There is no doubt in my mind that the GOP opposition to this bill is nothing more than a bid to continue rigging our voting system to keep them in power, a bid for one-party-rule.
Yes it will give Democrats a bigger advantage, but that's after decades of Republicans using gerrymandering, vote suppression techniques to rig the vote in their favor. It IS time to even the playing field.
SUMMARY:A major battle over election reform is underway in the U.S. Senate as Republicans in some states push to enact more restrictive voting laws, while Democrats aim to override those efforts at the federal level. Sen. Joe Manchin signaled he will vote with his party, the Democrats, to allow voting on a modified bill. Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor join Judy Woodruff to discuss its implications.
SUMMARY:Judy Woodruff discusses Tuesday's Senate vote on a voting rights bill with California Sen. Alex Padilla [D]. He was also California's Secretary of State for the 2020 presidential election.
SUMMARY:After Pope Francis initially signaled support for same-sex unions, the Vatican decreed Monday that the Catholic Church cannot support them, saying God “cannot bless sin.” The latest decree has disappointed LGBTQ advocates and cast doubt on the church’s acceptance of gay people. Rev. Bryan Massingale, a professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University, joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.
SUMMARY:South Carolina is the latest state to place tough new restrictions on abortions. It is part of a renewed focus on abortion access with a new conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Gavin Jackson a public affairs reporter for South Carolina ETV, and Mary Ziegler a Florida State University law professor, join John Yang to discuss.
Hint....I don't like Donald Trump.Donnie is only thinking of himself and how 'great' he is and a dictator-want-to-be. He does not believe in the Rule of Law and has never supported the U.S. Constitution.
SUMMARY:A top Democrat in the House of Representatives sued former President Trump Tuesday for allegedly inciting the Capitol Insurrection, adding to his growing legal challenges. But what conduct is still being looked at and what consequences may result? WNYC's Andrea Bernstein, who has been reporting on Trump's finances as part of the "Trump Inc." project, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.
SUMMARY:On Tuesday, President Trump signed a memo aiming to bar undocumented immigrants from being included in the census count that determines how many members of Congress are allocated to each state. The census is conducted once in a decade, but it shapes funding, policy and power for years. Lisa Desjardins reports and talks to Hansi Lo Wang of NPR about what this and the pandemic mean for the census.
Editor's note:The guest in this segment misstated that an enslaved person in the U.S. was counted as three-fourths of a person under the Constitution. Enslaved Black Americans were counted as three-fifths of a person.
SUMMARY: The power to impeach a federal official such as the President has been exercised rarely in American history, and U.S. Constitution mentions the word only a handful of times. What were the founders thinking when they included that power, and how have public views of these powers evolved over time? Judy Woodruff looks back with presidential historian Michael Beschloss.
SUMMARY:A Maryland World War I memorial in the form of a cross will remain on public land, after the Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s ruling, 7 to 2. What does the decision mean for hundreds of challenges pending in lower courts over religious monuments on public lands, which critics say violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause? John Yang talks to Scotusblog.com's Tom Goldstein.
SUMMARY: The showdown between the White House and Congress over the Mueller report is escalating even further. House Democrats took initial steps to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt Wednesday, with House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerry Nadler calling the decision "grave and momentous." Lisa Desjardins reports and joins Judy Woodruff and Yamiche Alcindor to discuss.
SUMMARY: Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) blasted President Donald Trump on Thursday for refusing to cooperate with various Democratic-led congressional inquiries into his administration. “You cannot have a democratic government … if the executive denies all information,” he told PBS NewsHour anchor and managing editor Judy Woodruff, suggesting that backing down from a fight would be giving in to a “tyrannical administration.”
“We are in a constitutional crisis because of the administration’s contempt for law, and their refusal to obey the law,” Nadler said, mentioning the Trump administration’s refusal to deliver the President’s tax returns to a House committee, as well as the decision “to defy all subpoenas from the House.”
Nadler, chair of the House Judiciary Committee, said the Trump administration has “turned the Justice Department, who is supposed to enforce the law, into an agency for defying the law, as the personal property of the president.”
On Wednesday, the committee voted to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress, in reaction to a Justice Department decision to withhold the full, unredacted Mueller report from lawmakers. The White House also announced it is invoking executive privilege over the report. Any ensuing legal fight between Trump and House Democrats could drag out for months or years.
