Tag Archives: loyalty

Governance, Politics 2021

BONEHEADED 25TH

Leave a comment

Even a jaded observer must consider that the U. S. of A. has been protected through divine intervention more than once, especially considering the boneheaded law-making we practice.  The “work-product” of the Congress over the past 50 years, particularly the past 21 years, has been so mendacious and partially understood that we are now $30 TRILLION in debt.  But our foolishness extends even to the amending of our majestic Constitution, and one of the worst of the twenty-seven such “improvements” is Amendment XXV, “Presidential Disability and Succession.”  The warped geniuses of the 89th Congress passed this abomination in 1965 and had it ratified in 1967.  President Johnson signed it, although that step has no meaning in the ratification process in fact – just political theater.

What does the 25th purport to do that is so crucial as to be part of the Constitution?  Ostensibly, its 396 words resolves the problems that might occur should a president become disabled and be unable to fulfill the duties of the president.  Unfortunately, it creates multiple gray areas that practically invite a coup d’etat.  Let’s look at the text.

Section 1

In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

No problem, here.  This has always been so.  “Removal” is the time bomb.

Section 2

Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

This has worked well as when Spiro Agnew resigned and Gerald ford was appointed and confirmed as Vice-President, then again when Nixon resigned and Ford named Nelson Rockefeller to be Vice-President following confirmation.  And, it’s ‘safe,” since a President is unlikely to appoint a political enemy to be Vice-President, although the 46th may have.

Section 3

Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

This seems to cover the matter of temporary disability such as medical incapacity that is going to end as the President heals from the disease or surgery involved.  In fact it is rather loosely thought through, potentially creating a problem rather than a solution.  The president holds the power at both ends of the equation: he alone decides to transmit the written declaration that he is or will be disabled, and he, alone, sends the written declaration that he is no longer disabled.  The assumption is that the president is an honorable person who would do what is right and best in both circumstances, but should that not be the case or in cases of mental slippage, Section 4 of the Amendment will apply; that section is a relatively dangerous assemblage of words that are very likely to yield the opposite of the intention of this amendment.

Section 4

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.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days 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. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Trouble rests in these two paragraphs.  In this case, the president’s disability, inability or, conceivably, unwillingness to perform the duties of his office, is a matter of the opinions and judgments of others.  This implies a conflict of opinions between the president and either form of the committee of opposing opinions (The V.P. and Cabinet members, presumably, but described as the “principal officers of the executive departments,” which could include military personnel not of Cabinet rank – a bad idea, or some nebulous alternative “body” passed into “law” – how is not stated and questionable if the President refuses to sign it), and such a conflict could involve use of force to make the committee opinion effective.  At that point, who in the Secret Service or White House guard contingent is loyal to whom?  What forces would the committee of opposing opinions  have at its disposal?  What a mess.

The first paragraph of this section states that the Vice-President “shall immediately” assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.  If the president is not in agreement with how that step is taken, can he or she transmit a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and to the Speaker of the House stating that he or she is no longer disabled?  Now what? 

Does the President’s written declaration dissolve the opposing opinions of either of the committees of opposing opinions?  How quickly?  Could the Vice-President “immediately” assume power at 1:30 PM, say, and give it up at 2:45 because of the President’s written declaration?  Or, if the Vice-President is aligned with other powerful people who have been tolerating the President until a certain point is reached, would that group maintain a forceful restraint on the President, preventing such a transmittal as proposed in this Amendment?  Holy cow!

We might think this is an impossible set of circumstances, except we are in the midst of all of them, right now.

The Vice-President and whichever committee of opposing opinions then has 4 days to re-state the supposed inability of the President.  This causes the Congress to decide the issue if in session, or to assemble within 48 hours to decide the issue, BUT, Congress has 21 days to decide by 2/3 vote in both houses!  During this period, is the President prevented from resuming his or her duties? All in all we’re looking at nearly a month of Constitutional leadership turmoil.  If the Congress fails to rule with 2/3 majorities, the President can assume the duties of his office.  Yeah, right.

