

Does anyone seriously believe the Congress is going to give the new president a free pass on anything, let alone some of the more controversial — and ridiculous — ideas he has pitched to American voters?

You also ought to consider that members of Congress are going to watch Trump carefully to ensure he doesn’t stray too far off the constitutional trail.

Trump is going to learn in very short order that the Constitution grants the president limited authority. He will be unable to the things he wants to do unilaterally. What about executive authority? Well, he’d better take care with how he uses that power as well.

I continue to have faith in the system of government that our founders created. These were wise men who, I’ll concede, didn’t grant a perfect government document. They didn’t give women the right to vote, nor did they grant equal rights to our nation’s black citizens; those reforms came later.

However, they did place plenty of power in the legislative and judicial branches of government, which they can use to blunt an executive branch that seeks to reach beyond its grasp.

Donald Trump campaigned for the presidency as if he didn’t quite understand all of that.

He will learn it quickly.

KKK newspaper ‘endorses’ Trump: enough said

donald

Hillary Rodham Clinton has loaded up on newspaper endorsements.

Donald J. Trump has gotten, well, just a few of them.

Then he received a most telling send-off from — I trust y’all are sitting down for this one — the official newspaper of the Ku Klux Klan.

This one takes my breath away.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/11/01/the-kkks-official-newspaper-has-endorsed-donald-trump-for-president/

Check this out from the Washington Post:

“While Trump wants to make America great again, we have to ask ourselves, ‘What made America great in the first place?’ ” the article continues. “The short answer to that is simple. America was great not because of what our forefathers did — but because of who our forefathers were.

“America was founded as a White Christian Republic. And as a White Christian Republic it became great.”

I guess the publisher of the Crusader needs to read the U.S. Constitution, which he obviously hasn’t read. The “forefathers” created a secular nation … but I digress.

The Crusader speaks for the Klan, arguably the nation’s most infamous hate group.

The guy who runs the Crusader said the paper isn’t “endorsing” Trump. OK, but the paper sure likes what the Republican presidential nominee is peddling.

I’m out.

Sharia law: the mother of red herrings

sharia

Donald J. Trump today invoked Sharia law as he was telling us how we should perform “extreme vetting” on all immigrants seeking entry into the United States.

The Republican presidential nominee doesn’t appear to be a religious scholar, or a constitutional scholar for that matter.

Well, I know little about Sharia law. I know a little more about the U.S. Constitution, although I certainly am no constitutional scholar.

So I just prefer to add this point: The Sharia law canard has become the No. 1 fear tactic being employed by those who hate Muslims. Moreover, those who invoke the fear of Sharia law ignore — perhaps willfully — some key provisions in the Constitution.

Sharia law is an extreme form of Islam. It’s fundamentally antithetical to mainstream Islam. It condones “honor killings,” and imposes stricter-than-strict rules about how one should follow the Islamic faith.

Could anyone ever impose Sharia law in this country, forcing non-Muslims to adhere to it? Never in a zillion years!

The Constitution prohibits it. Last time I checked, the Constitution is the law of the land. Every federal and state statute enacted at every level of government must adhere to the Constitution. Same with any municipal ordinance or rule. They, too, must be constitutional.

It’s the law, man!

Trump said he wants to keep anyone who would impose Sharia law in the United States. Others have said much the same thing.

The founders of this country set up a multi-tiered system of government, which they expressly declared it to be secular.

The feds sit at the top tier. Then we have states, with laws written by legislatures. Then we have cities and counties. In Texas, counties are governed by state statute. Cities, though, generally have home-rule charters that enable governing councils to enact ordinances and other rules that residents must follow.

Does anyone actually believe it is possible to impose Sharia law at any level of government in the United States of America?

It will not happen. It cannot happen.

 

Christian, Muslim, Jew … so what?

paladino-1-e1467138490245-300x198

Carl Paladino is a partisan hack who runs Republican nominee Donald J. Trump’s presidential campaign in New York state.

He’s also spouting idiocy about the religious affiliation of the president of the United States, who he has labeled this week as a Muslim.

Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he is a devout Christian. I believe the president. I do not believe the idiotic rant of Paladino.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-advisor-carl-paladino-theres-no-doubt-that-obama-is-a-muslim/

OK, then. Now, let’s look at something in the U.S. Constitution.

If you’re a real, true-blue, dyed-in-the-wool conservative, you believe in what’s called a “strict constructionist” view of the Constitution. You choose to interpret as little as possible in the document, much like one might do with, say, the Holy Bible.

So, let’s open our copy of the Constitution and turn to Article VI. It covers several areas of government, such as debt, laws and treaties, the oath officeholders take to support the Constitution.

And, oh yes, it has a clause at the end of it pertaining to “no religious test.”

It states: ” … but no religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

Do you know what I take away from that passage in Article VI? It means to me that an officeholder or a candidate for public office can worship any religion he or she chooses. It doesn’t matter what faith they worship.

Article VI lays it out there with crystal clarity.

That’s in a perfect world. I realize we don’t live in a world of perfection. It is soiled a good bit by those who choose to ignore constitutional tenets that fail to meet their world view.

Carl Paladino chooses, therefore, to declare in public that President Barack Obama is a Muslim, as if that’s supposed to label him as someone evil, sinister … anti-American.

I’ll make an admission: I am not as faithful to my own interpretation of the Constitution. Some constitutional tenets I take literally; I choose to interpret other tenets a bit more broadly. If you’re honest with yourself, you might be wiling to admit to doing the same thing yourself.

The “no religious test” clause of Article VI is one that — in my view — should be understood clearly and without equivocation. The framers knew exactly what they were doing when they expressly prohibited a “religious test.” They wanted to create a secular government run without specific religious influences.

My optimism runs eternal. Therefore, I’ll keep hoping for as long as I’m walking on this good Earth that one day we can apply that constitutional principle cleanly and without fear and suspicion.

Government: It’s a partnership, yes?

13631414_1745253302411619_3376219339678446266_n

This graphic showed up on a social media feed that I get.

I find it most instructive. I won’t recite it to you, as you can see it for yourself.

It does, though, prompt a thought or two about government and its very nature as created by the founders of our great country.

They created a partnership. They limited the power of the president on purpose by dividing the power among three co-equal branches of government … and by allowing states to create their own governments to deal with issues germane to those who live within those states and other territories.

So, when I hear Republicans these days yap and yammer about how the country is going to hell — a notion to which I do not subscribe — I also have to wonder if they’re really ready to take ownership of the government in which they, too, are an integral part.

The party that opposes the individual in the White House has been as much a part of what supposedly ails the country as the president.

Sure, the president — and vice president — are elected in a nationwide vote. Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives are elected by those who live within their states and/or congressional districts. Collectively, though, they also represent a national constituency.

The same logic can be applied to governors and state legislators.

As the graphic points, most of those office at this point are occupied by the Republican Party.

Which begs the question: Why are they bitching so loudly?