Check for web archive captures
Gathering Our Thoughts from Then to Now
By lindamuralidharan on 2018-12-21 06:00:00
Writer's block? Not likely for me until this week when I was stumped at first. I could write outrageously on a number of
topics, and regarding more acceptable ones I see so many others commenting I am not sure where to go on some of the big
issues being thrust in our faces by many current public actors. And there are so many issues that gurgle just below the
radar....do forgive a somewhat mixed metaphor. Then I notice a very useful comment by my favorited conservative
columnist. I read a number of right wing columns from time to time...probably at least one of them a week...and the only
one I think has good, common sense things to say about 30% of the time is George Will. The others hit the mark about 5%
of the time and are otherwise illogical and mean spirited from my perspective. I do like George Will....mostly even when I
disagree with him. I think of him as the other me. The one that I would be today if I had stayed in the shadow of my
comfortable, middle class, white Republican family and their dogma in stead of venturing out into a world that is not always
fair or a good match for that dogma. In a recent column, Will addressed some historical events that shed some perspective
on strong man leadership of countries and our growing excesses of presidential power. [caption id="attachment_ 11989"
align="alignleft" width="315"] FDR. Not always so liberal.[/caption] I may
have mentioned before that I was a history major in college and have never gotten rid of a bias that it is both entertaining
and instructive to check out the history of things. Aside from sharing some of Will's reminders, I mention here that I learned
from study back in the Bill Clinton era (yes, that is past history) that the power of the American president had been growing
at an alarming rate in the preceding decades. Of course, we busy citizens have done nothing to contain it, and now many of
us are actually alarmed by what we see and hear! Will informs us that Benito Mussolini was actually quite popular with the
American public....certainly among more than just the capitalists that kinda salivated at the idea of Fascism as they saw it
benefiting businesses in places like Germany and Italy. I am speaking before a hot war broke out involving Italy's alignment
with Nazi Germany. Apparently the popular imagination was enthralled by the idea of a strong man (or woman?) being
able to cut through bureaucracies and just plain red tape and get things done. Will points out that Franklin Delano Roosevelt
mooted about the idea of his needing to take a level of domestic power that people are used to seeing during times of actual,
physical war. And a lot of us remember the attempt, failed though it were, of Harry S. Truman to take over the steel mills.
He said it was for national defense. Except for the attempt to stack the Supreme Court, FDR did not actually assume the
dictatorial powers he said he was considering. So..essentially..Will reminds us that humans tend to want to be taken care of
by a "Big Daddy", a forceful authority figure, if you will. Think of Popes and Elders in religion and how Americans still
faun over British royalty even though we are supposed to be a country totally philosophically and practically opposed to
hereditary rule or the divine right of kings. Our current president takes various powers and actions unto himself that clearly
undermine a rule of law and we have supposed that our laws are made at the will of the people through their elected
representatives. We keep fighting wars that presidents justify as police actions and such. This president has entered into his
own idea of tariff agreements because he said it is in the interest of national security. That is, in fact, the only time Congress
is allowed to delegate such power to the president in setting tariff policy. And who decides what is national security? All
too often this president and others before him have offered very flimsy bases for saying such a risk is present. As Will says,
it is quite a feat imagining our top military brass explaining how threatening it is to our country not to have high tariffs on
imported vehicles or high tariffs on imported steel and aluminum (especially that which is imported from countries that have
mutual defense agreements with us!). I like Will's list of reasons why presidential powers have gotten so out of hand....and
in full disclosure here, I am not well versed enough in the law to know if some of former President Obama's executive
actions went a step too far even though I cheered the content of some of his directives. As he points out ways Congress has
ceded too much of its Constitutional power and responsibility to regulate commerce with foreign nations, Will lists the
following as reasons for this mess (I think I agree with him): "sloth (setting policy is hard work), prudence (setting policy is
risky), and ideology (executive discretion is modern,; separation of powers is an anachronistic impediment to energetic
government)." Okay, and there you have it in the last part. The theory of a unitary executive. I had only heard this term
expressed on rare occasions but the term or its propagation has come to the fore under Donald Trump, who over and over
praises the strong men of other countries....no matter how cruel or vicious they are to neighboring persons or to their own
people. I know George W. Bush opined on it as wishful thinking...the idea that he could do what he believed right without
answering to any other branch of government. And my dearest friend who is a long time activist for peace movements, good
government and civil rights, has said "they ought to make me president. I would know what to do and I would do it." Yeah,
she is a dear and also a control freak. [caption id="attachment_11990" align="alignright" width="256"]
_- William Barr[/caption] I had not fully grasped, however, that this has become a
respected point of view. I guess it's respected....in some circles anyway but these circles do seem to have a lot of power.
