Hot Times in U.S. Politics
I needed to take a fairly long drive today, which enabled me to listen to a number of news radio shows, among which was a discussion on how President Obama will be regarded by history.
I was surprised that no one mentioned what I believe on the subject: it depends on Americans’ appreciation for facts. We just elected a man who, according to independent fact-checkers, lies approximately 70% of the time he opens his mouth. Apparently, the 61 million people who voted for him have no problem with this whatsoever.
As long as this trend continues in the direction of “facts don’t matter,” there is no way to predict how Americans will ultimately come to view Obama’s presidency–or any other matter that revolves around objective truth.
For what it’s worth, my prediction is that Trump will be forced out of office before he completes his term. There are a number of potential causes:
• Most obviously, his many conflicts of interest, many of which are clear violations of the emoluments clause in the U.S. Constitution.
• His penchant for erratic, vindictive comments and actions, any one of which could do (further) immense damage to our country.
• Revelations about the enormous number of things we don’t know about this man and his business dealings.
• His initiating and bring drawn into so many lawsuits that he becomes unable to find time to run the country. Here’s a wonderful example: yesterday, he sat for a three-hour-long deposition as part of a suit he brought against a Hispanic chef who backed out of a deal after Trump’s famous “Mexican rapists and drug dealers” speech.
I read somewhere that what we’re about to experience will make Watergate look tame in comparison, and I fully expect exactly that.
Craig,
The President-elect hasn’t even taken office and you are already predicting dire consequences.
I think President Obama’s time in office will be judged by history as personally quite a good and decent man, who achieved RFK’s dream of a coloured President.
His Presidency will be remembered as a time of mediocrity, a time when the President relied on symbolism and rhetoric rather than actual achievement. When hard decisions were needed, he vacillated or sought half measures and compromises. As President he often sought to avoid the tough fights and by-pass the legislature. His supporters will say he faced an obstinate and hostile legislature, but that’s the US system and Presidents must learn to overcome opposition and win Congressional concessions.
As a President certainly wasn’t the worst office holder, but nor was he one of the greats.
Once in office Donald Trump will find he has many very angry and bitter enemies. His enemies hate him personally, not just his policies.
He will enjoy none of the initial honeymoon period usually extended to incoming Presidents. It will be a measure of his abilities if he can successfully make the change between campaigning, and governing.
Perhaps what Trump detractors (like yourself Craig) detest the most is Trump doesn’t play be your rules. He refuses to allow others to dictate the terms of the debate. More frustratingly for his critics, he just doesn’t care !
An illustration of this is the indignation of the Guardian expressed in a recent headline “Republicans angry that Trump supports Assange “. Of course, the Guardian is deliberately distorting the truth, agreeing with one comment by Assange doesn’t make Trump a ‘supporter’ of the wiki-leaks founder.
As for the emoluments clause in the US Constitution,
( No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State).
I don’t see Donald Trump accepting a Knighthood, or any other improper boon in relation to his oath of office. The clause is very specific and not intended to prevent any President from possessing private wealth.
One thing is for sure, Trump will be a very different President. Whatever the future holds the American system means he will hold that office for the next 4 years, and since he’s the only US President making his term even more difficult than necessary, will prove counter-productive.
It might not be such a bad idea for Americans to wait until he makes a serious error (or is found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors) before undermining the administration.
It seems much of America is still in denial.
Marco are you attempting to render a legal opinion for a country where you are not familiar with the interpretation of the law? FYI here is a bit that explains the application of this section of the constitution. The reading is a bit dry but I suspect you will manage. https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/1982/02/31/op-olc-v006-p0156.pdf
In this opinion the clause was applicable to an employee of the gov who was doing private consulting work on his own time for a foreign government.
This section makes a distinction between foreign governments and private employers, but that distinction would likely break down with a state run corporation.
If you would rather read an opinion than determine your own you can find a little debate here: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/23/13715150/donald-trump-emoluments-clause-constitution
Hi Breath,
Our posts seem to be out of sync, so it’s a little hard for anyone to follow what’s a reply to what.
