Amend the Constitution to Prevent Another Trump

[ZiprHead]

The last four years have shown how little presidential misbehavior is constrained by law.

Much of the relief felt from President-elect Joe Biden’s victory is in the return to a presidency based on behavioral norms. President Donald Trump’s years in office reminded us how important those norms are, and also proved that many of them have little or no legal force.

One of the Biden administration’s first steps should be to propose a constitutional amendment to establish the most important presidential standards in law — an amendment that would be in keeping with American constitutional history.

Trump began to break traditions from the start of his candidacy. From refusing to release his tax returns to interfering with Justice Department investigations, he's exploited the extent to which we have relied on personal restraint to protect institutions. By gutting the government's watchdog functions, the Trump administration eliminated many of the checks against bad behavior. The ultimate enforcement mechanisms — impeachment and indictment — don’t work in a Senate willing to countenance the president’s behavior and with a Justice Department that is directed to facilitate it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

If we had a country that *could* ratify an amendment like that we wouldn’t need an amendment like that.

 

[crazyfingers]

It's clear that there are too many ways for a corrupt president to destroy the country. And the case of Trumps demonstrated the dire need. But it takes years and years to pass a constitutional amendment, if ever. Clearly simple laws could be passed to prohibit firing of enspector generals without good cause for example.

 

[Patooka]

Amend the Constitution to Prevent Another Trump

In my opinion, the US already has a system in place preventing that. The issue is:

Enough Americans voted for Trump to be Primary in the Republican nomination.
Enough Americans voted for certain Senators who are ethically ambiguous, to be polite.
Enough Americans voted for Trump to be President, because that's our side yeah!

One thing lead to another.

Maybe education and not legislation should be the path...maybe?

 

[fromderinside]

Read and practice ethics.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some thoughts along these lines:

1) Any position you need Senate approval to fill you should need Senate approval to fire.

2) A new portion of the justice system dedicated to investigating politicians and their appointees. The budget would be set by the Constitution (say, some small % of the GNP, or some small % of the rest of the Federal budget), but it would be split into two (or conceivably more) divisions--they work together but have independent control and budgeting. The % of the budget is based on the number of elected seats of the other party(ies)--the side with less political power has more investigative power.

3) Elected officials and their appointees acting in a reasonably formal fashion should always be treated as under oath--any lie (unless necessary to avoid revealing classified information) should be treated as perjury. In such a context they must also answer any question put to them unless what is being asked is something that shouldn't be disclosed. There is no 5th amendment protection. To refuse to answer a question is treated as a resignation.

(I can't imagine any politician voting for this one, though!)

 

[Metaphor]

A 28th constitutional amendment could keep this from happening again. First, an amendment should work against conflicts of interest by making the disclosure of tax returns well before Election Day an eligibility requirement for federal offices.

What is 'federal office'? Does that include the House of Representatives and the Senate? How many people who run for federal office right now disclose their tax returns?

It should eliminate the ability to grant pardons between Election Day and the beginning of the next presidential term.

I assume that applies to pardons and commutations, but even if it's just pardons, good luck with that, I'm sure Democrats and Republicans will support it

 

[Atheos]

Some thoughts along these lines:

1) Any position you need Senate approval to fill you should need Senate approval to fire.

2) A new portion of the justice system dedicated to investigating politicians and their appointees. The budget would be set by the Constitution (say, some small % of the GNP, or some small % of the rest of the Federal budget), but it would be split into two (or conceivably more) divisions--they work together but have independent control and budgeting. The % of the budget is based on the number of elected seats of the other party(ies)--the side with less political power has more investigative power.

3) Elected officials and their appointees acting in a reasonably formal fashion should always be treated as under oath--any lie (unless necessary to avoid revealing classified information) should be treated as perjury. In such a context they must also answer any question put to them unless what is being asked is something that shouldn't be disclosed. There is no 5th amendment protection. To refuse to answer a question is treated as a resignation.

(I can't imagine any politician voting for this one, though!)

Item 1 seems reasonable enough. Theoretically the vetting process for persons appointed only with Senate approval would result in candidates being strong enough in character that they should not be fired on a whim by a petty and narcissistic would-be despot.

Item 2 sounds like something that could get abused far too easily. Sooner or later someone would turn at least one of these divisions into a dirt collection department focused on holding information hostage to consolidate control of the other divisions, blackmail Senators, Representatives and even the President and possibly SCOTUS members. It would be like creating a Gestapo in an attempt to try to avoid becoming the next Nazi regime.

Item 3 would never work because ... sorry I can't reveal why because it would force me to divulge classified information.

 

[Artemus]

There are already constitutional mechanisms to deal with a president like Trump, both impeachment/removal and the 25th amendment. Sadly, as long as the people responsible for taking the steps are too afraid to do so, it won't matter what is in place. The best hope now is that both parties will recognize how damaging a delusional idiot in the office is to both party and country and will take steps to insure that someone like Trump can't get the nomination again.

 

[Atheos]

Technically there are also provisions in the constitution that limit the powers of the president and congress but who listens to any of that noise anymore?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Electoral College is the firewall. It was turned off.

