As the longtime Senate parliamentarian, and the only parliamentarian ever promoted to that position by both Democrats and Republicans, I am not a disinterested observer of either of these trials.
The Senate parliamentarian is the only person on the Senate payroll whose fundamental responsibility is to represent the interests of the Senate as an institution in the thousands of disputes between and among senators. Everyone else on the floor of the Senate is a partisan warrior who earns their keep by fighting for their political objectives. The parliamentarian ensures that the rules are followed.
James Madison envisioned the Senate as an essential check on the potential abuses of an unconstrained President, and a "necessary fence" against the passions of the House of Representatives. The only power granted to the Senate in Article I of the Constitution is the sole power to try impeachments, as it is doing now against this President.
Most of the Senate's enumerated responsibilities are set forth in Article II of the Constitution, and they too involve a check on the presidency, for example, treaties negotiated by the President do not bind the country unless and until they are ratified by the Senate, and all federal judges,cabinet officers, and other high-ranking federal officials nominated by the President must be confirmed by the Senate.
By sanctioning Trump's refusal to submit to oversight by Congress, the Senate is shirking its key role of providing a powerful check on the Presidency.
The Senate performs its essential role by operating under a set of standing rules and the precedents interpreting those rules. More significantly, it operates by senators individually, and the Senate collectively, embracing and respecting the norms necessary to govern a civil society.
Chief among these norms are respect for the rights of others and restraint in using the power conferred by one's office. To preserve these norms, the Senate developed as the sole institution in the federal government that took its time to get it right, in my view.
The filibuster and delaying tactics -- the rights of senators to debate and amend -- are available to ensure that the Senate obtains all the evidence it needs in order to reach the most informed result. These are fundamentally conservative values. Historically, political conservatives (who at one time were largely Southern Democrats and now are Republicans) have pursued political goals with a deep knowledge of, and respect for, these rules, norms, and values. During my career, these senators were the "A students" of Senate procedure.
Over the past three years, the rules and norms of behavior have come under attack by this executive branch. The founding fathers anticipated this might one day happen, and the articles of impeachment allege that it is happening now.
Reasonable people may disagree about the gravity of the allegations contained in the first article of impeachment, abuse of power. Many of the President's defenders, however, already conceded this allegation.
Some senators apparently view as no big deal President Trump's encouraging a foreign government to damage a political rival, regardless of the fact that, according to the General Accountability Office, he violated the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 by doing so. So what if the executive branch just broke the law to run over some toes on one leg of the legislative branch? It may hurt, but the victim is likely to survive.
The second article of impeachment, obstruction of Congress, sets forth uncontested facts about the President's ordering a blanket refusal of executive branch officials to comply with subpoenas duly issued by the legislative branch. It is fundamental to the principles of a representative democracy that Congress may compel the production of both witnesses and documentary evidence.
To render this power meaningless is to neuter Congressional oversight. The President boasts that he can do anything he wants under Article II of the Constitution. He is effectively saying that Article I of the Constitution gives a simple directive to all 535 duly elected members of Congress: "Go fishing!" With this boast, the executive drives an SUV that flattens Congress. Prospects for the victim's recovery are exceedingly grim.
There are norms that govern behavior within institutions. Likewise, there are norms that govern behavior among the three branches of our federal government. It pains me to see many of my former "A students" cut class and play hooky by abdicating principles they once claimed to embrace in service to an unchecked executive.
The erosion of the civilized norms necessary for the survival of a democratic republic troubles me deeply. It should trouble you as well. As the Senate's former parliamentarian, I am also saddened by what I see as the individual and institutional abdication of the Senate's responsibilities. Is any president worthy of this significant a sacrifice? I think the answer is a clear "No!"
During my career, I was tasked with deciding thousands of questions for which there was no clearly correct answer. These were cases where an objective analysis of Senate rules, precedents, years of practice, and relevant statutory and constitutional provisions could legitimately lead to a number of contradictory conclusions. I always posed this question when deciding these very complex, difficult issues: "What is the most institutionally defensible answer?"
The events leading up to this trial and the Senate's actions, or lack of them, in conducting it, will accelerate the erosion of effective congressional oversight, and leave the people as a whole increasingly defenseless against an unchecked authoritarian executive.
"Opinion" - Google News
February 04, 2020 at 01:34AM
https://ift.tt/3b4jJbA
Former Parliamentarian: Senate is letting Trump evade oversight - CNN
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update
No comments:
Post a Comment