Trump Has a Clear Grasp of the Powers the Constitution Grants Him
Category: News & Politics
Via: donald-j-trump-fan-1 • 6 years ago • 125 commentsBy: Editorial of the New York Sun
Trump is following the constitution. It is what guides him in governing our country. He is a great American and devoted to the rule of law.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Is President Trump the only one in Washington who has read the Constitution? Forgive us, but that’s how, amid the brouhaha over Mr. Trump’s criticism of the Justice Department, we would turn around the question that Khizr Khan famously asked at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. The president, it seems, has a clearer grasp of his constitutional powers and obligations than anyone in this fray.
The thing to focus on is Article II of the Constitution itself. It creates the president and vests in him — and him alone — the executive powers of the government. It’s as straightforward as it can be. “The executive Power,” it says, “shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” It doesn’t say “some of the executive power.” It says “the” executive power. It vests such power in only the president.
Article II also creates the presidential oath, which bears parsing. It binds the president to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution — but not absolutely. He’s required to do the preserving, protecting, and defending only, as he is required to put it, “to the best of my ability.” This is no doubt a minority opinion, but we take that to mean that a president can be imperfect. Or, to put it another way, he’s entitled to some mistakes.
In any event, the fact that the executive power is vested in a single person makes the executive branch different from the legislative branch, where powers granted are diffused among 535 members of the House and Senate, and judicial branch, where power is diffused among 870 Article III judges. One thing this means is that, unlike judges and legislators, presidents can’t recuse themselves for a conflict of interest.
This is known in law as the rule of necessity . Presidents must proceed and do their duty, to the best of their ability, even when it’s awkward, as it certainly is in the case of, say, Roger Stone, the subject of the latest presidential tweetstorm. The rule of necessity doesn’t mean that presidents can act out of corrupt motives. It does mean they must, to the best of their abilities, take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
As we read the Constitution, that means that if Mr. Trump doesn’t like the way the Justice Department is dealing with Mr. Stone, or anyone else, he has to do his best to correct it — even maybe by tweeting some guidance or assigning the matter to a different prosecutor. In the case of Roger Stone, Attorney General Barr was already on top of the runaway prosecutors. Mr. Trump, though, was entitled to his tirade.
The one constitutional error the President made was his response to Mr. Barr’s interview in which the AG said the president “has never asked me to do anything in a criminal case.” The President’s error was then to say: “This doesn’t mean that I do not have, as President, the legal right to do so, I do, but I have so far chosen not to!” That strikes us as constitutionally off.
Presidents, after all, don’t have any special “rights.” They have no more rights than your average dustman, washroom attendant, or newspaperman. What presidents get are power (the “executive power”) and duties, in this case the obligation to take care that our laws are faithfully executed. If he thinks the prosecutors are going too hard on his friend, he has a duty to act.
And twitter is not Mr. Trump’s only constitutional power. He could commute any sentence Roger Stone draws. Or clear him completely, via a pardon. He could do that even before any sentence is handed down. He doesn’t need to consult a soul. The pardon is the least fettered power the President has. Does this mean our greatest newspapers are wrong to suggest that the President is sometimes his own worst enemy? Not at all. That, though, is a not a constitutional cavil but a political one, just as was Khizr Khan’s.
Tags
Who is online
87 visitors
That shows such a lack of understanding of who Hitler was that’s its hard to believe anyone could be so obtuse as to make the comparison
How do you know what I "mean"?
I know all about Hitler, having read at least four full length biographies of him.
How do you know Trump is not like Hitler?
Is Trump done? Maybe he is just getting started.
Maybe? That's supposed to be meaningful for people? Maybe?
And maybe monkeys will fly out of your butt. Maybe. Better do something about it. It's so silly.
I could compare FDR to Hitler and it would make more sense. Not really a very good comparison either but it’s still a better one than Trump.
Apparently not .....
Simple, unbiased observation.
And maybe the lotto ticket I bought yesterday is the winner. Hey .... it’s possible.
Trump said Tuesday on NBC that the comparisons to Nazi salutes were a “big, big stretch,” adding it was something he does for fun.
“I’ll certainly look into it,” Trump, a billionaire real estate magnate and the front-runner among Republican presidential candidates, told the “Today” show when he was told that the raised hand caused offense. “I’d like to find out that that’s true because I don’t want to offend anybody.”
Abraham Foxman, the former national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a Holocaust survivor, this week called the hand-raising a “fascist gesture” and said Trump knew what he was doing.
