Sound The TRUMPets! A Thread for Presidential Pondering 2016-2020(?)

[SimonNZ]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fit+definition

Obviously I want to know what *you* see as his fitness for office in the face of manifest ignorance and incompetence and corruption and mendacity.

[SimonNZ]

quoting in full:

Trump's emergency declaration is unconstitutional – ask his lawyers

"A shutdown averted, a constitutional crisis born. On Friday, Donald Trump declared a national emergency to gain additional funds for his much promised border wall, bypassing Congress and raiding the Pentagon for $3.6bn, already a legally dubious proposition in the eyes of the justice department. So much for Mexico paying.

Once upon a time, Trump and his legal minions brayed against unilateral executive actions, calling them tyrannical. Not any more. Barack Obama is out of the White House. Hail Caesar, hello his praetorian.

Take Jay Sekulow, Trump's personal lawyer. In April 2016, in a brief to the supreme court attacking Obama's unilateral expansion of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) program, Sekulow painted Obama as a despot.

Echoing James Madison, founding father and fourth president, Sekulow thundered that the "accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands ... may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny". He also compared Obama and his executive order to Harry Truman's unconstitutional seizure of America's steel mills during the Korean war.

According to Sekulow, Truman "violated controlling precedent and abdicated [his] constitutional duty to faithfully execute the law".

In other words, by expanding Daca without a congressional green light, Obama had committed an impeachable offense.

There is also Noel Francisco, now Trump's solicitor general, the man charged with representing the government before the supreme court. In the Obama years, as a private litigator, he successfully contended that the president could not thwart the Senate's power to approve presidential nominations by resorting to the "recess appointment" process when Congress was actually in session.

"As much as presidents may desire an escape-hatch from Senate confirmation, the constitution does not provide one", Francisco wrote. Channeling his inner Cicero, he added that the separation of powers between the president and Congress "protects against the abuse of power" that "is critical to preserving liberty".

Completing this tableau, Sekulow and his client, then House speaker John Boehner, sided with Francisco. As for Senator Mitch McConnell and 44 of his Republican colleagues, they accused Obama of seeking to "usurp" their powers.

Apparently, McConnell has since found the 30 pieces of silver that were just right for him. On Thursday, the Senate majority leader threw his weight behind the president, announcing on the floor: "I'm going to support the national emergency declaration."

Earlier this month, McConnell voiced his opposition to Trump invoking emergency powers. Time flies.

Make no mistake, Republican politicians have embraced Trump as strongman-lite. In a 2016 radio broadcast Paul LePage, then governor of Maine, treated Trump's authoritarian streak as a plus. "Our constitution is not only broken," LePage declared, "but we need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country."

Disturbing but not surprising. From the outset, Trump's core backers wanted a wall and a socially conservative president who felt no need to play by the rules. Except for the second amendment, everything was on the table.

Tea Party patriots decked out in tricorn hats and waving copies of the constitution – over and done with. In the words of Joe Sitt, an early Trump backer and a major player in New York real estate: "We don't have a president, we have a king."

Other Trump backers are less muted. Franklin Graham, the late Rev Billy Graham's son, threatened Americans with God's wrath if they had the temerity to criticize the president. Sarah Sanders, the president's press secretary, gushed: "God wanted Donald Trump to become president." That begs so many questions.

Predictably, too, there is a Trump tweet. In 2014, when Obama was going rogue on the constitution and immigration, Trump tweeted: "Repubs must not allow Pres Obama to subvert the Constitution of the US for his own benefit & because he is unable to negotiate w/ Congress." Yes, Trump got that one right.

He also told his favourite TV show, Fox & Friends, that Obama's action was unconstitutional and impeachable.

Like McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, the house minority leader, Mark Meadows, head of the Freedom Caucus, and Senator Lindsey Graham have fallen into line. Other Republicans, however, are less sanguine about Trump running roughshod over the constitution and Congress' power over the purse.

Senator Marco Rubio found his inner straddle, saying: "We have a crisis at our southern border, but no crisis justifies violating the constitution ... a future president may use this exact same tactic to impose the Green New Deal."

In a burst of predictable handwringing, Senator Susan Collins characterized Trump's emergency declaration as being of "dubious constitutionality. It undermines the role of Congress."

Trump and his lawyers should expect to see their own words thrown back at them. As the president himself acknowledged on Friday: "I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do it much faster."

Some emergency.

[JBS]

Is there any definition of "fit" to which he qualifies apart from "has active motor functions"?

Trump meets the barebones qualifications of the Constitution, and it is up to the voters to decide all other matters regarding his fitness.  In 2016, under US law, they decided he was. In 2020 they will be asked to reconsider the question, and the related question whether the Democratic candidate (whomever that may be) is fit.