Suppose the House and Senate create their undefined committee because of some dissatisfaction with the committee formed by the Vice-president; two committees of opposing opinions are extant. Nothing is said in the Amendment language about a “first-come, first-served” political courtesy that prevents there being two committees. Since the House and Senate have the roles of voting on either committee’s opinion of the President’s infirmity, one might assume that Congress’ committee would take precedence. They could simply refuse to vote on the Vice-president’s committee’s report, yet the Amendment says they must take that vote within a certain period of time. Should they vote the V.P. report down by, in effect, voting for the result that matches their own report, what power does the Executive branch have to thwart implementation of the Congressional committee’s report? What power does the Congress have to enforce its report should it conflict with the V.P. report?

What a mess.

The whole process could be a bit more transparent and made medically sound.  With hatred as a common political tool in the 21st Century, the numerous weaknesses of the current amendment simply invite political chicanery.

How much better it would be to obviate most of these problems.  Suppose an amendment called for a periodically changing, confidential list of 20 or more medical and psychological doctors, well-recognized in their fields, who would be prepared to be called-upon in the event Section 3 or the first paragraph of Section 4 of the 25th Amendment were activated.  A random selection of 5 from among these experts would be called to be a Committee of Evaluation regarding the President’s condition, and sworn to secrecy until 5 years following the President’s end of Presidential service.  Those 5 would select one of the group to be a “Monitor” who would shadow the President for a period of time chosen by the group, not to exceed 5 days, in frequent consultation with the group.  Such monitoring would be fairly intimate and include consultation with the President’s personal physician and access to all medical records and histories.  This group, one hopes anonymously, would make its recommendation to a select, equally bi-partisan joint committee of the House and Senate, in secret.  That committee would bring forth identical resolutions for both houses to vote on.

Only with a 2/3 vote in both houses could the Vice-President then assume the duties of Acting President.  Should the President later transmit his or her declaration of ability to fulfill the duties of the office, the same Committee of Evaluation would reconvene and ultimately submit a second recommendation to the Joint Committee, in secret.  Should the two Houses again vote 2/3 in the affirmative (within 5 days of receiving the second Evaluation) to declare the President still incapable of discharging his or her duties, the Vice-President shall continue as Acting President.

The President may, then, within 30 days, appeal his or her Congressional “suspension” directly to the Supreme Court which shall, upon full hearing and discovery of all pertinent evidence, including Evaluations, reinstate the President or find him or her unable to discharge his or her duties and leave the Vice-President as Acting President.  The suspended President shall then vacate the White House while retaining the rights and privileges of any retired President.

If the next Federal Election is a “Mid-Term” election, every state shall include a referendum question on its ballot that will return the President to office with a “Yes” vote, or keep him suspended and effectively “retired” until the following Presidential elections at which time he or she may run for his or her party’s nomination and subsequently, if nominated, run for a full term as President.

These proposed changes make clear the medical/psychological bases for taking the drastic step of unseating a President, and temper the purely political forces that might attempt to subvert a President.  Finally, voting citizens deserve to have the final say should a President appeal to the Supreme Court and fail reinstatement.  Prudence recommends these improvements by amendment to the Constitution.

Foreign Policy, Governance, Obama, Responsibility, Trump

BALANCING ACT

Leave a comment

Increasingly Mr. Donald Trump is becoming the fulcrum on which our democratic republic balances, and he has not shown, yet, that he is rigid enough to affect the balance.  This is not to say he isn’t tough.  The constant attacks, threats of impeachment since inauguration, and unusual hatred, would wilt lesser men, and often has.  Much has been made of the turnover in Trump’s administration, as if it represented “chaos” in the administration.  While it may yield a little “chaos,” it is temporary.  The problem is that Trump believes that when someone is hired, he or she owes an outward loyalty, at least, to the “boss.”

