And now, a civics seminar ... first posted in 2017

 

I have long been an originalist strict construction libertarian believing as did Mr. Jefferson (the slave owner and sage) that "the best government is the least possible."  The trick being to discern what the least possible might be. 

Therefore I find it odd that I am somewhat disturbed by what is being said on the Democratic Party side of Congress, in the MSM and by the left wing commentariat about what they say or imply are the very narrow limits of presidential power.

As a reminder, the federal judiciary (judges) is not part of the executive branch of the federal government and the president has no control over them except by exploiting the ambitions of judges for promotion on the bench.

Nevertheless, in their rage against DJT, the left are claiming:

1.  That the Attorney General and the Department of Justice are not really subordinates of the president and that they are somehow exempt from his control.  This, in spite of the fact that the AG is appointed by the president, is a "line" subordinate and serves "at his pleasure."   That means that the president can fire an AG at any time, for any reason or for no reason in particular.

2.  It is said with a pious air of violated rectitude that Trump fired all the US Attorneys across the country.  For those who do not know, these are the federal prosecutors in each federal court district,   They are politically appointed employees of the Justice Department, not the courts, and it is a normal practice to replace them all in a new administration.

3. Brennan, Clapper and Rogers stage managed a paper back in January that asserted that the IC believed various things about Russian government tinkering with the US election (much as the US does in other countries' elections).  The paper was represented to be an IC wide opinion (like an NIE).  In fact the paper was the work product of two of Brennan's analysts.  Clapper gave it his imprimatur  as DNI.  Admiral Rogers at NSA could not get his people to express more than limited confidence in it and Comey at FBI joined the chorus wearing his intelligence "hat.".  DIA, State Department INR, the Army, Navy, Air Force and other agencies were either not consulted or did not deign to "sign on."  DJT thinks this is a "rum deal," a phony politically motivated procedure run by a group of "hacks.".  Why would he not think that?   But, no matter, the reaction of the Left is to excoriate him for his lack of "respect", for these people.  Once again, these people have no legal or constitutional existence outside the framework of the Executive Branch.  Any president can dismiss them at will  No president is under any obligation at all to accept their opinion on anything.  They are his advisers and tools in his kit box. and that is all they are.

4.  Tillerson at State has the rapt attention of the Left in his every utterance.  Any expression of DJT"s displeasure with Tillerson's opinions is described as irresponsible.  Once again, DJT can fire Tillerson tomorrow.

5.  And then there are the generals.  Mattis acts as though he has been sub-contracted the future of the world and that Trump is just a nuisance.  McMaster does the same.  In fact they are as much his creatures as any of the others.

Enough!  The US federal government is not a parliamentary government.  DJT is not "first among equals" as is the PM in a parliamentary government.

The president's powers are limited by law and the constitution but not by custom, tradition or opinions.

The Democrats should think through how much they will not want these ideas of an incredibly shrinking presidency to be applied when next they win the WH.  But then, they will have the Leftist press behind them.  pl 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_executive_departments

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Justice

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_judiciary_of_the_United_States

Comments

[turcopolier]

mikee

You are right and I have done that for 12 years, but my patience is at an end. pl

[turcopolier]

jsn

The more "means" the government has, the mpre the temptation for them to use them is ever present. Think Section 702 of the Patriot Act. pl

[turcopolier]

stephanie

I retract the last sentence. pl

[blowback]

What's the point of having a Secretary of State in your cabinet that you never agree with?

To show that you value independence of mind and that you aren't surrounded by sycophants. Tillerson is a person who clearly speaks his mind and works in a role (SoS) where the president has the most impact because he decides what the foreign policy of the United States is, a fact seemingly forgotten by the self-identifying liberals/left/progressives and others who oppose him. Congress only gets a say when they're asked to ratify treaties.

So, we're led to believe that Trump and Tillerson don't see eye to eye, but how can anybody be sure of that, and Trump seems pretty happy with what is going on around except for the Russia nonsense, and if he's confidant that nobody around him did anything wrong there, it's a perfect topic to distract people with, particularly the self-identifying liberals/left/progressives who can't get enough of it.