The 25th Amendment does not raise the issue. It is premised on the ability/inability of the President to discharge the duties of his office. If the Cabinet declares him unable, the VP becomes Acting President. If the POTUS disagrees, a dance of dueling declarations begins, the winner to be decided by vote of both houses of congress. It would require 2/3rds of each chamber to vote against the President to keep him out of power.

In the current circumstances it would need 1/3 to 1/2 of all Republican in both House and Senate to vote against Trump. Such a vote would effectively end their political careers. So it won't happen. And some Democrats like Manchin might also vote for Trump.
Any clear evidence of Trump's malfeasance that Mueller might find will be kept from the public because of the process the law mandates for such reports...Bob Barr would need to approve whatever is made public...
So impeachment won't happen either. Or if it does, Trump won't be convicted and therefore would emerge in a better position than he is now, rather like Clinton. Hopefully the lesson of Clinton's impeachment will be remembered in time by the Democrats.

Unless Trump suffers a catastrophic health issue such as a stroke,  he will remain President through Jan 20, 2021. If you don't want him as POTUS work to get the Democratic Party to nominate a moderate who will push back against the Ocasio-Cortez types and be appeal to the very larhe number of people who do not like Trump but like the current Leftist trend in the Democratic Party even less.

[Todd]

Trump meets the barebones qualifications of the Constitution, and it is up to the voters to decide all other matters regarding his fitness.  In 2016, under US law, they decided he was. In 2020 they will be asked to reconsider the question, and the related question whether the Democratic candidate (whomever that may be) is fit.

The 25th Amendment does not raise the issue. It is premised on the ability/inability of the President to discharge the duties of his office. If the Cabinet declares him unable, the VP becomes Acting President. If the POTUS disagrees, a dance of dueling declarations begins, the winner to be decided by vote of both houses of congress. It would require 2/3rds of each chamber to vote against the President to keep him out of power.

In the current circumstances it would need 1/3 to 1/2 of all Republican in both House and Senate to vote against Trump. Such a vote would effectively end their political careers. So it won't happen. And some Democrats like Manchin might also vote for Trump.
Any clear evidence of Trump's malfeasance that Mueller might find will be kept from the public because of the process the law mandates for such reports...Bob Barr would need to approve whatever is made public...
So impeachment won't happen either. Or if it does, Trump won't be convicted and therefore would emerge in a better position than he is now, rather like Clinton. Hopefully the lesson of Clinton's impeachment will be remembered in time by the Democrats.

Unless Trump suffers a catastrophic health issue such as a stroke,  he will remain President through Jan 20, 2021. If you don't want him as POTUS work to get the Democratic Party to nominate a moderate who will push back against the Ocasio-Cortez types and be appeal to the very larhe number of people who do not like Trump but like the current Leftist trend in the Democratic Party even less.

Stop living in the real world.

[drogulus]

If the Cabinet declares him unable, the VP becomes Acting President. If the POTUS disagrees, a dance of dueling declarations begins, the winner to be decided by vote of both houses of congress

     Yeah, what I said. I also remember saying I didn't think the kakistocrats that Trump surrounded himself with would find Trump unfit. His total unfitness matters not to them.

     Each day that goes by more of what Mueller might report is already reported through court filings, indictments, convictions and guilty pleas, with more to come. Mueller doesn't have to recommend the action that will be taken. Congress will retrace any steps it needs to take. Who care what Mueller thinks should be done? His role is to do what's his responsibility to do, which he's doing.

[SimonNZ]

I was expecting someone to say that Trump is fit for office because voters voted for him - though I expected it to be Todd.

But no. I think they voted in someone who was unfit for office. Some *because* he was unfit for office

[Todd]

Yeah, what I said.

Your TDS is affecting your short-term memory.

I was expecting someone to say that Trump is fit for office because voters voted for him - though I expected it to be Todd.

But no. I think they voted in someone who was unfit for office. Some *because* he was unfit for office

The word "fit" has no widely accepted definition, and certainly no legal meaning, as it pertains to the president.  It therefore means nothing.  People use it in a purely ideological way in political discourse.

[SimonNZ]

JBS - how would you see your ideal den campaigning on healthcare?

[SimonNZ]

Your TDS is affecting your short-term memory.



The word "fit" has no widely accepted definition, and certainly no legal meaning, as it pertains to the president.  It therefore means nothing.  People use it in a purely ideological way in political discourse.

No. As above I use unfit to refer to ignorance incompetence corruption and mendacity. Which is true of any ideology.

[JBS]

     Yeah, what I said. I also remember saying I didn't think the kakistocrats that Trump surrounded himself with wouldn't find Trump unfit. His total unfitness matters not to them.

Yes, I noticed that even if Todd didn't.

     Each day that goes by more of what Mueller might report is already reported through court filings, indictments, convictions and guilty pleas, with more to come. Mueller doesn't have to recommend the action that will be taken. Congress will retrace any steps it needs to take. Who care what Mueller thinks should be done? His role is to do what's his responsibility to do, which he's doing.

