Obama – Saint or Sinner?

Exasperated by the failure of Congress to overhaul the immigration system, last week the President issued an executive order that lifted the threat of deportation from millions of undocumented immigrants. Does the President have power to make law in this fashion?

Presidential executive orders are intended to help the executive branch manage operations within the federal government. The orders have full force of law when they take authority from a power granted directly to the executive by the Constitution, or are made because Acts of Congress explicitly delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power. They are subject to judicial review, and may be struck down if deemed by the courts to be unsupported by statute or the Constitution.

Before the mid-term elections, the Congressional Republicans, led by House Speaker Boehner, talked about prosecuting the president for exceeding his powers through the use of executive orders. The Constitution is clear on this issue. A president is immune from prosecution unless he is charged with a criminal offence and exceeding presidential powers is not automatically criminal. Interestingly, The Washington Post reported that the Republicans were struggling to find a law firm in DC willing to accept the case. Washington has more lawyers per square mile than any other city in the world!

The proper course for the Republicans to take is challenge the executive order either through impeachment or an action through the civil courts. Congress could seek a declaration from the courts or “the last dangerous branch”, as Madison termed them, to set the executive order aside.

Impeachment is not a realistic option. After 3^rd January 2015, the Republicans will have a larger majority in the House, where bills of impeachment would pass. However, the 55–45 Senate majority is insufficient to convict Mr. Obama. A two-thirds majority is needed. Since the impeachment would be politically motivated and partisan, it will be seen by the voters as a huge waste of legislative time and money and doomed to fail, thus serving no purpose whatsoever.

However, a Republican-inspired law suit is highly probable. Obama himself must have some doubt as to the legality of his order. In his first term, he deflected approaches from the Latino community to use his executive powers to lift the threat of deportation from some eleven million people believed to be residing in America illegally. He said that passing new laws was for Congress. However, in 2012, the President shielded from deportation some 1.7 million immigrants aged 30 and younger whose parents had brought them to America.

Without any doubt, the right wing Republicans are spoiling for another battle with the President. Their hatred of Obama seems to go way beyond the partisan norm for unpopular presidents. I am tempted to suggest that the Tea Partiers and their cronies in American politics want Mr Obama gone for racist reasons.

What will the Republicans do now to undermine the Democrats? I anticipate they will flex their muscles in Congress by playing havoc with budget negotiations. Will there be another shut-down before Christmas? Maybe, except the Republicans may fund particular agencies so that, for example, the military and all its bases within USA can function. Is there any prospect of new legislation on any current problems during the two years of the 114^th Congress? Probably not. If the Republicans pass laws which are anathema to both the Democrats and the executive branch, there are insufficient votes in the House and Senate to override a presidential veto.

What should the Republicans do? With regards to immigration, there is cross-party belief that the American system is fundamentally flawed. They should work with Mr. Obama to produce revised and acceptable sets of laws. Likewise with budget and other issues, they should work with Democrats to produce something acceptable to the centre. In this fashion, the Republicans would demonstrate to the American voters that they can rise above partisan politics, resist fighting for ideals shared by only the few and raise their profiles for 2016. They need to remember that the new-found majorities in both Houses of Congress is on the back of a 31.4% voter turnout.

On a personal level, I find it odd that in America, a country founded by newcomers and built on the backs of nineteenth and twentieth century immigrants, there is so much opposition to people who, generally, are looking for a better life for themselves and their families through work and are willing to take on tasks that many Americans will not consider. Who will pick crops in the extreme heat of the California valleys? Who will do the menial tasks in hospitals and care homes? Who will do the dirty, low-paid work of America which keeps the middle classes in comfort? Economist J. K. Galbraith termed the conundrum, “the culture of contentment.” Surely, even illegal immigrants deserve the best efforts of legislators to make life fair for all.