But Nadler on Thursday expressed confidence that the courts would not favor Trump in the anticipated standoff over the balance of power in government, and predicted that Congress’ authority to compel information would be upheld, saying “the law is quite clear.”
Nadler said he hoped the outcome would be “a swift court order with compulsion behind it.”
“There’s no question legally we’ll win,” he told Woodruff. “The question is how long it will take.”
Theocracy = Bible over our Constitution, law by fundamentalist religion. Forget your personal religious rights, and if you are a women you do not control your own body.
SUMMARY:President Trump intends to expand rules that allow health care workers to opt out of participating in certain services on religious or moral grounds. While conservatives celebrated what they call “conscience protections,” LGBTQ and women’s advocates warned the change would reduce services and cause patients harm. Amna Nawaz talks to The New York Times' Margot Sanger-Katz for analysis.
IMHO: There is a big push by conservative Christians to turn the United States into a theocracy by making their doctrine and beliefs the law-of-the-land over our Constitution. The ONLY persons who should be making the decision on abortion are women; not local, state, or federal government. It is a right of women to make this moral decision.
Doreen Denny is not really concerned about women, they are concerned about their agenda. Some states already have banned abortions in clinics, to there will be no 'other providers' to refer to. (see link to CWA below)
SUMMARY: The Trump administration intends to limit the Title X program that provides birth control and other reproductive health services. Under the new restrictions, any clinic accepting federal funds would be prevented from performing abortions -- or referring women to other providers for the procedure. William Brangham talks to Doreen Denny of Concerned Women for America, who supports the new policy.
REMINDER: The majority of what Planned Parenthood provides is NOT abortion. (see link below)
SUMMARY:Under a new rule proposed by the Trump administration, family-planning clinics that receive federal funds through Title X would be prevented from referring women to other providers for abortions. One organization that would be affected is Planned Parenthood, whose president Dr. Leana Wen talks to William Brangham about why the move would compromise patient health as well as medical ethics.
SUMMARY:The fallout from President Trump’s national emergency declaration over immigration is sparking questions about the scope of executive power. For analysis, Judy Woodruff talks to Andrew Rudalevige, professor of government at Bowdoin College and author of “The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate,” and Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Rice University.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): On this President's Day holiday, we're taking a look at Presidential powers and how they have changed over time.
We're joined now by two Presidential historians Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Rice University and author of several books on the presidency. And Andrew Rudalevige, he's professor of government at Bowdoin College and the author of "The New Imperial Presidency: Renewing Presidential Power after Watergate."
And welcome to both of you.
Andrew Rudalevige, let me start with you.
How much more powerful is the American presidency today than it was either in the earliest days of this country or even 150 years ago?
Andrew Rudalevige, professor of government:Well, infinitely more powerful than at the time of the Constitutional Convention.
If you think of the very title President, that comes from the word presider. There was no idea, I think, that the President would be the main decider, as George W. Bush styled himself.
The real growth is in the 20th and now the 21st century. You have the great expansiveness of the scope and size of government. Most of that's in the executive branch, and so the President has more means, many more staff, many more people to help him carry out his preferences.
And you also have, over time, the delegation of great amounts of power to the President by Congress, including things that are specifically delegated to the Congress by the Constitution, trade power, for example.
In other areas, Presidents have sort of pushed hard to try to take over the war power, for example. And Congress on the whole has been pretty supine about that.
So it's a great growth of power in fits and starts, but, certainly compared, to the founding, a much more powerful office than was anticipated.
Judy Woodruff: And, Douglas Brinkley, is this mainly because Presidents have been grabbing for more power, or is it because Congress has ceded it, or is it a combination?
Douglas Brinkley, professor of history: Combination.
I mean, I think it's important to think about when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in 1861. He had a very good reason to, the Civil War. Then you have the emancipation of slaves under Lincoln.
And Theodore Roosevelt is really the beginning of this. It used to be called the executive mansion. He named it the White House. And from 1901 to 1909, T.R. used a lot of executive orders, some like going into Panama without Congress. He went to the Grand Canyon and said, save it. Congress didn't want it as a National Park.
There was zinc, asbestos, and copper there, and so he declared it a National Monument and as a way station on using executive power, until eventually Congress would take it as a National Park.
