President Trump Debuted Two New Assaults on the Constitution in Two Days
Traditionally, in a republic, the chief executive cannot erase clauses from the nation's foundational legal text because he does not like them.
By Jack Holmes
Oct 22, 2019
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a295469...amp;src=nl
It seems like a pretty elemental problem that the President of the United States is trying to simply erase clauses of the Constitution. This isn't a particularly new development in the tenure of Donald Trump, American president.
I'm old enough to remember when El Jefe sought funding from Congress for his Big, Beautiful Wall—and then, when the ask was rejected, declared a phony "national emergency" so he could seize the money. This was a subversion of the power of the purse granted to the legislature under Article I of the United States Constitution, the most essential duty of that branch of our government and a core part of the separation of powers. If the president can take money for whatever he wants, he can do whatever he wants. Forget checks and balances.
But this week, we've seen yet another anti-Constitutional escalation. It all kicked off Monday with another absurdist gathering of the president's Cabinet. This meeting was purportedly supposed to focus on the supposed benefits of the president's manic deregulatory program, but of course devolved into a 90-minute fiasco where he ranted about his many grievances and his apparatchiks praised his divine grace.
At one point, his own personal Ninety-five Theses came around to criticism of his self-dealing in office, which of course culminated in his attempt to hold next year's G7 at his Miami Doral property. The president is blatantly monetizing his office after engaging in a sham divestment from his private business.
American taxpayers have already spent more than $100 million on his golf outings, nearly 100 percent of which occurred at his properties—meaning the money went to his companies. He has a sprawling web of foreign business connections which call into question whether any foreign policy decision he makes is in the public interest or his own.
Various groups, including foreign actors, are spending big money at his hotels—including, sometimes, by renting out large blocks of rooms only for no one to actually stay in them. They're paying him, but not to stay in his hotel. So what are they paying him for?
Anyway, all this has many observers fairly confident the president is in violation of the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from accepting payments from any foreign state while in office. But yesterday, Trump had a solution.
... trump just called the emoluments clause “phony.”
another way to say that is the president of the united states just called part of the constitution phony.pic.twitter.com/WJkO0nEJkG
— fake nick ramsey (@nick_ramsey) October 21, 2019
It's unclear how the event would have been "free." On the other hand, it is very clear that the trusts the president placed his businesses in did not clear up his conflicts of interest.
(His are revocable and non-blind, so he'll eventually take back the holdings.)
Further, it's absurd to believe his family is running his businesses with complete independence, not least because his genius sons have admitted they keep him updated.
(So he knows who's adding to the holdings he'll eventually take back.)
George Washington did maintain his business at Mount Vernon while in office, but the comparison is silly. A more recent one is Jimmy Carter, who jettisoned his peanut farm on entering the White House to prevent conflicts. But did you notice that Trump said he's not running his business, then said he could be running his business? This is a classic Trumpian two-step: deny wrongdoing, then deny the wrongdoing is wrongdoing. It's almost like there might be wrongdoing.
There was then the mandatory Obama reference (both his book and Netflix deals came after he left office), but it was all a prelude to this:
“I don’t think you people, with this phony emoluments clause—and by the way, I would say that it’s cost me anywhere from $2 billion to $5 billion to be president—and that’s okay—between what I lose and what I could have made.”
It doesn't matter how much money the president has or hasn't made, though there is no way he has anywhere close to $5 billion to lose. But the real heart of the matter is when he simply sweeps away a clause of the Constitution. Anything that is inconvenient—negative press coverage, parts of our nation's foundational legal text—is dismissed as Fake. Anything that helps him is Real. That's all there is to it.
Not content with that piece of constitutional erasure, however, the president debuted a new one this Tuesday morning.
So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching. But we will WIN!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2019
Imagine the almighty persecution complex you would need to have constructed around yourself to, as the world's most powerful man, suggest you are going to be "lynched." This is a disgraceful assault on the memory of people who actually have been extrajudicially executed by (white) mobs through the dark moments in our national past, but it's also functionally absurd.
Impeachment is a process laid out in the Constitution—again, our nation's foundational legal text—to remove an executive who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors or otherwise violated their oath of office. We are currently engaged in the grand jury-equivalent stage of this process, where the House of Representatives gathers evidence surrounding the president's malfeasance.
If and when they vote to impeach, the trial will be held in the Senate, at which point the president will get the due process he claims to want. But based on the fact he is trying to strip the process of its legitimacy, it doesn't look like he wants due process. He wants to end the process before it can proceed as laid out in the Constitution.
In that sense, it is once again the president who has introduced lawlessness to our politics, weaponizing resentment and paranoia to try to disrupt the mechanisms of our democracy.
He will continue to do so, by destructive and escalating means, as long as he continues to hold the power of the presidency. Any aspect of objective reality can be dismissed, and anything can be made real through force of repetition. And all the while, the foundations of our republic will continue to erode.
Traditionally, in a republic, the chief executive cannot erase clauses from the nation's foundational legal text because he does not like them.