2016: The White House Stage is Set for a Prize Fight

Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush

When I was seven years old, I was with my father when the death of King George VI was announced on the car radio. I don’t recall anything from the announcement except being staggered when a herald stated, “the King is dead. Long live the Queen.” I asked my father what this meant. He explained that there could not be a monarchical time gap, so as soon as one monarch died, the reign of the next commenced. I recall thinking this to be harsh on the one who died but then I was only seven.

Moving forward to 1997, I can still see in my mind John Major on the steps of the Conservative Party offices in Smith Square, coping with the results of the general election when Labour’s huge landslide victory under Tony Blair destroyed the Conservatives and swept Major from power. You could tell Major was shocked by the extent of the defeat. He said to his supporters: “sometimes, politics is a rough old trade.”

Both these events came to mind last week when, after the mid-terms, the Republican Party swept the Democrats away in the US Senate, increased their majority in the US House of Representatives, took over several governors’ mansions and did well in State elections. One would have expected that the main thrust of the American newspapers (those I read) and also the British press would target the effect of the results for American voters, as well as the reaction of the Obama administration. To be fair, these points were covered. However, the major element of the reporting and editorials looked at succession. To be precise, who would occupy the White House in 2016? “The President is dead politically, long live the President-elect.”

Americans could look at the British electoral process with jealousy. The Prime Minister calls for dissolution of Parliament, there is a 28 days national campaign and, hey-presto, either the existing administration is returned to government or a new administration takes over. Our elections are invariably on a Thursday. By no later than the following Sunday, the defeated Prime Minister, his or her family and belongings are removed from Downing Street and the new occupant takes up residence.

The American electoral experience is very different. Nowadays, the presidential election process starts at least two years before polling day. Hillary Clinton has already been the Democrat front-runner for more than a year. Will any other Democrat challenge her? Hopefully, yes, because there should be a contest but any challenger will need to tap into sources of finance separate from Hillary supporters. Let’s face it. A presidential election is more about money than policy. The rise of PACS and SUPERPACS ensure that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in campaigning.

The newspapers have proposed Elizabeth Warren as a potential Democratic opponent to Mrs Clinton. Warren is an academic, a US Senator and, as I understand it, a liberal, seemingly left of Hillary. However, Mrs Clinton’s positions are muted, as they should be. Why open your policy-thinking to scrutiny two years out? It is likely that Mrs Clinton will seek the centre ground. It’s safe and wins elections.  Will Ms Warren be a serious contender? It depends far more on her fund-raising powers than anything else.

Whilst the Democratic contenders list for 2016 is short, this does not mean that someone else will not emerge. Meanwhile, the Republicans have no end of candidates who may well put their hats into the ring. Right now, the invisible primaries are taking place. Some twenty Republican “leaders” are forming their Exploratory Committees who are looking for seed money. Soon, the roads of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada, states with miniscule Electoral College votes but with high press attention because of early primaries and caucuses, will suffer traffic jams as contestants pour into their cities and towns.

The prospect of another Bush v Clinton election looms. Jeb Bush could be a strong contestant. Not only was he Governor of Florida but he appeals to Hispanics, whose influence in the next election should not be minimized. Bush could face challenges from Scott Walker (Wisconsin), Chris Christie (New Jersey) of Bridge-gate infamy, Rand Paul (Kentucky) who would appeal to young voters, Ted Cruz (Texas) and John Kasich (Ohio.) In a year’s time, we might watch early television debates with up to twenty Republicans seeking to make their mark with the voters and, as important, in straw polls which are meat and drink for the media, although of little real importance.

My American friends complain about the length of the process. I agree. They also complain about the expense but it must be said that the process creates mini-economies in minor states who welcome the money being spent there. The other side of the coin is that the American presidential election experience is used by a few ultra-rich people gifting phenomenal funds at their disposal to “buy” votes and candidates. For example, in last week’s mid-terms, Americans For Prosperity, funded by Charles and David Koch, spent $22 million supporting Republican candidates for the US Senate. Elections are no longer an even playing field. I can only imagine what chief executives like Teddy Roosevelt and Harry Truman would have said about these individuals spending such large amounts.