Following T.R., you see Franklin D. Roosevelt using executive power all the time, sometimes in positive ways that look well in history, like when he save Jackson Hole, Wyoming, with a national — as a national monument in the middle of World War II, but then, alas, the Japanese internment camps, which was upheld by the courts, that he was allowed to do that kind of roundup of American citizens.
And just — it's an increasing of Presidential power, to the degree now that Presidents, so matter who they are, have a 40 or 50 percent approval rating, and Congress is often at 15, 20 percent approval rating. We are a country of Presidential power.
Judy Woodruff: Andrew Rudalevige, is it that the American people have watched this happen over time and have just felt, OK, this is just inevitable, it's just going to get — we're going to have a more powerful presidency?
Andrew Rudalevige: Well, there are good and bad reasons for a powerful presidency.
The government, the role of the United States are much bigger in the world and domestically than they had been prior to the 20th century. So you have some questions of executive efficiency. It's not always terrible when Congress delegates power to the President.
On the other hand, especially since, I would say, the 1960s, changes in nominating procedures mean there's a lot more focus on the individual. Presidents have to promise a lot more individually, and then they are under pressure to live up to those promises.
The gap between the expectations of the presidency and the actual power is somewhat large. I think Presidents on the whole cannot carry out their promises to the degree that they think they can running for office.
President Trump's emergency declaration is a pretty good example of that, frankly. But, yes, people tend to support Presidents acting dramatically. And, to that degree, Presidents will continue to do so.
Judy Woodruff: And what President Trump has done, Douglas Brinkley, is one the reasons I wanted to talk to the two of you, because people are — some are referring to it as an unprecedented move, an overreach.
But we really wanted to put it in context and look at how this has — how Presidents' desire and determination to take more power under themselves has — it's been happening for a long time.
Douglas Brinkley: Well, yes.
I mean, Richard Nixon created a lot of problems, I mean, abuse of power, the movement to impeach him. And out of that grew the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which supposed to make sure you don't go to war without Congress' approval.
Well, alas, Ronald Reagan went into Grenada in 1983 without Congress' approval, and George Herbert Walker Bush went into Panama in 1989 without it. So you get to see things get watered down. Presidents act, and let everybody else decide what to do later.
What we're debating now in the United States concerning Donald Trump is another post-Nixon event, the National Emergencies Act of 1976. And in that regard, we have had 59 of these since 1976, but none like what Donald Trump's doing.
He — this is a big political move by Donald Trump. It's not going to be construed as a real emergency, in the way Harry Truman tried to grab the steel industry back in 1952 and it wasn't a real emergency, because Presidents can't seize private property.
And if he is — if the Trump administration's hell-bent on grabbing ranchlands, building fencing along private property and along environmental zones, it's just going to rain lawsuits on them, and it'll — it'll end up in the Supreme Court.
But Congress is supposed to have — Congress is supposed to have the purse. It's supposed to run the money. Donald Trump now is doing something unprecedented by grabbing the funding from Congress and reallocating it in his own — with his own whims.
Judy Woodruff: Andrew Rudalevige, so, this is a — this stands apart from what other Presidents have done to take more power unto themselves?
Andrew Rudalevige: Well, Professor Brinkley talked about the post-Watergate regime, where you had a real effort by Congress to push back on the powers of the President, not just in war powers, but intelligence oversight and covert action and the budget, impoundment of congressional funds, ethics with the creation of the independent counsel, and the National Emergencies Act, right?
All of these things were designed to rein in Presidential power. But Presidents keep pushing, right? They are — as I said, they have lots of incentives to keep pushing. And so, really, what's happened is that Congress has not pushed back.
The National Emergencies Act is a great example of a law that was created to rein in Presidents, but has ended up empowering them, partly because Congress has not lived up to its own responsibilities that it wrote into the law, right, to review these emergencies every six months, to come into session to actually consider them in a serious way.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to analyze the week in politics, including the President’s national emergency declaration, how congressional Republicans are reacting to it, the 2020 Presidential field and whether Democrats are pushing their platform too far to the left.
Judy Woodruff: From that growing 2020 Presidential field, to the fight over President Trump's national emergency declaration, it's time for Shields and Brooks.
That is syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you.
We are going to talk about the mayor in just a moment, but I do want to start, David, with the President's announcement today that he didn't get enough money to beef up the border as he wanted, and, therefore, he's declaring a national emergency, so that he can spend up to $8 billion on it.