What has taken him some time to recognize is that every – as in, every single one – person in a position to execute policy or influence policy, has an agenda.  Worse, since the Obama administration, agendas in Washington are no longer matters of how to accomplish national goals, no nuanced approaches to policy.  Agendas now are only to accept or to oppose the direction desired by the elected president.  Many of those recommended for top appointments, especially on matters of international policy, held an agenda of opposition, and deserved replacement.  The president now must become very strict towards his appointees, and this mood must extend deeper and deeper into the many agencies who are happy to oppose him.  (see: http://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2019/11/28/due-process/ )

Is Trump up for this?  It is hard to tell.  He seems not to take very much advice, else someone would have tempered his Tweeting; on the other hand, his selections for judgeships reveal good work and recommendation by someone else.  Still, he has not been as thorough in replacing appointees as his predecessor was, and many of those in the White House, State Department, Department of Justice and the “Intelligence Community,” are actively opposed to Trump, his background, his style of work and speech, and to his America-first policies.  Their allies in the Congress and other covens of Democrat-leftists, have done their worst to hamstring the president since he first appeared to have a chance at the nomination, never mind the election.

Despite the roadblocks and mistreatment by much of the press, Trump has managed to accomplish quite a bit, and he has changed the nature of American diplomacy somewhat.  Will it all bear fruit?  It is impossible to say, but certainly no more impossible to predict than have been the results of “normal,” deep-state diplomacy over the past 50 years.  The best way to guarantee the predicted outcomes in all that time has been for the United States to give up more – including sovereignty – than we ever have asked… or received in return.  Predictions of opposing sides’ accepting all the American largesse our “negotiators” could give away, always came true.

One hopes that should we not obtain the quality of a deal we need for U. S. benefit, that our “side” will stay strong and not immediately throw more value to the other side in order to “win” some sort of a deal that politicians can crow about, knowing that after a few dust-ups, most voters will forget what was even at stake and accept that the deal we got is better than “not talking” at all.  This is national hogwash, of course, and it stems from a general attitude of American unworthiness compared to other nations’ interests.  Trump supporters want a bull-dog negotiating for our side, both domestically and internationally.

At some point, one would surmise, the mendacity of the FBI, the CIA, the State Department and even the Obama White House, and the 3-year story of failing to prove any – as in, not even one – of the amazing allegations against Donald Trump and his appointees and supporters, would begin to dissipate the hot tempers that accompanied those allegations, both personal and legal.  At some point, the charges of “racism” and “sexism” should abate; the so-far indefatigable charges of “collusion” with Russians, well-debunked at great effort and expense, should fade away as the truth penetrates haters’ consciousness.  At some point, all of the energy needed to maintain hatred of Trump, the person, could be expected to turn toward political action.

But, with the gaveling into passage of two gaseous “articles of impeachment,” not yet.

Governance, Representation, Responsibility, Trump

votes to whiplashes

Leave a comment

It is not generally Prudent to try to discern historical meaning from quite current events, although the Mueller persecution of the Presidency has been extant long enough to make even some historical judgments without presuming too much.  That Robert Mueller is a career creature of the federal law-enforcement bureaucracy, goes with saying.  Ronald Reagan first appointed him an acting and then actual U. S. Attorney for Massachusetts;  George Bush the elder appointed him and so did Clinton, Bush the younger and even Obama, several positions needing Senate confirmation, including Director of the FBI, a job he held for 11 years.

Mueller is a decorated Viet-Nam veteran and recipient of the Purple Heart, but all of his various public services have not been so honorable.  While in Boston as an Assistant U. S. Attorney in the mid ‘80’s and again when in charge of the FBI in the 2000’s, for example, Mueller ignored, in fact fought, an opportunity to right a criminal wrong perpetrated by the FBI itself in the 1960’s, that left 4 men in prison for a murder they did not commit.  That miscarriage eventually cost taxpayers tens of $Millions in payments to the innocent men’s families.  Mueller’s loyalty was not, then, to the law, but to protecting crooked FBI agents and the FBI itself, from having that rotten, criminal scandal exposed.