To clarify one point. I’m not “attempting to render a legal opinion for a country where I’m are not familiar with the interpretation of the law “, I’m simply making an observation.
However, I’m totally unfamiliar with the US legal process and US military law.
I completed the course conducted by Boston University School of Law in American Law for Non-U.S. lawyers. I also attended classes offered through BU Law’s Graduate Program in Banking & Financial Law and Graduate Tax Programs.
During my service as an Australian Army Layer, along with studying the military law of several countries, I was invited to attend a course at the U.S. Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School , University of Virginia.
These days my interest is purely personal.
Thank you for the reference to the opinion rendered by Robert Shanks. I was already familiar with this 1982 opinion, although I’m more familiar with Robert Shanks excellent papers concerning the Constitutional arrangements of American Samoa.
(I have a high regard for his abilities both as a lawyer and individual. He’s a very genial host and his opinions seem sincere, insightful, well-informed and very respectful of the human dimension).
Thank you also for the article from Vox. It’s a well considered piece for Vox, and reflects the problems of this new dynamic. I agree with the author that it’s inevitable Donald Trump being President must enhance the value of his corporate empire, albeit unintentionally.
However, these consequences were known before the election so it’s unlikely that anyone,( bar the usual Trump haters) will be particularly concerned.
There really are no precedents for5 what lies ahead. I fear the trump opposition will become preoccupied with issues such as these and fail to take the opportunities a trump Presidency may present for reform and restructure.
Also here is a white paper that defines “emoluments.” It discusses the clause of the constitution and how it affects DoD service personal. http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/resource_library/emoluments_clause_applications.pdf
Regardless of other considerations if a member of the armed services can’t accept a gift or compensation from a foreign government it may not be the best PR for the Commander in Chief to accept the same kind of bribes forbidden to a lower level rank. It sets up a situation where the ranks would tend not to respect the leadership.
Hi breath and a Happy New Year.
Thank you for your excellent contribution.
Your point is especially valid when referring to a US President as “Commander-in-Chief”. The power of a US President over the military is not the purely symbolic or honorific title bestowed upon many Heads of State.
The clauses in the US Constitution describi9ng the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief are pretty vague, and over the years have been interpreted to bestow considerable power on US
Presidents.
However, it’s a bit difficult to imagine the circumstances where this particular constitutional clause be misused by Trump. (Well,.. not more so than Bush/Obama).
But you are quite right, the President must set an example.
Marco, regarding the sync it seems as if any comment I make that contains more than one citation is flagged for editorial review. This then involves a delay. A clue that the first comment you saw was preceded may have been my starting the first sentence with the word “also.”
The balance of your comments might be organized under the headings of what is “known,” “unknown” and “unknowable.”
You have suggested that you were “simply making an observation” when you rendered the opinion that the “emoluments clause in the US Constitution” referred to titles. You can perhaps then see my confusion in assuming that the definition of “emoluments” was unknown to you. I had a choice in assuming you were unfamiliar with the definition or that you were being willfully misleading when you lead your comment with a mention of titles before referring to “improper boons.”
When you say now that you were familiar with the cited legal opinion that leads me to the conclusion that you are unfamiliar with the construction and implications of writing or that you were being willfully misleading to emphasize titles over “improper boons.” Almost no one refers to “titles” when discussing this constitutional clause.
There are presently numerous examples of Foreign governments attempting to curry favor with the new administration through various private deals. Prior to the election, Trumps wealth was a known factor and discussed in the media. What was “knowable” but not discussed were the implications of a conflict with the emoluments clause. Because there is a long history of presidents putting their holdings in a “blind trust” it might be assumed that this president would follow that president. People voted for a president who offered “change.” Eternally optimistic, perhaps many felt this “change” involved less corruption rather than more. In truth the implication was not explored before the election and until Trump made declarations suggesting he would not attempt to avoid conflicts of interest the implications were “unknown” prior to the election.
The implications of what is shaping up to be a clear conflict with the constitution by the failure to divest or place in a blind trust are presently “unknowable.” Much of it depends upon the political climate. Certainly we can expect lawsuits as the Vox article suggests. Impeachment seems unlikely without some pressure to bear on the Republican congress. However it was simply the threat of impeachment by Republican members of congress that forced Nixon to resign.