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes, well, this is awful.
You know, I don't think it has anything to do with any invasion, as he claimed. I think he lost the government shutdown, so he's giving himself a performance trophy, so he can say, I'm a winner.
I think this is more about his psyche than anything actually in the country. And it is a complete violation of any constitutional position that any liberal or any conservative should believe in.
The Constitution clearly states that allocations and appropriations are the job of Congress. And Congress has been ceding power time and time again. Presidents have been grabbing it. And this is by far the most egregious grab.
And once you walk down this line, then the constitutional order begins to fray. And we have seen the fraying of social norms. Now we're seeing the fraying of constitutional norms.
Judy Woodruff: And, Mark, the President says it's entirely within his right to do this. And he points out other Presidents have done similar things.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist:Not really similar things, in a sense after they have been rejected by the legislative process, immediately upon following that rejection.
I think, Judy, that you have to say a national emergency is the Great Depression, the polio epidemic, the firing on Fort Sumter, you know, or something that we can agree is an emergency.
This is a political emergency. It's a political emergency, just as David described, not simply the stinging rebuke of Congress, but, by actual count, 200 times Donald Trump, candidate and then President, has promised that this wall, this tall, unscalable wall, will be built and paid for completely by the Mexican government.
And he obviously has not delivered on that. I would just point out that, in 2000, Bill Clinton's last year in the White House, there were 1.6 million illegal entries stopped by the authorities at the border. In 2017, Donald Trump's first year, there were fewer than 400,000.
I mean, this is not — it's not an invasion, as David said. I mean, it's not an emergency, other than a political emergency.
Judy Woodruff: And it's going to be challenged in the courts. We were hearing some of that earlier in the program.
David, what about the fact that Republicans in Congress didn't go along, there weren't enough of them to go along with what the President wanted in terms of money, and now some of them are saying what you two are saying, that they don't like the fact that he's declaring an emergency?
David Brooks:Yes, this was an interesting thing that, within the negotiations over the last week, the Republicans, and specifically Mitch McConnell, decided basically they were writing the White House out of the negotiations, and they sidelined them.
And so they basically — the deal McConnell said was, we're going to cut them out of the negotiations, we will give them nothing, but we give them this, that I will support this chance to have an emergency.
And that is a bad deal. Mitch McConnell made a bad deal for the American people. This — violating the Constitution is worse. And so I think they should have a vote . The Congress should assert itself, for once in a lifetime, for the sake of our country.
A few Republicans have come out and criticized the President, Ben Sasse and Marco Rubio. But a lot have not. Some who warned him not to do that are suddenly on board.
And so you're seeing rank open opportunism. It was not long ago, a few years ago, we were sitting at this table, and Barack Obama did something — I thought something egregious. And every Republican, including me, was — had their hair on fire.
And now suddenly they're fine with an even more egregious grab of White House power.
Judy Woodruff: How do you see this political — or is it a significant division in the Republican Party?
Mark Shields: No, it isn't, Judy.
I mean, the Republican Party needs a vertebrae transplant. It is essentially a political invertebrate. It has no backbone.
Mitch McConnell is terrified of a primary challenge in 2020. And that's the power that Donald Trump wields. Donald Trump has always, in his arsenal, the Mark Sanford experience, the former governor and congressman in South Carolina.
Donald Trump said good words about his opponent and bad words about Mark Sanford, and Mark Sanford's career came to a crashing end in the Republican primary.
And every — virtually every Republican who's up in 2020 is afraid that Donald Trump — to get on the wrong side of Donald Trump. I don't think there's any question about it.
I think Susan Collins has said some questionable things about questioning the President. So has Mike Lee from Utah. It's a small group. Lamar Alexander has. He's retiring in 2020. So, I don't expect any great resistance on the GOP side.
SUMMARY:Lawmakers working to develop an agreement on border funding by February 15 say they have reached a bipartisan deal. President Trump said he wasn't "happy" with the proposed bill, as it would provide only a fraction of the funding he had originally demanded, but didn't say whether or not he would sign it. Yamiche Alcindor explains what concessions each side made to arrive at a compromise.
