Meeting of the Minds, May 8,2017

   At our May 8 meeting, the shadow of Donald Trump hung over our democracy like a shroud.  That Trump is a threat to our democratic institutions clearly troubled the Wise Guys, and gave rise to a number of questions, all of which were addressed during the meeting.  Issues such as the meaning of executive power, the value of real knowledge, and the policy implications of executive privilege were discussed at length.

   It was realized that Trump has a casual relationship with the truth. It is not clear whether he is telling lies, is ignorant or is actually delusional. In any case, his statements appear to be akin to propaganda. His lack of awareness of the limits of presidential power raises the question as to whether he is a legitimate head of government. Jeff questioned as to who is actually in charge of our government. This led to a discussion of the role of separation of powers and how this affects the Trump administration. Earl mentioned Wayne Morse as the sole legislator to oppose the Viet Nam war, a plea for genuine leadership in our perilous time.  Ultimately the question was raised as to how to rid us of Trump in a constitutional manner.

   All these questions were dealt in some fashion with the master’s thesis of Bob Campbell. Bob introduced this document at the start of the session. His thesis dealt with the role of the executive and the role of executive privilege. These issues, which are normally difficult to comprehend, were presented in a clear fashion, accessible to all interested individuals.

   Bob began the 2^nd chapter of his thesis with a discussion of the powers of the executive provided by the Constitution.  He noted that Article II opens with the statement, “the executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States. ” The meaning of these words is that the executive power shall not be shared with others, but should be reserved only for the individual charged as the chief executive. He stated further that the President is charged with the duty and responsibility to see that that the laws be faithfully executed.  Bob admitted that this wording is somewhat ambiguous, and problems arise as to what powers are inferable from that duty. Bob explained the role the executive plays in carrying out those duties. Those favoring a more active role will see it differently from those who are more passive. He thus compared Theodore Roosevelt, to Howard Taft.  Roosevelt favored a stewardship relationship, wherein the power of the president is limited only by specific restrictions imposed by the constitution. Taft, on the other hand, believed that the executive can no exert no power that is not be traced to or implied in the constitution. Roosevelt is associated with the Progressive Movement, which promoted a powerful central government.

   Bob then discussed in a competent fashion how separation of powers prevents the chief executive from seeking and gaining dictatorial powers.  The separation of powers is a complicated issue and requires further comment. Separation of powers encompasses a variety of reciprocal interactions between the divisions of government. The President can initiate laws by requesting congressional representatives to introduce these proposals as laws, and yet the President can veto laws, which can in turn be overturned by Congress. Similarly the judicial branch can declare presidential actions as non-constitutional, but the president does have the power to appoint judges, whose views correspond to his own.

    Bob then went on to discuss executive privilege wherein the executive can withhold information if he considers that its disclosure would be harmful. This concept is open to interpretation and might be used to excuse Trump’s misuse of information

 

   Trump clearly suffers from a severe character disorder characterized by sociopathy and extreme narcissism His delusional thinking raises the issue of psychosis. The most disturbing question is whether our destiny is tied to that of Trump. Heraclitus reminds us “character is destiny”. Let us not follow Donald Trump into this dark night. Let us remember that there are constitutional ways to replace a president. We can simply await the next election and fail to vote for him. Alternatively, the Constitution provides for removal of the president either through the mechanism of impeachment or alternatively through resort to the 25^th amendment. According to the impeachment clause: The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
(U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4)

According to the 25^th amendment: “Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.”

(U.S. Constitution, Amendment 25,Article II)

Let us hope that one of these remedies can serve to rescue us from the Trump grip.

Posted by Arthur Banner

Tomahawk Missiles

David A. Leuthold is a Wise Guy rancher from Montana, professing at Univ. of Missouri these past 50 years with specialties in political campaigns & public opinion analysis. Below is an excerpt from  a weekly lecture  offered to citizens in Columbia, Missouri concerned with public policy.

April 10, 2017 Osher Lecture-David A. Leuthold

What is it with U.S. Presidents and Cruise missile strikes?

            

            I bet you weren’t surprised to have another week of the Trump saga.   As in previous weeks, the attention is almost entirely on Donald Trump, the key figure in policy making, and the overwhelming subject of all publicity.   Almost every online news story carries a picture of Trump, Trump on the White House grounds, Trump addressing some group, Trump participating in some meeting, Trump signing some proclamation or order.   Trump even draws you here on a sunny spring afternoon—I know, we are all trying to figure out “what hath we wrought?”

Air Strike in Syria

            One big event this week was Trump sending Tomahawk missiles to strike a Syrian air base, thereby showing he was not a wimp like Obama who in the same situation delayed action and eventually settled for an agreement to remove all gas weapons from Syria.  Secretary of State John Kerry had claimed at that time “We struck a deal where we got 100 percent of the chemical weapons out.”   PolitiFact was forced to revisit and revise its assessment of Kerry’s claims, saying “We don’t know key details about the reported chemical attack in Syria on April 4, 2017, but it raises two clear possibilities: Either Syria never fully complied with its 2013 promise to reveal all of its chemical weapons; or it did, but then converted otherwise non-lethal chemicals to military uses.”.

             On the other hand, Russia's defense ministry said on Wednesday that the poisonous gas contamination was the result of gas leaking from a rebel chemical weapons depot after it was hit by Syrian government air strikes.    The Russians claimed that the chemicals had been used by rebels in Aleppo last year, saying, "The poisoning symptoms of the victims … shown on videos in social networks are the same as they were in autumn of the previous year in Aleppo."

That raises an interesting question—are you more likely to believe President Trump or the Russian defense ministry?  What a choice?

The Tomahawk missiles cost about $1 million each, and 59 of them were fired.   Tomahawks were first used during the Gulf War of 1991.     The missiles were last used in October to strike targets in Yemen after attacks on U.S. Navy ships.   The value of the Tomahawk comes from their long range, their precision, and the fact that they don’t require putting a pilot in hostile airspace.

Nation magazine had an interesting article, titled What is it with U.S. Presidents and Tomahawk-Cruise missile strikes?   The article reminds us that Bill Clinton lobbed missiles at Iraq in 1993, in retaliation for a purported assassination attempt against George H. W. Bush.  In 1998, Clinton lobbed missiles on an Al Qaeda meeting in Afghanistan and on a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan in retaliation to attacks on U.S. embassies.    President George W. Bush began his war on Iraq with a cruise missile “decapitation” strike against Saddam Hussein in 2003.   President Barack Obama began his air assault on the Islamic State group in eastern Syria in 2014 with 47 Tomahawk missiles.  In most of these cases, the intelligence was bad and the missile strikes were ineffective militarily, but they may have been helpful in boosting the President’s approval rating at home, or distracting attention from other problems, such as the Monica Lewinsky affair.

A letter from John to the Wise Guys about the "Mother of all Bombs"

Earl introduced a NYT article about the “mother of all bombs” that reignited his dismay over American values in peace and war: “Mother of All Bombs”. I recalled the term used by Saddam Hussein back in the days when Colin Powell was designing our wars. Ladd dug up a reference to that introduction into our English common phraseology. Remember how cautious General Powell and his boss were before even firing a shot?  What a change in GOP attitude since Mr. Trump’s win!

I feel Earl is correct to be dismayed. My personal dismay extends back to the world’s first industrial war, our own Civil War designed by weapons of choice to mow down infantry & cavalry with enormous carnage. In our generation we moved up to the current dance music between D.C., Beijing & Pyongyang that features nuclear bombs as commonplace.  Humans seem to be moving towards a common fate as mass communication leaves no one safe from machine-induced massive, indiscriminant killing.