By Jack Holmes
Oct 22, 2019
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a295469...amp;src=nl
It seems like a pretty elemental problem that the President of the United States is trying to simply erase clauses of the Constitution. This isn't a particularly new development in the tenure of Donald Trump, American president.
I'm old enough to remember when El Jefe sought funding from Congress for his Big, Beautiful Wall—and then, when the ask was rejected, declared a phony "national emergency" so he could seize the money. This was a subversion of the power of the purse granted to the legislature under Article I of the United States Constitution, the most essential duty of that branch of our government and a core part of the separation of powers. If the president can take money for whatever he wants, he can do whatever he wants. Forget checks and balances.
But this week, we've seen yet another anti-Constitutional escalation. It all kicked off Monday with another absurdist gathering of the president's Cabinet. This meeting was purportedly supposed to focus on the supposed benefits of the president's manic deregulatory program, but of course devolved into a 90-minute fiasco where he ranted about his many grievances and his apparatchiks praised his divine grace.
At one point, his own personal Ninety-five Theses came around to criticism of his self-dealing in office, which of course culminated in his attempt to hold next year's G7 at his Miami Doral property. The president is blatantly monetizing his office after engaging in a sham divestment from his private business.
American taxpayers have already spent more than $100 million on his golf outings, nearly 100 percent of which occurred at his properties—meaning the money went to his companies. He has a sprawling web of foreign business connections which call into question whether any foreign policy decision he makes is in the public interest or his own.
Various groups, including foreign actors, are spending big money at his hotels—including, sometimes, by renting out large blocks of rooms only for no one to actually stay in them. They're paying him, but not to stay in his hotel. So what are they paying him for?
Anyway, all this has many observers fairly confident the president is in violation of the Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the president from accepting payments from any foreign state while in office. But yesterday, Trump had a solution.
... trump just called the emoluments clause “phony.”
another way to say that is the president of the united states just called part of the constitution phony.pic.twitter.com/WJkO0nEJkG
— fake nick ramsey (@nick_ramsey) October 21, 2019
It's unclear how the event would have been "free." On the other hand, it is very clear that the trusts the president placed his businesses in did not clear up his conflicts of interest.
(His are revocable and non-blind, so he'll eventually take back the holdings.)
Further, it's absurd to believe his family is running his businesses with complete independence, not least because his genius sons have admitted they keep him updated.
(So he knows who's adding to the holdings he'll eventually take back.)
George Washington did maintain his business at Mount Vernon while in office, but the comparison is silly. A more recent one is Jimmy Carter, who jettisoned his peanut farm on entering the White House to prevent conflicts. But did you notice that Trump said he's not running his business, then said he could be running his business? This is a classic Trumpian two-step: deny wrongdoing, then deny the wrongdoing is wrongdoing. It's almost like there might be wrongdoing.
There was then the mandatory Obama reference (both his book and Netflix deals came after he left office), but it was all a prelude to this:
“I don’t think you people, with this phony emoluments clause—and by the way, I would say that it’s cost me anywhere from $2 billion to $5 billion to be president—and that’s okay—between what I lose and what I could have made.”
It doesn't matter how much money the president has or hasn't made, though there is no way he has anywhere close to $5 billion to lose. But the real heart of the matter is when he simply sweeps away a clause of the Constitution. Anything that is inconvenient—negative press coverage, parts of our nation's foundational legal text—is dismissed as Fake. Anything that helps him is Real. That's all there is to it.
Not content with that piece of constitutional erasure, however, the president debuted a new one this Tuesday morning.
So some day, if a Democrat becomes President and the Republicans win the House, even by a tiny margin, they can impeach the President, without due process or fairness or any legal rights. All Republicans must remember what they are witnessing here - a lynching. But we will WIN!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 22, 2019
Imagine the almighty persecution complex you would need to have constructed around yourself to, as the world's most powerful man, suggest you are going to be "lynched." This is a disgraceful assault on the memory of people who actually have been extrajudicially executed by (white) mobs through the dark moments in our national past, but it's also functionally absurd.
Impeachment is a process laid out in the Constitution—again, our nation's foundational legal text—to remove an executive who has committed high crimes and misdemeanors or otherwise violated their oath of office. We are currently engaged in the grand jury-equivalent stage of this process, where the House of Representatives gathers evidence surrounding the president's malfeasance.
If and when they vote to impeach, the trial will be held in the Senate, at which point the president will get the due process he claims to want. But based on the fact he is trying to strip the process of its legitimacy, it doesn't look like he wants due process. He wants to end the process before it can proceed as laid out in the Constitution.
In that sense, it is once again the president who has introduced lawlessness to our politics, weaponizing resentment and paranoia to try to disrupt the mechanisms of our democracy.
He will continue to do so, by destructive and escalating means, as long as he continues to hold the power of the presidency. Any aspect of objective reality can be dismissed, and anything can be made real through force of repetition. And all the while, the foundations of our republic will continue to erode.