SUMMARY:As members of Congress finally arrive at an agreement over how to fund border security and avoid another government shutdown, both Democrats and Republicans are claiming victory -- and fielding criticism that they caved. But with only three days before the deadline, it will be a scramble to pass the proposed legislation. Judy Woodruff gets the latest from Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor.
SUMMARY: Congress is preparing to send a government funding package that contains a compromise on allocations for border security to President Trump, who has announced his intention to sign the bill. However, Trump also plans to declare a national emergency in order to access additional money for a border wall. Judy Woodruff talks to Lisa Desjardins and Yamiche Alcindor about what comes next.
SUMMARY:After signing a congressional funding bill, President Trump plans to declare a national emergency to obtain additional money for a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. But would such an executive action be lawful? Judy Woodruff speaks with former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta about who decides what constitutes a national emergency and whether the President is attempting to circumvent Congress.
SUMMARY: President Trump declared a national emergency Friday over immigration at the U.S.-Mexico border, so he can redirect billions of dollars to build additional sections of wall there. Trump plans to take roughly $6 billion from the Defense Department and millions from other sources. Judy Woodruff talks to Yamiche Alcindor about expected legal challenges and why the President's data is problematic.
SUMMARY:Patrick Soon-Shiong, a multi-billionaire surgeon, entrepreneur and part owner of the Los Angeles Lakers, finalized his ownership of the Los Angeles Times [and San Diego Union-Tribune] this week. Judy Woodruff talks with him about how his upbringing in apartheid South Africa drove his love of newspapers and his vision for the future of the organization despite significant past struggles.
SUMMARY:NFL owners voted for a new policy on Wednesday that requires any players or team personnel who are on the field to "stand and show respect for the flag and the anthem." The silent protests are meant to call attention to police brutality and racial inequality, but have drawn months of public criticism by President Trump. Amna Nawaz gets reaction from LZ Granderson of ESPN's SportsNation.
SUMMARY:The airstrikes launched by the U.S., UK, and France to punish the Assad regime's alleged use of chemical weapons have renewed questions about Presidential warmaking powers. Lisa Desjardins reports on the reaction to the strikes, then talks to Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del) about Congress’ role in authorizing military action, as well as concerns about protecting Robert Mueller’s investigation.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitutiongrants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. These provisions require cooperation between the President and Congress regarding military affairs, with Congress funding or declaring the operation and the President directing it. Nevertheless, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, Presidents have often engaged in military operations without express Congressional consent. These operations include the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the Afghanistan War of 2001 and the Iraq War of 2002.
Commander in Chief
The questions of whether the President possesses authority to use the military absent a Congressional declaration of war and the scope of such power, if it exists, have proven to be sources of conflict and debate throughout American history. In general, scholars express various views on the amount of power that the President actually has and the amount of power that the Constitution promises to the holder of that position.
After the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon Administrations had spent nearly a decade committing U.S. troops to Southeast Asia without Congressional approval, Congress responded by passing the War Powers Resolution in 1973. The War Powers Resolution requires that the President communicate to Congress the committal of troops within 48 hours. Further, the statute requires the President to remove all troops after 60 days if Congress has not granted an extension.
When passed, Congress intended the War Powers Resolution to halt the erosion of Congress's ability to participate in war-making decisions. This resolution, however, has not been as effective as Congress likely intended (see the "War Powers Resolution" section in the Commander in Chief Powers article). The terrorist attacks against the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001 further complicated the issue of war powers shared between the President and Congress. After September 11, the United States Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists (AUMF). When the United States invaded Afghanistan, the U.S. military rounded up alleged members of the Taliban and those fighting against U.S. forces. The military then placed these "detainees" at a U.S. base located at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba at the direction of the Bush Administration who designed the plan under the premise that federal court jurisdiction did not reach the base. Consequently, the Bush Administration and military believed that the detainees could not avail themselves of habeas corpus and certain protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
As the military held many of these prisoners at the base for years without bringing formal charges against them, the prisoners found counsel within the United States to file habeas corpus petitions within U.S. federal courts. A series of cases then came before the U.S. Supreme Court dealing with the constitutionality of the prisoners' detentions at Guantanamo.
In 2004 Rasul v. Bush became the first case in which the Supreme Court directly discussed the Bush Administration's Guantanamo detention policies. 542 U.S. 466. The Court held that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 permits federal district courts to hear habeas corpus petitions by aliens held within territory over which the United States exercises "plenary and exclusive jurisdiction." This holding included Guantanamo detainees. The Court then instructed the district courts to hear the petitions.
