Rachel Maddow and an MSNBC panel react to the argument by Donald Trump’s lawyers that as long as Trump believes his reelection is good for the country, anything he does in furtherance of that goal is not impeachable.
Seventy-five years into the nuclear era, we still haven’t come to grips with the destructive force we’ve put in the hands of Donald Trump.
Don’t Mistake Impeachment for a Congressional Effort to Claw Back Power
James Madison, the principal drafter of the Constitution, wrote that the history of mankind showed that the executive branch is “most interested in war, & most prone to it.”
For this reason, he noted that the Constitution, “with studied care, vested the question of war” in the legislature. Once initiated, the power to carry out military action does flow to the president as commander in chief. And the president always has the power to defend the nation from imminent attack. But even when the president acts unilaterally in response to an attack, that action must be brief and limited to addressing a specific threat. Any action beyond that scope requires an authorization by Congress.
We are living in serious times, but these are not serious people. The House could have reasserted itself by repealing or rewriting the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for use of military force. This would have signaled that lawmakers take their responsibility in the Constitution seriously, but still they have done nothing, and they will continue to do nothing on this.
Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard lays out her views on the Iran crisis especially with her military experience, and her thoughts on the requirements to qualify for the January debate.
Eine solche „Ermächtigung zum Einsatz militärischer Gewalt“ erteilten die Abgeordneten mit überwältigender Mehrheit nach dem 11. September 2001 dem damaligen Präsidenten George W. Bush.
Indeed, another Jackson ruling went a step even further in denouncing “the proposition that the executive may assert an unreviewable right to withhold materials from the legislature” as an offense to the very foundations of our constitutional system. However, those were the words of a different Jackson, Judge Amy Berman Jackson, about a different president, Barack Obama. He withheld evidence in the “Fast and Furious” investigation of the murder of an agent with a gun supplied to criminal gangs by the federal government. Obama not only withheld witness testimony and evidence but also claimed that a court could not even review his order.
The version of the “unitary executive” put forth by Mr. Trump, the Justice Department and the shareholders would open the door for a president to fire for any reason — even personal reasons unrelated to the public interest or even for no reason at all — any head of an administrative agency, including the heads of “independent agencies” like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as well as the Federal Reserve, the Federal Trade Commission and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (These agency heads are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate.)
(25. Dezember 1992)
Mr. Weinberger was scheduled to stand trial on Jan. 5 on charges that he lied to Congress about his knowledge of the arms sales to Iran and efforts by other countries to help underwrite the Nicaraguan rebels, a case that was expected to focus on Mr. Weinberger’s private notes that contain references to Mr. Bush’s endorsement of the secret shipments to Iran.
Barr, who is scheduled to go before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday for his confirmation hearings, ran the Justice Department once before, under President George H.W. Bush.
Back then, the all-consuming, years-long scandal was called Iran-Contra. On Dec. 24, 1992, it ended when Bush pardoned six people who had been caught up in it.
„The Constitution is quite clear on the powers of the president and sometimes the president has to make a very difficult call,“ Bush said then. „That’s what I’ve done.“
Der Grünen-Innenexperte Konstantin von Notz verlangt vom Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), ein kürzlich bekannt gewordenes Video des Berliner Weihnachtsmarkt-Attentäters Anis Amri an den zuständigen Untersuchungsausschuss des Bundestags zu übergeben.
Historian Zachary Karabell argued that executive power grew further in the 21st century, due in part to congressional inaction. Citing both the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama as examples, he wrote: „9/11 saw the beginning of the current move toward an imperial presidency, as George W. Bush keyed off the crisis to expand executive authority in national security and domestic surveillance. In that, his administration had the legal but classified support of Congress, and for a time, a considerable portion of the public.“ Karabell said that this trend continued under Obama, and that „stonewalling“ from Congress „provoked the Obama administration into finding innovative ways to exercise power,“ making Obama „one of the most powerful presidents ever.“ He wrote that this trend could potentially set precedent for even greater executive influence in the future. Karabell later argued that the presidency of Donald Trump had the possibly unintended effect of eroding executive power, citing the rescission of the DACA immigration policy and the Trump administration’s threat to use its position to withdraw from NAFTA as instances which have led to some power being returned to Congress at the executive branch’s expense.
Contrary to claims of some authors, the first administration to make explicit reference to the „Unitary Executive“ was not that of President George W. Bush. For example, in 1987, Ronald Reagan issued a signing statement that declared: „If this provision were interpreted otherwise, so as to require the President to follow the orders of a subordinate, it would plainly constitute an unconstitutional infringement of the President’s authority as head of a unitary executive branch.“
The George W. Bush administration made the Unitary Executive Theory a common feature of signing statements. For example, Bush once wrote in a signing statement that he would, „construe Title X in Division A of the Act, relating to detainees, in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President to supervise the unitary executive branch and as Commander in Chief and consistent with the constitutional limitations on the judicial power.“ Critics acknowledge that part of the President’s duty is to „interpret what is, and is not constitutional, at least when overseeing the actions of executive agencies,“ but critics accused Bush of overstepping that duty by his perceived willingness to overrule US courts.
Präsident Trump beruft sich auf das Exekutivprivileg, laut dem der Präsident das Recht hat, dem Kongress und auch Gerichten bestimmte Informationen und Dokumente vorzuenthalten. Wie weit diese Befugnis geht, ist allerdings nicht genau definiert und war in der Vergangenheit immer wieder heftig umstritten. Nadler bezeichnete die Berufung auf das Exekutivprivileg als „dramatischen Schritt“ und „klare Eskalation“.