Armed with such evidence people should be better prepared to ascribe value to the “work” Mueller has ostensibly done since his appointment as “Special Counsel” in charge of investigating NOT collusion with Russia, particularly, but investigating all related matters, a barn door wide enough to protect the entire Department of Justice.  That Mueller hates Trump is easily discerned, that he was not in charge of his own investigation wasn’t clear until he tried to testify to two Congressional committees.

Mueller, as honorable as he may have been before he got into the DOJ, got his special-counsel appointment based on two different persona:  Robert Mueller, registered Republican, former FBI Director, decorated Vet, well liked in establishment circles, and Robert Mueller deep insider, defender of the “craft” and its practitioners, manipulable loyalist whose titular presence allowed for a hyperpartisan army of Democrat… no, Clinton sycophants… who would attempt the coup Clinton couldn’t pull off.

When Mueller attempted his committee “testimony” in July, it became clear that he had only cursory understanding of the “Mueller” Report and probably didn’t write much, if any, of it.  The grand circumnavigation of Russian collusion, initiated by a hoax, perpetuated by fraudsters with badges for more than 2 years, exposed that the ostensible “head” of the crucial probe was, himself, a hoax, clearly in place for reasons other than guiding a detailed investigation into possibly impeachable crimes.  The great “apolitician” was there for hateful politics.  One of his reputations was damaged.

Trump is an imperfect man – imperfect human.  One need not delve into scripture to grasp that everyone over the age of, maybe, 8 or 9, is imperfect.  Newborns and infants and toddlers, one might call perfect; they are not yet responsible for their actions and reactions.  Still, somewhere around age minus 3 months, parents, especially mothers, but others as well, begin to impart their own views of humanity, love, relationship, truth, justice and revenge, to their gestating innocent. 

The wonderful Michael Johnson song, “There is a Breeze,” includes this prescient phrase:
There Is A Breeze, Michael Johnson, 1973

“You have got to be taught before it’s too late, Before you are six, or seven or eight, To hate all the people your relatives hate…”

… even if the people they hate are themselves.

Mueller seems to hate Trump, and the people he served as Special Counsel all hate him, too.  It isn’t Prudent to construct a governing philosophy based on hate, but those who hate Trump are committed to carefully teaching everyone, everywhere, to hate him.  So far they have failed, but not for lack of trying.

Trump contains and exhibits many good qualities, woven among his flaws, as do we all.  Those who await a perfect person to become President of these United States will die waiting.  They seem obsessed with proving that anyone who gains power under a different philosophy than theirs, must be proven flawed – their flaws magnified to frightening proportions as proof that he, or she, is unfit to have elector-granted power.  Well, then, it becomes clear that everyone who voted for the flawed victor is also flawed and not worth conversation, let alone compromise.  It is a corrosive, dangerous path to tread.

Mueller is caught up in this, diverted from retirement by his loyalty to the deep state: the cadres of smarter-than-average functionaries and true-believers who know that the self-perpetuating structure of control and confiscation that largely subsumes individual sovereignty and electoral “choice,” is by far the rightest possible way to govern, as far removed from religion and independence as possible.  It is like a sickness, an infection, except that the patient believes himself more well than the caregivers who feed and clothe him – and her.

Eventually the “deep” state, having consumed all the wealth obtained while hiding, will have to convert votes to whiplashes as those fabled “sovereign citizens” recognize the horrible hoax of the administrative state and refuse to support it in the style for which it is designed, and the socialism within rears up and stands astride America publicly.  There are hints of this from the socialist left, here in 2019, and the great Robert Mueller has assisted to the best of his ability, following the instructions from the other swells to whom he is most loyal.  Republican, shmepublican… thanks a lot, Mr. Mueller.