In the UK, there are very strictly enforced laws on election spending. Rich people cannot seek an electoral advantage through their money. I believe the Supreme Court has much to answer for by allowing the American electoral system to be corrupted by money. However the people who can stop the rich are the very same benefitting directly from the rich. There are times I’m pleased to be British!

2014 Mid-Terms Part IV: Is the President a Lame Duck?

Joni Earnst Iowa Victory Rally

2014 Mid-Terms Part IV

Is the President a Lame Duck?

One of the first lessons of politics - and here I am talking political theory, not current events - is to understand variables. In other words, you have to ask “what if?” Until Wednesday morning, the what if was limited to whether the Republicans would control both houses of Congress. Now the principal question has moved to “what will happen now?”

The Senator-Elect for Iowa, Joni Ernst, has the answer. “We’ll make the squeal,” she told her supporters at her victory rally. I can’t say when and I can’t say how but one thing of which I am certain is that one day during the next six years, she will rue those words. Back in the 1970s, the Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer, Denis Healey, said similar words at a Labour Party conference. Yes, he lived to regret it! Labour lost the next election and were out of power for eighteen years.

So, what are the variables? I can’t explore all of them; there are so many. First, let’s examine the position of President Obama. The knee jerk reaction from the talking heads was, “he’s a lame duck.” In reality, has his position changed that much? The Democrats had a narrow majority in the Senate and Republicans have blocked legislation in the House. If Mr Obama has pressing appointments to the court benches, he can fill them before 3^rd January 2015 as filibuster rules don’t apply. After that, he has the power of Executive Order to move legislation forward. If he doesn’t like laws presented by the new Congress, he can get out the veto stamp. The Republicans don’t have the required two-thirds majority in each House to override the veto.

Where Mr. Obama has been weak during his presidency is in foreign affairs. This is his opportunity to build coalitions to deal with Middle East issues like ISIS. He would gain popularity at home by confronting diplomatically any Russian advance into old USSR territory and, generally, facing down Mr. Putin and his administration. The Republicans would look bad if they opposed the President in this area. Perhaps the President should look at Richard Nixon’s track record on foreign policy and learn the lessons quickly.

Second, what of Congress? There is talk of Republican bi-partisanship with the Democrats and the White House. My experience tells me to judge on actions, not words. I doubt that the Republican base will sit idly and allow a spirit of cooperation to develop in the Capitol and along Constitution Avenue. Even though the Tea Party haven’t featured in the mid-term elections, they still have influence.

There will be an early test. It is estimated that some 10 million people reside in America illegally, many for twenty years or more. Vast numbers of the illegals work in jobs that “regular” Americans don’t want to do. This is not new. J. K. Galbraith’s 1992 “Culture of Contentment” spelled it out. The President wants to convert the status of the illegals through an amnesty. Republicans are opposed. It is too soon to judge how the position will resolve itself but the issue will be contentious.

For me, the big test arises on 13^th December. If the Budget Conference committee does not agree the fiscal terms, will the Republicans move to shut down the government? If so, how will they position themselves to blame the White House? When this happened two years ago, the American public was not supportive of the Republican legislators.

Also, will the Republicans look again at an impeachment of Mr Obama, or a prosecution based on illegal use of the Executive Orders power, both of which actions were threatened last month. Nothing happened because Republican polling showed that they were vote losers. However, the right wing of the Party will want to do something to embarrass the President. My view is that both an impeachment and a prosecution are doomed to fail because there are no legal grounds for either action and there are insufficient votes in Congress to convict in an impeachment trial. Shades of Clinton. Furthermore, the voting public will disapprove of the Republicans wasting time and money just to play politics.

So, to conclude, congratulations to the Republicans on their victory but voter turnout was low and all US politicians must be aware of the unpopularity of Congress. The President has two years to change people’s minds about him and his Party and with the daily media concentration he receives, Mr Obama has the opportunity to turn things round and give the Democrats the boost they need for 2016.