After the Bush Administration responded to Rasul by permitting detainees to bring their petitions before military tribunals, the Supreme Court again addressed the matter in 2006 when they decided Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. 548 U.S. 557. The Court in Hamdan held that the President lacks constitutional authority under the Commander-in-Chief Clause to try detainees in military tribunals. The tribunals also violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, the Court rebuked the government's arguments that the AUMF expanded Presidential authority.
Congress responded by passing the Detainee Treatment Act, which provides that "no court, court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider . . . an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by . . . an alien detained . . . at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba." In 2008, an Algerian citizen challenged the constitutionality of this statute in Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195). The Court held that a Congressional suspension of habeas corpus requires an explicit suspension of the writ and that merely stripping the federal courts of jurisdiction does not actually suspend the writ. The Court also stated that the detainees lacked proper procedural safeguards to ensure they obtained fair trials and the ability to ascertain the nature of the charges against them.
Post-Boumediene, the Supreme Court has continued to uphold the constitutionality of the Detainee Treatment Act. In 2014 the Supreme Court refused two separate appeals for certiorari which related to the Detainee Treatment Act. In the first appeal, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case in which a Syrian man sought to sue the United States over his alleged torture at Guantanamo. In the second appeal, the Supreme Court blocked the release of images purported to show evidence of a Saudi man's mistreatment by Guantanamo officials.
The Supreme Court deferred to the lower appeals courts, which found that due to the Detainee Treatment Act, "courts do not have the authority to hear lawsuits like the one[s] filed [here]."
Emergency Powers The Constitution does not expressly grant the President additional powers in times of national emergency. However, Presidents have claimed they have this power, often conflicting with the Supreme Court's interpretation of the extent of Presidential powers.
President Abraham Lincoln's suspended habeas corpus without Congressional approval in 1861, and he claimed he could do so due to emergency war powers. Lincoln claimed that the rebellion created an emergency that permitted him the extraordinary power of unilaterally suspending the writ. With Chief Justice Roger Taney sitting as judge, the Federal District Court of Maryland struck down the suspension in Ex Parte Merryman, although Lincoln ignored the order. 17 F. Cas. 144 (1861).
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt similarly invoked emergency powers when he issued Order 9066, placing Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this order in Korematsu v. United States. 323 U.S. 214 (1944).
Harry Truman declared the use of emergency powers when he seized private steel mills that failed to produce steel because of a labor strike in 1952. With the Korean War ongoing, Truman asserted that he could not wage war successfully if the economy failed to provide him with the material resources necessary to keep the troops well-equipped. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, refused to accept that argument in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, voting 6-3 that neither Commander in Chief powers nor any claimed emergency powers gave the President the authority to unilaterally seize private property without Congressional legislation. 343 U.S. 579.
In a commencement speech years ago, author David Foster Wallace told this story: Two young fish are swimming along, and they pass an older fish swimming the other way. The older fish says, “Morning, boys, how’s the water?” The two young fish swim on for a while. Then one looks at the other and says, “What the hell is water?” Wallace noted the point of the story was that “the most obvious, ubiquitous, important realities are often the ones that are the hardest to see and talk about." And that may describe American politics at the moment. President Donald Trump has brought about a profound crisis that is undermining the nation’s democratic system, and it is so pervasive and encompassing that it is not being fully acknowledged. It is the water.
The crisis is not rooted in Trump’s advocacy of conservative policies—the Muslim ban, tax breaks for the wealthy, hollowing out the State Department, killing climate change action. Nor is it triggered by his rude and classless behavior, as he spends long hours watching cable news, consuming Diet Coke, and rushing to Twitter to attend to petty grievances, instead of working diligently to advance the interests of the citizenry. The country can survive bad policies and an immature and erratic commander in chief (unless, of course, his recklessness leads to nuclear war). What the United States faces this holiday season is an unparalleled, widespread, Trump-inspired assault on the principles, norms, and purpose of democratic governance.
Creeping authoritarianism, creeping autocracy, creeping kleptocracy—call it what you want. But the creep has turned into a sprint. The offenses to good government and fundamental values are happening each day, often several times a day—and in such a fusillade that there is often not enough time to ponder the horrendous implications of each one. And not enough space to consider the fundamental deterioration under way. Another aquatic metaphor: We are too busy being slammed by what’s coming out of the fire hose to see the water damage that is being done.
