A FELON IN THE WHITE HOUSE WOULD TEST THE AMERICAN SYSTEM
There has been a a noticeable change at the New York Times since last Thursday night. One hopes they will stick with it.
This is by Peter Baker:
The revolutionary hero Patrick Henry knew this day would come. He might not have anticipated all the particulars, such as the porn actress in the hotel room and the illicit payoff to keep her quiet. But he feared that eventually a criminal might occupy the presidency and use his powers to thwart anyone who sought to hold him accountable. “Away with your president,” he declared, “we shall have a king.”
That was exactly what the founders sought to avoid, having thrown off the yoke of an all-powerful monarch. But as hard as they worked to establish checks and balances, the system they constructed to hold wayward presidents accountable ultimately has proved to be unsteady.
Whatever rules Americans thought were in place are now being rewritten by Donald J. Trump, the once and perhaps future president who has already shattered many barriers and precedents. The notion that 34 felonies is not automatically disqualifying and a convicted criminal can be a viable candidate for commander in chief upends two and a half centuries of assumptions about American democracy.
And it raises fundamental questions about the limits of power in a second term, should Mr. Trump be returned to office. If he wins, it means he will have survived two impeachments, four criminal indictments, civil judgments for sexual abuse and business fraud, and a felony conviction. Given that, it would be hard to imagine what institutional deterrents could discourage abuses or excesses.
Moreover, the judiciary may not be the check on the executive branch that it has been in the past. If no other cases go to trial before the election, it could be another four years before the courts could even consider whether the newly elected president jeopardized national security or illegally sought to overturn the 2020 election, as he has been charged with doing. As it is, even before the election, the Supreme Court may grant Mr. Trump at least some measure of immunity.
Mr. Trump would still have to operate within the constitutional system, analysts point out, but he has already shown a willingness to push its boundaries. When he was president, he claimed that the Constitution gave him “the right to do whatever I want.” After leaving office, he advocated “termination” of the Constitution to allow him to return to power right away without another election and vowed to dedicate a second term to “retribution.”
His advisers are already mapping out an extensive plan to increase his power in a second term by clearing out the civil service to install more political appointees. Mr. Trump has threatened to prosecute not only President Biden but others that he considers to be his enemies. In seeking immunity from the Supreme Court, Mr. Trump’s lawyers even embraced the argument that there are circumstances when a president could order the assassination of a political rival without criminal jeopardy.
“There is no useful historical precedent whatsoever,” said Jeffrey A. Engel, the director of the Center for Presidential History at Southern Methodist University. “The interesting matter is not that a former president has been tried and convicted, as the founders might well have anticipated, but that he remains a viable candidate for office, which they would have found astounding and ultimately disheartening.”
The question of how to create an empowered executive without making him an unaccountable monarch absorbed the framers when they designed the Constitution. They divided power among three branches of government and envisioned impeachment as a check on a rogue president. They even explicitly made clear that an impeached president could still be prosecuted for crimes after being removed from office.
But even then, there were voices worried that the limits were not enough. Among them was Henry, the patriot famed for his “give me liberty or give me death” speech. At the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution in 1788, he warned of the possibility of “absolute despotism.”
“His point is that if such a criminal president comes to power, that president will realize there are few mechanisms to stop him,” said Corey L. Brettschneider, a Brown University professor who writes about Henry in his forthcoming book, “The Presidents and the People: Five Leaders Who Threatened Democracy and the Citizens Who Fought to Defend It.” “He goes so far as to claim that such a president will claim the throne of a monarch.”
“My argument,” Mr. Brettschneider added, “is that this warning is even more true now given the possible immunity of a sitting president from indictment and the powerlessness that we have seen after two attempted impeachments.”
The paid subscribers support the work of That’s Another Fine Mess. It’s cheap! Only $7/month or $70/year (saving $14)
Comments are for paid subscribers.
Yes, Tom this is the crux of the matter. So many things have gone wrong.
My grandson (aged 40) blames the mess on Mitch McConnell whom he says has so much power the Democrats could do nothing. While I agree, the Senate Majority leader has too much power - as does the Speaker of the House - and that is by rules, it is not in the Constitution; that did not prevent the Democrats from protesting the appointment of all those judges Supreme and Inferior Courts, who obviously do not believe in the rule of law as written.
Had the Dems paid any attention they could have protested loudly before 2015. They could have gone to the media who, until 2020 were relatively honest, unlike today.
So now we have both a Supreme and Inferior court system with judges who refuse to uphold the Constitution. Who replace both Constitutional and common law with their personal religious beliefs. The Senate is especially guilty since they are the only body that can approve the appointment of judges.
We, the people must take matters in our own hands and tell our legislators in both houses that if they wish to stay in power they'd better damned well, get rid of the filibuster, the ability of ONE person to determine what legislation if any is sent to committee. They must all, both parties and independents agree to WORK a minimum, 100 days per year - not counting travel days, As it is today most of them work at most 3 days a week, when they aren't off fi9shing or playing. (Mondays they travel to DC - Fridays they travel home)
When I was working, traveling the East Coast and midwest, I flew to my desitination on Sunday and returned after noon on Friday - I needed Saturday for laundry an repacking as well as business regarding my home. I was 73 when I started traveling and almost 88 when I retired, if I could do it, so could they,
At times like these, the warnings of visionary figures like Patrick Henry do take on renewed relevance. Have we reached a crisis point where the checks meant to constrain a lawless executive are no longer sufficient? Will we see further erosion of constitutional limits and democratic traditions? It's a moment that calls for deep reflection on how we preserve the rule of law, democratic institutions and the integrity of our system of government. The stakes could not be higher. I’m beginning to see no way forward.