BTW, The Guardian just had an article where the author of the report on alleged collusion between Trump and the Kremlin, Christopher Steele, admits that up to almost a third is made up though that is not The Guardian's headline:

Christopher Steele believes his dossier on Trump-Russia is 70-90% accurate

Christopher Steele, the former British intelligence officer who compiled an explosive dossier of allegations of collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin, believes it to be 70% to 90% accurate, according to a new book on the covert Russian intervention in the 2016 US election.

The book, Collusion: How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win, by the Guardian journalist Luke Harding, quotes Steele as telling friends that he believes his reports – based on sources cultivated over three decades of intelligence work – will be vindicated as the US special counsel investigation digs deeper into contacts between Trump, his associates and Moscow.

“I’ve been dealing with this country for 30 years. Why would I invent this stuff?” Steele is quoted as saying.

Well since he believes it to be "70% to 90% accurate", somebody obviously did "invent this stuff" and why shouldn't it be Christopher Steele? Perhaps he should now clarify which parts aren't accurate and until he does the report should be ignored. But of course it won't because of the moral turpitude of the western MSM and the Clintonists (aka self-identifying liberals/left/progressives.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/nov/15/christopher-steele-trump-russia-dossier-accurate

[aleksandar]

Off topic, but maybe a glimpse on US today.
« But still: we don't know. We don't know what Washington was trying to do in Syria. We don't know whether all Washington was agreed on what it was trying to do in Syria. We don't know if any agency in Washington had a plan in Syria. We don't know who was making decisions in Washington then. We don't know who's making decisions in Washington now. We don't know whether there is any unified position in Washington on Syria. Or anything else. We don't know what Trump wants. We don't know what Trump can do. We don't know who's running the place. Or whether anyone is.
» We don't know. »
Patrick Armstrong, Strategic-Culture.org .

[jsn]

Agreed.

Any power should come with responsibilities and public, institutional checks to ensure the former serves the latter.

[turcopolier]

Paul

There is no "tradition" that prevents the president from firing the AG or anyone else in the Executive branch's serried ranks of poltical appointees. Civil servants and the military would be more difficult but it could be managed. If you want the Justice Departmentd to be like the Fed the Congress could do that. With regard to power and how it should be used you appear to agree with Robert E. Lee.
"The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman.

The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly--the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light

The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others." pl

[Matthew]

DJT's election made manifest what many long suspected. Lots of people in Washington view elections as small annoyances that interfere with the "adults" who are trying to run the country.

DJT's common sense on Russia exposed how little "service" the bureaucrats are actually providing to the country. The Turf-Protectors will literally risk a nuclear holocaust to protect their fiefdoms. Yes, they are "serious people" indeed.

If DJT accomplishes nothing else, engendering enormous skepticism of Establishment is a profoundly positive contribution to American life.

[Stephanie]

mikee,

I don't know of any previous examples of a president's subordinates so concerned about their boss' judgment and abilities that they fear to leave him alone at the helm of state, barring some physical illness or other such incapacity. If you can point to one, I would welcome the information.

Trump's public behavior is often childish - he pouts, he throws tantrums, he calls people names. If anything, I was probably unfair to the nation's toddlers. I think it's a fair cop, but if it offends you I have no problem withdrawing it.

[Stephanie]

Col.,

I don't think the observation was out of line. Reports of Trump's taste for conflict and disorder, with the attendant stress on the White House, are widespread. If it were not so, he would probably have had greater success in his apparent desire to cancel out, in effect, the initiatives of the previous administration.

I generally come here for instruction and as a place where you can talk about the WBS without people comparing Jefferson Davis to Hitler. You do get called names from time to time, but the internet ain't beanbag.

[turcopolier]

Stephanie

I sm unaware of being called names on the internet. Examples? pl

[The Porkchop Express]

Spiteful drives a good deal of politics in the US--and around the world. Human condition.