In recent days—like any set of recent days—the outrages have been many. During a phone call with Vladimir Putin, Trump, according to a White House “readout,” thanked the Russian leader “for acknowledging America’s strong economic performance in his annual press conference.” And they discussed working together to “resolve the very dangerous situation in North Korea.” Apparently they spoke not a word about Russia’s attack on the United States during the 2016 campaign. Which seems to be the pattern. Since Trump took office, there has not been a single sign he has pressed Putin regarding Moscow’s operation to subvert American democracy. And as a much-noticed Washington Post piece pointed out, Trump has throughout the last year adamantly refused to accept the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia engaged in information warfare to help him win the Presidency—and has taken no measures to prevent a rerun. So here we have an American President abdicating—out of pique—his most fundamental obligation: to protect the nation from foreign attack. And his party colleagues barely bat an eye at Trump’s negligence.
If a dogcatcher refused to catch dogs, he would be deemed unfit for the position. But Trump has abdicated the top responsibility of the commander in chief, and this does not scandalize the congressional majority. The Constitution awards power to the President so he can safeguard the nation. Trump uses this power to safeguard his own power.
Trump’s reckless disregard for norms and rules has been embraced by his champions and foot soldiers. Claiming to be a law-and-order sort of guy, he has viciously attacked law enforcement that might affect him and his cronies. Angered by the ongoing FBI investigation of the Trump-Russia scandal, he claimed the bureau is “in tatters." And Fox News, a for-profit state news organ, dutifully puts on air a conservative activist who compares the current FBI to the KGB and essentially calls for the entire bureau to be shut down. (About a year ago, Trump equated the US intelligence community with Nazi Germany.) Others, on and off Fox, cheer for Trump to become a strongman leader who readily dispatches his perceived enemies. Though Michael Flynn has pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, Trump’s minions still rally to the cry of “Lock Her Up” and demonstrate their belief that extremism in the name of defending Trump is no vice. It’s not just party over country; it’s Trump over party over country.
Trump and his comrades regularly assault the institutions of government that can impose a check on a President. Trump dismissed FBI chief James Comey in an attempt to protect himself. And Trump’s congressional allies in the past weeks have intensified their criticisms of special counsel Robert Mueller, devoting far more vitriol to his investigation than to Putin’s secret war on a US election. The same folks who were fine with over a dozen Benghazi inquiries now look to undermine a duly authorized probe—led by a Republican!—that threatens to reveal truths inconvenient for the President. And they are eager to shutter or distract the congressional investigations that are supposed to deliver to the public the truth about the 2016 campaign. These GOPers are joining Trump in embracing political power instead of principle and, like the President, making it easier for a foreign foe to assault the United States and then escape consequences. This is a violation of their oath of office, and they don’t care.
Meanwhile, special interests run amok on Capitol Hill, writing a tax bill that is jammed through Congress without true and serious deliberation. There is a recklessness driving this process that is encouraged by Trump. Debate, discourse, expertise—none of it matters. All that counts is raw power. There is no respect for orderly and thoughtful consideration. Citizen participation is of no significance. The rich win in this huge, bottom-to-top wealth transfer, as corporate lobbyists wield more influence than economic experts and members of the minority party. The tax bill will directly reward legislators pushing for it—and Trump and his family. (A reminder: Trump still has not followed a decades-old practice of Presidential candidates and Presidents releasing their tax returns.) And Ivanka Trump complains that the Democrats just don’t have the guts to join in the pillaging. This is absolute and raw class warfare. And as tax breaks are awarded to the well-heeled, the Children’s Health Insurance Program withers and millions of young Americans lose access to medical care. Arrogance is in the air. The driving message: We can do this…because we can.
There is much else going on that tears at the fabric of decent and honest government. Ethics guidelines are routinely and casually flouted by Trump officials (and relatives). The message is clear: rules are for others. Inexperienced people are placed in important jobs (and judgeships), and entire departments are hollowed out. Agencies are instructed to ignore science and facts—meaning, reality. The goal is obvious: diminish the reputation of government and its ability to serve the public. The swamp has grown deeper and wider.