The trouble in the US is that the GOP isn't a political party anymore. So they have no trouble derailing for partisan gains (SCOTUS, Judicial Appointments). We haven't seen a party in denial about an election outcome like this in several generations!

 

[ideologyhunter]

What election was it, "several generations" ago, that is analogous to this hog lagoon of a mess?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What election was it, "several generations" ago, that is analogous to this hog lagoon of a mess?

1876 - Tilden v Hayes was worse, but that is pretty low bar to compare by.

 

[Politesse]

President Hayes was kin to me, but that's not a point of pride. What a disaster of democracy deferred that election was!

Ultimately, I fear that an amendment to restrain the presidency is one of those things, like "eliminating gerrymandering", that no national political party is going to truly and wholeheartedly endorse while they still see personal benefit to be derived from the present system. Rather, each successive president since FDR has accumulated more and more spoken or unspoken power regardless of their affiliation. I would like to imagine that the Executive Branch could be contained, but I would also like to see workers own the fruits of their production, the end of all wars, and the installation of gender-neutral restrooms in all public spaces. In late-stage imperial politics, what you want just isn't what you get in most cases.

 

[ideologyhunter]

What election was it, "several generations" ago, that is analogous to this hog lagoon of a mess?

1876 - Tilden v Hayes was worse, but that is pretty low bar to compare by.

You are so right!! And I'm a 25-minute car ride from the Hayes House and Museum. I've been there, used their research library even. Doh!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some thoughts along these lines:
2) A new portion of the justice system dedicated to investigating politicians and their appointees. The budget would be set by the Constitution (say, some small % of the GNP, or some small % of the rest of the Federal budget), but it would be split into two (or conceivably more) divisions--they work together but have independent control and budgeting. The % of the budget is based on the number of elected seats of the other party(ies)--the side with less political power has more investigative power.

Item 2 sounds like something that could get abused far too easily. Sooner or later someone would turn at least one of these divisions into a dirt collection department focused on holding information hostage to consolidate control of the other divisions, blackmail Senators, Representatives and even the President and possibly SCOTUS members. It would be like creating a Gestapo in an attempt to try to avoid becoming the next Nazi regime.

We already have such witch hunts with the current system, we can't prevent that--and it doesn't turn into blackmail material. I'm just giving both sides the same power. There's plenty of corruption to investigate and under my system the Republicans couldn't block investigation of Republicans.

 

[TomC]

This thread reminds me of something.
If I'm remembering correctly, it is from A C Clarke. Probably 2001: A Space Odyssey.

"With redundancy you can make a system fail safe from mechanical failures or operator error. But you cannot entirely secure a system from malicious intent"
I'm sure I am paraphrasing brutally. But the meaning applies to the current problems with our federal government. No Constitutional Amendment will prevent the ruthless and powerful from abusing the government. That takes an informed and active electorate, nothing else will come close.
Tom

 

[Atheos]

Some thoughts along these lines:
2) A new portion of the justice system dedicated to investigating politicians and their appointees. The budget would be set by the Constitution (say, some small % of the GNP, or some small % of the rest of the Federal budget), but it would be split into two (or conceivably more) divisions--they work together but have independent control and budgeting. The % of the budget is based on the number of elected seats of the other party(ies)--the side with less political power has more investigative power.

Item 2 sounds like something that could get abused far too easily. Sooner or later someone would turn at least one of these divisions into a dirt collection department focused on holding information hostage to consolidate control of the other divisions, blackmail Senators, Representatives and even the President and possibly SCOTUS members. It would be like creating a Gestapo in an attempt to try to avoid becoming the next Nazi regime.

We already have such witch hunts with the current system, we can't prevent that--and it doesn't turn into blackmail material. I'm just giving both sides the same power. There's plenty of corruption to investigate and under my system the Republicans couldn't block investigation of Republicans.

How powerful is this proposed agency? Are they powerful enough to remove a sitting congressman, senator or president from office? Or do they only uncover information and provide it to the house so they can go through the same ill-fated process that should have resulted in removing Trump from office for abusing the power of his office to incite a foreign government to interfere in our election? Do they still simply write up articles of impeachment and send them to the senate who summarily votes them down?

Unless you are going to give this new agency the power to do something more than raise a stink you're doing nothing. Stinks have verily been raised. Nothing got done.

If you give this new agency the power to oust a sitting president or congressperson you've created the single most powerful (and unchecked) agency in the government, a seductive temptation for corruption and abuse. But if it doesn't have that power it's no more useful than the checks and balances afforded by the free press.

 

[Elixir]

"With redundancy you can make a system fail safe from mechanical failures or operator error. But you cannot entirely secure a system from malicious intent"
Tom

Trump's malicious intent has been evident for decades to anyone paying attention. The disturbing thing (to me) is the malicious intent exhibited by the GOP at this time.
I really hope it's just more fakery, and they don't really intend to help Trump burn down the house, either to make Biden look bad or in a desperate last attempt to help him become the tinpot dictator he wishes to be.
They might simply be trying to fire up the trumpanzees in GA, thinking that having retained the Senate, they can re-convince the public of their benevolent intent some time after January 5.
Right now however, it really reeks of death throes. The question is, what's dying here? Is it American democracy (a global tragedy) or the GOP (good riddance!)?