The point is that unless evidence emerges that clearly and undeniably shows Trump guilty of some crime...evidence so clear and undeniable that only the most hardcore of Trumpkins will deny it...the GOP will defend Trump to the last vote, and imoeachment won't work. And I doubt such evidence will come to light, ever: Javanka, DonJr and Eric are never going to turn on Daddy. Jared might, but only if he is interested in divorcing Ivanka.

There probably is such evidence, in Russia. Under Putin's control and therefore will become public only when Putin decides it is to his advantage to do so, and only in a manner which will not allow it to be clear and undeniable.

[Todd]

No. As above I use unfit to refer to ignorance incompetence corruption and mendacity. Which is true of any ideology.

Your definition is not universally accepted.  Your definition may be widely accepted, and is likely widely accepted by people sharing your ideological inclination.  Your definition is irrelevant from a legal perspective.  It means nothing.

[Todd]

There probably is such evidence, in Russia.

What kind of probability are we talking here? 

[JBS]

JBS - how would you see your ideal den campaigning on healthcare?

Medicare for All is not very radical. Probably the most politically feasible form is a limited version in which the government provides insurance for anyone who can not get it through their work.

Where the Leftist program is going too far is in other areas

1)The Green New Deal is based on the idea that in the name of climate change, government regulation needs to be more intrusive and more centrally planned, and with more taxes. Half the US electorate thinks we already have too much. As a sort of libertarian, I am one of them.
Plus it tries to smuggle in a bunch of social justice goals that have nothing to do with the environment.  Which leads to
2)The current social justice crusade for total purity, currently on display in Virginia, is a circular firing squad. And it persuades people that the Right is correct about the social justice movement...that it is really just a pretext to impose an ideology. I want rapists prosecuted, bigots kept out of office, homophobes not allowed to keep gay people from their rights. But the current movement goes well beyond that.
3) Finally being Jewish, Israel is important to me.  I don't like settlements, and a good deal else about the current Israeli situation (not all of it directly linked to the Palestinians...the status of the Rabbinate is a big one), and I don't like Trump's embrace of Netanyahu.  I think the US should fulfill its role as truly neutral friend to everyone (which it never quite managed except perhaps in the days of Bush 41), but the Left's embrace of Palestinian terrorism and maximalism is directly dangerous to me and worse than Trump's embrace of Netanyahu.

[JBS]

What kind of probability are we talking here?

I suspect quite high. But I am safe in saying so since, as I outlined before, it's under Putin's control. Maybe in 2079 we will find out the truth.  I would be 120 years old then....

[Todd]

it's under Putin's control.

Putin is no spring chicken.  I'd say it's a safe bet he doesn't live thirty more years.  The awful truth could be known by mid-century, or earlier.  Hopefully, there's more than some possible shady real estate deals that went sideways for all the hubbub and Russophobia of the last couple years. 

[JBS]

Putin is no spring chicken.  I'd say it's a safe bet he doesn't live thirty more years.  The awful truth could be known by mid-century, or earlier.  Hopefully, there's more than some possible shady real estate deals that went sideways for all the hubbub and Russophobia of the last couple years.

He's 66.  But whomever succeeds him will have similar goals and intentions, and similar attitude to releasing info.

[Todd]

He's 66.  But whomever succeeds him will have similar goals and intentions, and similar attitude to releasing info.

Perhaps.  I'd never trust a Russian leader, any more than I'd trust a German leader or a French leader, etc, but by switching from Pootie Poot to a generic Russian leader and claiming the same continuous malevolent machinations, the tenor of the idea turns a bit conspiratorial.  Russians are the best bad guys, to be sure.  A century plus now for the US, longer for some Yurpeans.  The Chinese have a long way to go.

[JBS]

Perhaps.  I'd never trust a Russian leader, any more than I'd trust a German leader or a French leader, etc, but by switching from Pootie Poot to a generic Russian leader and claiming the same continuous malevolent machinations, the tenor of the idea turns a bit conspiratorial.  Russians are the best bad guys, to be sure.  A century plus now for the US, longer for some Yurpeans.  The Chinese have a long way to go.

All four of my grandparents were born subjects of Aleksandr III, Tsar of All the Russias,  or his son Nikolai II etc.  So experience of Russia mendacity, brutality, and general unpleasantness probably goes back to the 18th century. 

[Todd]

All four of my grandparents were born subjects of Aleksandr III, Tsar of All the Russias,  or his son Nikolai II etc.  So experience of Russia mendacity, brutality, and general unpleasantness probably goes back to the 18th century.

And all of my paternal great-grandparents fled Finland during the Russification of Finland.  So what?

[JBS]

And all of my paternal great-grandparents fled Finland during the Russification of Finland.  So what?

It means you can lecture 71db on Finnish politics....