If Trump tries to fire Mueller or orders a reckless attack on North Korea, it will be obvious that a crisis is at hand. But a (relatively) quiet crisis has taken hold: Trump and his comrades are seeking to empower themselves and supplanting national priorities with self-serving and self-enriching ones, while delegitimizing those components of government they cannot use for their own ends or that would check their own prerogatives. This corrosion is happening bit by bit every day—as the flashpoint outrages (that is, Trump’s tweets) come and go at hyper-speed and suck up our collective attention. David Foster Wallace’s fish may not be able to tell they are swimming within water. But if that water becomes polluted and depleted of oxygen, at some point they damn well will notice. Trump has poisoned the civic sphere of America, and this crisis will continue to deepen until his contagion is widely viewed as what it is: a threat to the nation.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week's news, including the decision by a federal appeals court to deny the Trump administration's request to reinstate an immigration ban, President Trump's comments attacking judges and the contentious battles in the Senate over Cabinet nominees.
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour): Now to the analysis of Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks, who joins us tonight from Chicago.
And we welcome both of you.
So, before we talk about the immigration — the president's immigration order, Mark, which the court, appeals court, rejected the administration argument on last night, we have a short clip of what President Trump has just said a little while ago on Air Force One as he was flying from Washington down to South Florida to Mar-a-Lago.
Reporters were asking him what he plans to do now.
Here's that clip.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: We will win that battle. But we also have a lot of other options, including just filing a brand-new order.
QUESTION: (OFF-MIKE)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP:Could very well be. But I like to keep you — I would like to surprise you. We need speed for reasons of security. So, it could very well be that we do.
JUDY WOODRUFF: So, Mark, he says, “I like to surprise you.”
How big a setback is this for the president?
MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:It's a significant setback, Judy, in large part because it was self-inflicted.
They made mistakes, including green card holders, which weakened their argument completely, and made them vulnerable to the court's decision. And it reflected, more than anything else, a sense of chaos and a sense of incompleteness and a sense of lack of thoughtfulness in the administration on an enormously serious issue.
JUDY WOODRUFF: David, how do you see it?
DAVID BROOKS, New York Times: Well, first, on that last clip of Trump on the plane, his staff is briefing reporters in somewhat of a chaotic manner in just the last few minutes. People are saying, oh, they are going to just take it to the Supreme Court, they're going to rewrite it.
And the two different briefings are contradicting each other. And that's something The Times reporters have been talking and tweeting about publicly, which is some of the White House staff is in a high state of misery because of the general lack of — chaos.
On the larger issue of the travel ban, our friend Charles Krauthammer of The Washington Post I think put it pretty well. I'm not sure it's illegal, but it's extremely stupid.
I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of judges overruling Presidents on national security matters. Nonetheless, so whether it's unconstitutional or not, I leave to others. But it certainly has sucked the wind out of two or three weeks of this administration for no good reason.
There has never been evidence that people from these countries are disproportionately likely to commit terrorist acts. We have sent chaos to the airports. We have offended the world. We have derailed the administration. We have done it in such an incompetent way, the administration has, that people with perfectly legal residence have been widely inconvenienced.
And so it's just been a screw-up from beginning to end, and so it's just been a running derailment.
I am Retired U.S. Navy (22yrs) and a Vietnam Veteran. After my Navy retirement I was in the computer related industry, now retired. In 2000 I was a registered Republican and voted for George W. Bush. Six months of having Bush in the Whitehouse forced me to re-evaluate my political stance. I had always thought of myself as a Moderate Republican, but was a Republican by "default" NOT because of close examination of the GOP. Due to what has happened in America since 2000, I now consider myself a progressive, and registered as a Non-Affiliated voter.
*Anti-First Amendment policies that attempt to turn America into a theocracy by enshrining ANY religious belief as law.
* Any attempt to suppress human or Constitutional rights.
* Any law or policy that supports discrimination based on religion, ethnicity, race/color, gender, sexual orientation, or any law that does NOT support Equal Treatment under the law.
*Any law or policy that attempts to suppress Freedom of the Press or Free Speech.
LINK DISCLAIMER:
There is no guarantee that any link provided in this blog will always work, especially for older links. The validity of any link is governed by the source-site policies. Some sites will archive articles and require subscription to access. Very small sites, such as a local town newspaper, may not archive at all.