=
Trump told his audience that they should pledge personal allegiance to him. And raise their hands as a sign of loyalty to him.
It was instantly so familiar to people everywhere it became immediately controversial.
As time has gone by Trump has become more and more enamored of the idea that he can do whatever he wants, and has repeatedly said it in public.
Why do you think so many people have described Trump as having authoritarian inclinations? Why are his friends internationally despots, and the leaders of western Europe, the part of the world most like the United States, mostly despise him?
How do you know what I mean when I put up a photo of "Heil Trump"? It could mean many things.
Your meaning is clear John. You know it, I know it and the American people know it.
What does Trump like Grabbing again ?
What does he have 'A Clear Grasp Of" again....?
Nothin but his Kitty Kat Followers being led to the ignorant pastures where they graze in oceans of denial, drowning in ignorance as he continues to defile and they allow it,
all the while.
Trump rationalizers are truth despizers,
none,
all the wizers
Did hitler grab pussies? I missed that chapter .... musta been sleepin .... wasn’t when bubba was flavoring his cigars though .... such a classy dude all y’all give a free pass ... golf cheater and pussy cigar flavorer .... what a guy!
Whats bang em Bubba got to do with feeble sheep not givin a bleepin bleat about being grabbed by Trump like , well, wons who just lost, cause they lets him ?
He preys on people who pray, and don't, and aren't quite mentally fit enuff to realize that he is so full of Bull Shit,
he makes cows constipated, while awaited is the awakening that makes intolerance,
lactate, like held close
bosoms ,
yet, they never like he fully bloviate asz he keeps them abreast of tits n giggles while he pushes forward claiming to have been exonerated, when actually only, Ex Honor rated, like a triple, before Y
can be questioned after already answered in deeds on record, yet still not recorded into memory banks of those who choose to refuse to see,
what many have determined by now,
They Can't
Lol ..... keep insulting and underestimating your opposition. That worked so well in 2016 and it’s looking like deja vu all over again in 2020.
Sweet!
sorry if the reality of Trumpp and his defenders insults, but if it does, it is a start back to the reality of reality.
people can't actually be this stupid
Some on the left have has made the demonization of ANY opposition an art form. An ugly, bigoted art form.
One that is going to implode on them once again in 2020. Some people will never learn ......
Trump is a pathological liar, a diseased malignant narcissist , and a world class asshole. Not to mention buffoon and ignoramus.
One wonders if this truth will ever dawn on some.
Thats not my problem, thats their problem.
Are you talking Trump, Putin, or both?
And are you actually boasting that Trump will be re-elected despite losing the people's vote again? Being elected against the will of the people is really nothing to boast or cheer about.
Being elected like Trump was elected follows THE Constitution of the United States and not some other nonsense dreamed up by loons on the left because they are butt hurt on who did win.
That said, stop bitching and get to amending the Constitution to get rid of the EC if it bothers you so much. You have the tools to make it happen as the FF were wise enough to give them to you.
Otherwise, stop whining already! It's been over three years
So you are proud that Trump got elected against the will of the people. How un-American of you.
Who's whining? I merely point out that you appear very proud to have beaten the desires and votes of a majority of Americans. I'm not even talking about Trump except as an example, Bush 2 works as that example also.
Am I wrong?
Proud has nothing to do with it although i do find it amusing you are still whining about it over three years later. So back to government and civics class for you. You are currently getting a failing grade ....
You are but don't bother responding to that because it appears you are not capable of making that connection.
You're right, I don't see it. Have never claimed that Trump wasn't POTUS, in fact never said anything here about Trump himself, just that YOU seemed proud that he was POTUS despite the will of the people.
I prefer to follow the law, which in this case is the US Constitution.
Not a bunch of TDS ridden babies who can't accept the law because it didn't elect their anointed one.
Thank God!
Like almost every other election? Yes.
Your argument makes no sense.
In America you vote for 1 person over the others, and ideally the person with the most votes wins.
Why are you deflecting? Are you afraid to answer the question?
This article isn't about me. Feel free to start one about me if you want and i'll be more than happy to answer your question.
I agree, it is. It is a fact that anyone can see. In that case, and I believe 2 others, the will of the people came in 2nd place.
To argue against THAT fact is idiocy.
Is over riding the will of the majority, an American ideal? That is the question you all are doing your damnedest to avoid and distract from.
They're just mad because the FF were smart enough to put a cork in their totalitarian tendencies towards a Tyranny of the Majority.
Yep, damn smart group of old men the FF's were .....