And now we are hearing that William Barr who might be appointed the next Attorney General carries his belief in this
approach to extremes. _ It's one thing (a bad one) to say the president can deploy or redeploy military troops at will or that
he can just send troops to the border (there is a law against using military force for law enforcement, however, as a I
understand it) to what? scare people? It is far scarier to learn that Barr thinks the president can unilaterally decide what is a
threat to the country (and therefore justify unilateral actions....tariffs, or troops or whatever). Barr would especially like to
see that power used to protect the country from the scourge of drugs. Unfortunate arguments of a similar nature were used
to justify invading Panama. There are many social issues that cause problems for our society and in some ways may weaken
the country....however we might define "weak". However, the use of recreational substances is hardly comparable to the
bombing of Pearl Harbor or efforts to electronically sabotage our elections, electrical grid, or water supply. Before moving
on the to the executive power issues, I want to remind readers that alcohol is a drug. It is only by prejudice and poor
information.....and likely the efforts of the liquor lobby....that we allow government regulation and legal sales of alcohol
which is a poison, easily abused. It ruins families and causes loss of life and criminal justice costs because it is so easily
misused. Almost all the illegal recreational drugs have the same generic properties as alcohol. They can be used
responsibly with little ill effect or they can be abused and cause havoc. And some of the worst of the havoc is caused by
choosing to make these illegal so that criminals and not your friendly neighbor who owns a bar sell them. To then have the
president with all his biases unleash law enforcement on your cousin or your neighbor on the other side if caught using or
selling cocaine or marijuana sounds about as un American as it gets. Well, at least according to our claimed values. It's bad
enough that we waste resources now on interdiction at the local and international level. Think what it would look like if we
tackled drug abuse President Rodrigo Duterte's way, as Trump has hinted he would like to do. So we have a cancer on the
upper echelon's of government but we also have some effective chemotherapy looming on the scene. let's get back to
George Will who reports in more detail than I can understand that there are bipartisan bills in Congress aimed at clawing
back some of the Congressional power to make trade policy. In one instance, two Republicans and one Democrat, Joni
Ernst, R.-Iowa, Rob Portman, R.-Ohio, and Doug Jones, D.-Ala., have a proposed bill that would hopefully require any
president to operate consistently with Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. It was supposed to limit its provision
of added presidential powers in regulating trade to circumstances of actual threat to the country and pretty much that is
going to mean a hot war or cyber threats that appropriate agencies such as the Defense Department have verified. [caption
Article | U.S. Congress: the House and Senate
Important Clauses
* The Commerce Clause jsec, 3, ¢ 3)
“The Congress shall have Power. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and
Src the Several States...”
* Article |, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution lists the
ENUMERATED POWERS of the U.S. Congress (tax, declare war,
regulate commerce, coin money, patents copyrights, oreate fed, courts, etc.)
WHI IS IT SIGNIFICANT?
* grants Congress the exclusive power to regulate business
with foreign nations and throughout the United States!
1.) channels (roadways, waterways, aireays) of commerce
2.) instrumentalities [peaple, vehiches, machines) of commence
3,) Hem and objects of commence
id="attachment_11991" align="aligncenter" width="33 ["] *!sstvitestathaves substantial efector commerce Commerce
Clause[/caption] Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, wants to address a related constitutional issue since this president
has threatened to cancel NAFTA, but it was passed by statute and cannot be abrogated without approval of Congress.
However complicated these issues are, there is clear movement to address some of the ways the attempt at a unitary
executive is currently causing problems with trade, Wall Street, and international relations. The discussion may lead to a
true examination of abuses of power, the dereliction of some Congressional oversight duties, and the need for the public to
better inform itself in order to preserve our democracy. If we want to. Democracy, after all, is messy say some. Yes,
humans sometimes like a Big Daddy, an authoritative figure that keeps them safe with minimal effort on their part and
probably does their thinking for them. Such perceived security comes at a cost whether in one's personal life or in public
life. Usually it means selling one's soul, giving up one's self esteem, perhaps losing some of one's liberty. Let's see how
much Americans in general and some of our current leaders value these things.
