Trump and the Revenge of the Constitution

Reading some of these articles on whether the Republican Party can be "lent" to Trump without it being fundamentally transformed, I realize that there's a point being missed by everyone. First, here is a strong version of the argument:
...if he cleans up tomorrow night, you’re going to see an explosion of pieces online like the one Ross Douthat published yesterday urging the RNC to deny Trump the nomination by any means necessary — including a rule change before the convention, if need be, that frees up delegates to vote their conscience. (“A man so transparently unfit for office should not be placed before the American people as a candidate for president under any kind of imprimatur save his own.”) A member of the RNC’s Rules Committee is already circulating a letter suggesting, contra all available evidence, that delegates are not bound on the first ballot and haven’t been in 40 years. The price of stealing the nomination from Trump after he’s supposedly clinched it would be sky high. It would delegitimize the RNC; it would vindicate Trumpists’ criticism that the establishment is corrupt and that the system is rigged; it would certainly doom the GOP’s chances in the general election as millions of Trump fans decide to stay home or vote third-party in protest; and it would effectively disenfranchise the millions of Trumpers who turned out to vote for him throughout the primaries. It very well might destroy the GOP. But hardcore anti-Trumpers have already reached the point where they view that as the lesser of two evils. Better to protect the country by booting him out of the party and into independent never-neverland, even at the cost of an irreparable rupture on the right, than to protect whatever small amount of “integrity” the GOP has left by crowning Trump as the duly elected nominee.
Here is my alternative view: Trump winning the GOP nomination and the election does not mean the GOP is surrendering to Trump. It means they are recognizing the sovereignty of the voters. The moral independence of the party as a whole is a reason to think that Trump as President can be contained as a threat in a way that President Obama never can be.

The reason is that impeachment and removal from office by Congress returns as a real potential under a Trump administration. With Democratic loyalty to President Obama being so intense, he has been able to operate lawlessly on immigration, on foreign affairs, in terms of protecting from prosecution criminals in his administration from Lois Lerner to Hillary Clinton, and in unilaterally rewriting the law where he likes.

Trump would not have that luxury. People have expressed concern that a man who suggests he would cover the legal fees of those charged with violence against protesters cannot be trusted with the Constitutional power to pardon. But Trump would come into office facing a House and Senate led by nominal allies who are deeply suspicious of him, and would indeed love to find a way to rid themselves of him without losing the support of his voters. Republican party leaders in Congress will be only too ready to join with Democrats in removing him from office if he makes an egregious overstep.

Thus, one option might be to consent to Trump in the convention in return for a Vice Presidential pick acceptable to the party's Congressional wing. That would make impeachment and removal even easier to contemplate. Indeed, it would make it an attractive option that Trump would have to work hard to avoid them electing to pursue.

Our Constitutional controls on the President have been failing since Clinton because of party loyalty. Political parties are an extra-Constitutional feature of our government, part of the dangers of factionalism warned against in the Federalist Papers. The absence of party loyalty to Trump would allow the Constitutional controls on the President to function as designed for a change.

8 comments:

raven said...

"The absence of party loyalty to Trump would allow the Constitutional controls on the President to function as designed for a change. "

That is putting it mildly.

It would be the first time in memory (or perhaps history)a President tried to conduct his duties with overt hostility on both sides of the aisle. The entire Washington apparatus would be against him, in detail. How could he persuade the senate to confirm ANY appointment?

Now here is a thought- if the elected leader is refused support from either party, and they oppose his efforts at every turn, what impetus would that lay on a desire to exceed constitutional bounds?






Anonymous said...

Excellent point, which gives me some hope for the future.

I still do not trust Donald Trump, mainly because I do not buy his promise in his speeches to do what "you" want. Who is "you," and how do we know what "you" want, particularly if he excludes the advice of every political group? Our mechanism for conveying our wishes is through our political parties, so if he vows not to pay attention to them, he is essentially promising to do whatever he darn well pleases.

Unfortunately, he is saying things that need to be said, and nobody else seems capable of doing so at this time.

That both Houses of Congress will be primed to act as a brake on anything too outlandish is reassuring.

It's going to be another case of voting for the least worst candidate, again.

Valerie

Joel Leggett said...

Grim, that is an interesting point. However, I am doubtful the majority of senators and representatives in congress possess the moral courage to make such a stand. I am afraid most on the Republican side will simply get in line with their new master. I think Cromwell's statement upon the dismissal of the Rump Parliament accurately describes many of them.

"Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God's help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!"

Elise said...

Unless Trump is decisively outvoted in the upcoming primaries, the Republican Party is going to break anyhow. Either Trump will get the nomination or the party administration will keep Trump from the nomination by ignoring what the voters have said. The party breaks in either case. The only question is which faction gets to keep the name "Republican Party".

E Hines said...

Ross Douthat published yesterday urging the RNC to deny Trump the nomination by any means necessary — including a rule change before the convention, if need be, that frees up delegates to vote their conscience. (“A man so transparently unfit for office should not be placed before the American people as a candidate for president under any kind of imprimatur save his own.”)

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy, republican or popular. Unfit for office? Says who--our Know Betters? Should not be placed before the American people? He already will have been, and selected by a significant fraction of those eligible for the choice. Then it'll be up to the whole of the American people to make the choice, not a few establishment party elders bent on joining the rebels, from their side of the wall, on tearing down the party.

Elise may be right about the party's fate from this season, but it's the voters' call on that, not an establishment's or a few rebels'.

Eric Hines

douglas said...

"Grim, that is an interesting point. However, I am doubtful the majority of senators and representatives in congress possess the moral courage to make such a stand."

He's already gotten endorsements from elected officials who I thought were the sort to stand up for what was right- Jeff Sessions comes to mind. I have to say, I think Joel has this right.

When it comes to containment strategies, my preference is to avoid needing them in the first place, if possible. We shall see if Trump actually gets enough votes, and if he does not, then we needn't worry about him as President, though the future of the party is certainly of concern.

"Now here is a thought- if the elected leader is refused support from either party, and they oppose his efforts at every turn, what impetus would that lay on a desire to exceed constitutional bounds?"

Excellent question, Raven.

Grim said...

Cromwell never sounded better, I agree.

Ymar Sakar said...

Much bloodshed and civil was Cromwell held responsible for.

Such did not sound very good/necessary to Americans some time past.