Trump seems inclined to increase his fortune using the power of the presidency. Some would argue that this would not follow a pattern for good governance regardless of the laws. Should public pressure become too great the VP could essentially create a Coup using the powers of the 25 amendment without resorting to impeachment proceedings.
It is all very unknowable at this time. In the meanwhile many states seem poised to continue the fight against degradation of the environment regardless of the federal lead. Should this occur, then we may be conducting a great economic experiment to see how such an emphasis affects the bottom line compared to what is offered by fossil fuel interests ruling the political environment.
Hi Breath,
The term ” improper boon” may not be familiar to you, but it’s a legalese phrase used to describe a wide range of benefits and/or favour or request.(as in ‘granting a boon’ ). The use of the phrase “improper boon” was to widen the the discussion more than just the narrow definition of an “emolument ” ( a salary, fee, or profit from employment or office).
I’m afraid you read too much into my observation that Donald Trump would be unlikely to be offered, or accept, a Knighthood or elevation to the Peerage. It was merely intended as humour. (
The only significance of my alluding to the issue first, is the order it’s mentioned in the constitution !
My reading of section 25 doesn’t provide for the VP to mount any kind of ‘coup’ . The removal of a President can really only take place if the President is deemed incapacitated, resigned or is impeached and the impeachment includes removal from office. (Andrew Jackson was impeached but survived removal by one vote).
I don’t think Nixon was afraid of impeachment, he was afraid of criminal prosecution. Only his resignation could guarantee a pardon and freedom from criminal charges.
As I suggested, the issue of a blind trust etc, isn’t really applicable to Donald Trump due to the size, structure and nature of his assets.
Since the Constitution is silent about such a situation, it could be argued that the American people will just have to trust him to comply with the spirit of the law four four years and let the voters decide on his integrity.
Naturally, his detractors with see this as an Achilles heel, but in the end it comes down to whom the voters believe.
I don’t think any of this will become a real issue unless the President loses the confidence of the voters on issues such as the economy, employment, migration and foreign policy.
The Trump Presidency will contain a lot of unprecedented factors. Perhaps Americans should adopt the same attitude as Elon Musk by keeping an open mind while seeing what advantages can be achieved by assisting the new administration.
I am sure your taking the trouble to define and improper boon was appreciated by someone who had little relevant training or experience.
Curiously, you mirror some of Trump’s responses when he is caught, “I was just kidding, it was a joke, only sarcasm…”
The 25th amendment does not say “incapacitated” it says “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” but either way such terms have not been reviewed by the judiciary, leaving some leeway to define such terms as possibly “incapable due to a violation of the emolument clause and an inability to resolve the issue.” Perhaps that is not the original intent of the amendment but the law is ever adaptable to political will. Frankly I can’t currently foresee how this would happen but I don’t believe we have seen the end of surprises in this political cycle. The situation seems entirely too volatile.
I wonder what happens if it is proven that Russian influence in the election changed the outcome? It would at least be ironic if Hillary beat Sanders by cheating but lost to Trump due to cheating. Do we take it back to H vs T or do we go as far back as S or start all over again?
These and some of the questions you pose were never considered by the original framers of the constitution. Although corporations existed then they did not acquire real status until court decisions in the 1800’s. The idea of a president having world wide holdings larger than many small nations was certainly inconceivable at the time.
The argument that Trump could not create a “blind trust” because his holdings were “too large” sounds suspiciously like banks being “too big to fail.” Dodd-Frank essentially said if a bank were “too big to fail” it should be broken up. Perhaps if a candidate is “too big to divest” he should not be allowed to the office? And if he could put his daughter in charge of a “blind trust” why not an independent trustee? But I think the real issue is that Trump is far more interested in his empire than in the presidency. So we will have a part time president for the first time.