[TV]

"I assume that most people commenting here would not like to see a Department of Justice entirely subservient to, say, a President Hillary Clinton."
They were - and apparently still are - subservient to Obama and the Democrats.
The Department of "Justice" and the FBI (Famous But Incompetent) have become the politicized defenders of the ruling "establishment."
One set of laws for them, another for America (the rest of us).
We are not governed....we are ruled.

[turcopolier]

TV et al

It appeared to me that Obama sent Holder to Ferguson to find enough "evidence" to force the City government into a consent agreement. This, in spite of a lack of evidence to support charges against the cop. pl

[Richard]

Opposing views are very welcome if and only if they are well thought-out and argued. If I want to read formulaic groupthink opinion posts about a "toddler-in-chief", I go to Buzzfeed or similar outlets.

[Richard]

How would you establish and run a Justice *Department*, i.e a part of the executive, that is independent of the executive?

[dilbert dogbert]

Small Government?
I have pondered this and think we have to return to the America of the time of the writers of the constitution. Small farmers and small single owner businesses or partnerships. No corporations. No large differences in wealth and incomes. Low population density and few large cities. Maybe an America limited to east of the Appalachian Mountains. Maybe an America of sovereign states.

[Babak Makkinejad]

A horrible fantasy.

[mikee]

jamesL It is not working out. Only people of honor and integrity can make this work. They are in short supply.

[ked]

It takes awhile on an imperfect path to disassemble the Imperial / Unitary Presidency. Sometimes one’s ox is gored... sometimes one’s adversaries take the hit. Tough hit. Power concentrated and manufactured in the Executive Branch and Office of the Pres is an engine of the Borg. If you want to decrease its influence, you must do so at its source, regardless of who occupies the WH. It took a long time to build it, it will take awhile to shrink our over-concentrated, over-institutionalized power. So, I wouldn’t over-personalize or over-politicize what’s happening... that’s a micro view of the shift to correct our damaged social contract.
I like libertarianism as an idea that illuminates the centrality of the individual human soul in political terms - the individual human’s rights in tension with the power of the infinite, or collective. It’s a touchstone for ideas like freedom and responsibility. But that’s about it ... it is a weak foundation for organizing collective action. A tool, but not a viable system of governance.

[Bandit]

Brilliant! Thanks for a good laugh this morning.

[dilbert dogbert]

Here is a little wiki history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dismissal_of_U.S._attorneys_controversy
This will save you the trouble of going to wiki:
:By tradition, U.S. Attorneys are replaced only at the start of a new White House administration. U.S. Attorneys hold a "political" office, and therefore they are considered to "serve at the pleasure of the President." At the beginning of a new presidential administration, it is traditional for all 93 U.S. Attorneys to submit a letter of resignation."

[Matt]

The right-wing pays lip service to the Constitution but what they really worship is the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution made the Federal Government considerably stronger and more flexible in dealing with crisis when there are competent people in place. Unlike the present situation.

[Earthrise]

Dear Host,
Sorry for the OT. Do you now agree that the decision to leave Idlib after the liberation of Aleppo was correct?

[Barbara Ann]

An excellent post Colonel. I wholeheartedly agree with yourself & Mr. Jefferson re the desirable scale of government. We do not all choose to live like a hermit by a pond, so government at some scale is necessary, if only to prevent bellum omnium contra omnes.

All forms of government tend towards tyranny over time. Government attracts the power-hungry and Robert E. Lee’s gentlemen are in short supply as presidential candidates (Major Gabbard appears to be a notable exception, if the definition is widened to include women). The Framers understood this well and an attitude towards government as something of a necessary evil is a healthy one. Freedoms are those things the people manage to wrestle from their government. Not, as many on the Left seem to believe, things a benign State bestows upon the governed.

Many Trump voters seem to have believed Trump's promise that he would "drain the swamp". But replacing institutional swamp creatures with your own is a far cry from that. IMO, if Trump truly wants to MAGA he will root out the seditionists mercilessly and reform or abolish the corrupted institutions which shelter them. I cannot, for example, see how a CIA heavily implicated in the attempted putsch, is "necessary" for good governance.