When you finally get around to reading my question, maybe you can answer it rather than dancing around it like you all are doing.
It is a very simple question, even could be a yes or no question.
Is overriding the will of the majority, an American ideal?
Deeeflection.....
I know how they are elected, but that has nothing to do with my question. But you replied "no" to my question, so you believe that overriding the American majority is NOT an American ideal. Very interesting based on all your various comments...
Point out specifically where in my question I say anything about an election.
Is overriding the will of the majority, an American ideal?
So you feel that in NATIONAL/FEDERAL elections the will of the people should not be followed? Also, let me point out that YOU brought up elections.
DUH, another avoidance. I am not talking process or policy, my question is more general, but it is a question for which you find your answer indefensible. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Anytime the majority decision is not accepted. Now before you jump toward another deflection, there ARE times when the majority is wrong, but elections (as you've mentioned) are not one of those times.
So the rule of law, election process, and guidelines are not the way things should be? Seems the "majority" needs a civics lesson............again.......and still.
Wrong is relative to the opinion of the person(s) defining it.
I am cognizant of the FACT, that once again your are deflecting from my question. If you are afraid to discuss my question, just stop commenting at all.
Once again sidestepping and deflecting from my question. You have a lot of right wing company with that type of deflection.
Hardly. I am not the one that brought majority rule into this thread. And yes, this time in 2016, it seems, the majority was wrong.
in america we have 50 separate/independent state elections,
in a presidential election, the national majority means nothing. never has and never will.
So you have no response?
Here's one for my progressive opponents......Attorney General William Barr might just be the only AG in history to ever have publicly criticized the president who appointed him.
Barr has stated that the President's tweets "make it impossible for me to do my job." Barr also said he won't be "bullied" by anyone, whether that someone be Congress, editorial boards or the president. What other AG has criticized the president who appointed him? I can see the fingers googling now!
No response to what?
This article isnt about whether or not Barr "criticized" Trump. It's about the claim that Trump can do whatever he wants and even has the "duty" to interfere with court proceedings if he thinks his friends are being treated unfairly.
In other words, based on his infantile understanding of, just about everything, he has a "duty" to meddle with the judicial process to protect his unethical cronies.
This is bizarro world on steroids.
He isn't meddling, he is giving his opinion. He has a right to do that, believe it or not. I would agree with his AG in that he shouldn't be giving opinion's on Justice Department investigations or pending criminal cases. The comments themselves, whether right or wrong, are only damaging the process.
I believe Trump has claimed that he has the right to instruct the Attorney General to proceed in court proceedings as Trump sees fit.
This man is a provable idiot. His duties should be drastically narrowed, not expanded.
I'm sure you believe that John. You once believe the President colluded with Russia.
This man is a provable idiot.
Amazing what an "idiot" has done for this country!
His duties should be drastically narrowed, not expanded.
Temporarily limit Executive power? I see.
I vividly recall Obama & Holder rushing to get to the bottom of that. I do confess, I missed John's outrage at the time.
Remember how pissed Holder was when he had to admit that ya, the thug Michael Brown was in fact trying to get officer Wilson's gun when he was shot?
He was so pissed he had to write up the Ferguson police department for issuing too many tickets to minority motorists.
How pathetic that president & AG were!
Once? He still does today.
hope the airbags went off
Sure are alot of nazis in the democratic party......wait.....that's actually a true statement.
I want to see how many black democrats actually vote for Bloomberg.
Such a well-reasoned, objective comment. Reminds me of: 'evolution is pseudoscience; a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists'.
If Bloomberg had an R next to his name I would bet large that you would be praising the man. The reason I would bet large is because you praise Trump as the greatest PotUS ever and describe Bloomberg as the scum of the Earth. Pure partisanship with confirmation bias.
Normally I do not use this word, but in this case: pathetic .
too kind,
in my closed eyes, and they're only closed due to me attempting to see through 'their' eyes
-followed by-
You self-label as Donald J. Trump fan 1, writing nothing but praise for the man yet you deem Bloomberg to be the scum of the Earth.
Jumping to the extremes when making a comparison, yeah, that is sound objective reasoning.
Buy a vowel ... please.
So is Trump but you still support him. I guess it is okay to be one as long as the R is attached to a name.
Nope, that distinction goes to Croooked donnie
Once again wrong, Crooked donnie fits the bill of hitler.
Nope, that would be Crooked donnie
A lot of the articles that are seeded in this spot are mainly silly nonsense.
This one though is evil.
tRump can not spell Constitution.