With respect to Trump “losing the confidence of the voters…” His approval ratings are already the lowest of any new president. When we consider how many people voted and how many voted for Trump it is less than 25% of the country. Estimates of how many people voted “for him” out of protest run as high as 60%. That leaves only about 10% of the country who wanted some version of him in office. As time goes on we can only speculate how many will come to view him favorably and how many don’t find the version of him they voted for in oval office.
Trump seems to be putting in place people carefully selected to be hostile to the agency they top. Democratic resistance seems to be mounting to the former Republican level of obstructionist. So most of all I wonder, as do a few others, who wins in such a situation that seems to directly beat a path to the door of a lack of faith in any government. Some seem to be playing by rules that are decades out of date. What is this new game? What are the rules and who are the players?
Breath,
My goodness, but you’re an ornery sort of guy!
You take exception to my use of a generalized term, “improper boon” which I then carefully define. I’m still baffled as to what exactly is your exception to the term ? Nor do I understand what accusation you are trying to convey ?
In my original post I provided the wording of the relevant Constitutional clause, I then replied to those items covered in the Constitution in order of precedence.
What’s so unusual or difficult to understand about that ?
Likewise I employed the term “incapacitated ” as a more modern and shorter version of the phrase ““unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office”, and also to convey the accepted definition of the clause.
(If we’re going to be pedantic, could this term be used to exclude HC had she been elected since female gender isn’t used).
No real evidence exist that Russia affected the election result, and even if it did, no evidence exists of the candidates knowledge or involvement.
All these considerations are just desperation by those in denial of the reality that at 12 noon on Friday, January 20 2017 , Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States.
As for reasons for the pointlessness of a “blind” trust, the practicalities, complexity and nature of the Trump enterprises make such a trust no safeguard and ineffective, so it would be at the best symbolic, and at worst cynical. Actually, his answer has the merit of being candid and basically just offers voters the choice of trusting him, or not. i
As for your proposal ” if a candidate is “too big to divest” he should not be allowed to the office”, perhaps you could refer me to the section in the US constitution that discriminates against US citizens on the basis of wealth ?
The President may nominate any constitutionally eligible candidate he likes, subject to congressional approval.
In the case of the EPA, he has proposed reform and restructure to comply with the law. He could if he wished simply seek to abolish the agency, instead he’s proposed to appoint an qualified individual he believes will make the agency more efficient, and adhere to it’s mandate and duty.
Some EPA employees have become confused as to their role as public servants. Instead of implementing the laws, policies and directives from elected officials, they have announced an intention to defy the Constitution and usurp the powers of elected officials to implement the own policies while actively sabotaging those endorsed by the executive and legislature!
No government could possibly allow such insurrection!
One of the curious questions the EPA has filed to answer is the unauthorized purchase of 48 military tanks to accompany it’s ‘battalion’ of militarily equipped employees/troops.
Naturally, Scott Pruitt is alarmed by the announcement of an EPA spokesperson that if he’s appointed Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, he must be prevented from obtaining any knowledge of such matters !.
The EPA was granted limited Police and Prosecution powers by congress. It was never intended to grant the raising of a private army. Surely in such cases the agency can seek the assistance of US Marshals, FBI, or other laws enforcement agencies.
All American’s, especially those who understand the importance of the EPA must be concerned and outraged by the actions of rogue,radical politicized civil servants.
I’ll confess that Scott Pruitt would not be my choice as EPA Administrator, but representative government places the responsibility for governance with elected officials.
In this regard there can be no equivocation. As long as elected representatives and the elected executive obey the Constitution and the law, they and they alone, have the power to appoint those officials they believe are in the best interests of good government.
Public (civil) servants must faithfully, (within the law)carry out the will of the elected government regardless of personal belief or political persuasion.
Were I an American voter, i would not have voted for Donald Trump, however he’s been elected and everyone must just accept the fact and move to make the best of the situation.
Form my own experience, While still serving in the army I was asked by a superior officer, if I would accompany the new Prime Minister, a man detested by Vietnam era regular soldiers (including myself) as he inspected a parade.
As reminded the parade participants, they are obliged to salute the office,not the man, and no disrespect was to be displayed.
So it is with Trump, the office of President should be respected despite any political differences with the incumbent.