Angrymesscan
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,796
TWSS
2016 POTUS Election Thread
- Thread starter boozeman
- Start date
- Status
TWSS
jsmith6919
Honored Member - RIP
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 28,407
BipolarFuk
Demoted
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 11,464
The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.
The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions — most important, the electors themselves.
The framers believed, as Alexander Hamilton put it, that “the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president].” But no nation had ever tried that idea before. So the framers created a safety valve on the people’s choice. Like a judge reviewing a jury verdict, where the people voted, the electoral college was intended to confirm — or not — the people’s choice. Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, “a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice” — and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about “winner take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule “the people” or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a wheel.
Many think we should abolish the electoral college. I’m not convinced that we should. Properly understood, the electors can serve an important function. What if the people elect a Manchurian candidate? Or a child rapist? What if evidence of massive fraud pervades a close election? It is a useful thing to have a body confirm the results of a democratic election — so long as that body exercises its power reflectively and conservatively. Rarely — if ever — should it veto the people’s choice. And if it does, it needs a very good reason.
So, do the electors in 2016 have such a reason?
Only twice in our past has the electoral college selected a president against the will of the people — once in the 19th century and once on the cusp of the 21st. (In 1824, it was Congress that decided the election for John Quincy Adams; likewise in 1876, it was Congress that gave disputed electoral college votes to Rutherford B. Hayes.)
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland but won in the electoral college, only because Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall turned New York away from the reformer Cleveland (by fewer than 15,000 votes). In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote by a tiny fraction — half a percent — and beat Al Gore in the electoral college by an equally small margin — less than 1 percent.
In both cases, the result violated what has become one of the most important principles governing our democracy — one person, one vote. In both cases, the votes of some weighed much more heavily than the votes of others. Today, the vote of a citizen in Wyoming is four times as powerful as the vote of a citizen in Michigan. The vote of a citizen in Vermont is three times as powerful as a vote in Missouri. This denies Americans the fundamental value of a representative democracy — equal citizenship. Yet nothing in our Constitution compels this result.
Instead, if the electoral college is to control who becomes our president, we should take it seriously by understanding its purpose precisely. It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people. It is meant to be a circuit breaker — just in case the people go crazy.
In this election, the people did not go crazy. The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her because of her qualifications. Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgment by the people.
Yet that is not the question the electors must weigh as they decide how to cast their ballots. Instead, the question they must ask themselves is whether there is any good reason to veto the people’s choice.
There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said — the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. We are all citizens equally. Our votes should count equally. And since nothing in our Constitution compels a decision otherwise, the electors should respect the equal vote by the people by ratifying it on Dec. 19.
They didn’t in 1888 — when Tammany Hall ruled New York and segregation was the law of the land. And they didn’t in 2000 — when in the minds of most, the election was essentially a tie. Those are plainly precedents against Hillary Clinton.
But the question today is which precedent should govern today — Tammany Hall and Bush v. Gore, or one person, one vote?
The framers left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton’s favor.
The Constitution lets the electoral college choose the winner. They should choose Clinton.
Conventional wisdom tells us that the electoral college requires that the person who lost the popular vote this year must nonetheless become our president. That view is an insult to our framers. It is compelled by nothing in our Constitution. It should be rejected by anyone with any understanding of our democratic traditions — most important, the electors themselves.
The framers believed, as Alexander Hamilton put it, that “the sense of the people should operate in the choice of the [president].” But no nation had ever tried that idea before. So the framers created a safety valve on the people’s choice. Like a judge reviewing a jury verdict, where the people voted, the electoral college was intended to confirm — or not — the people’s choice. Electors were to apply, in Hamilton’s words, “a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice” — and then decide. The Constitution says nothing about “winner take all.” It says nothing to suggest that electors’ freedom should be constrained in any way. Instead, their wisdom — about whether to overrule “the people” or not — was to be free of political control yet guided by democratic values. They were to be citizens exercising judgment, not cogs turning a wheel.
Many think we should abolish the electoral college. I’m not convinced that we should. Properly understood, the electors can serve an important function. What if the people elect a Manchurian candidate? Or a child rapist? What if evidence of massive fraud pervades a close election? It is a useful thing to have a body confirm the results of a democratic election — so long as that body exercises its power reflectively and conservatively. Rarely — if ever — should it veto the people’s choice. And if it does, it needs a very good reason.
So, do the electors in 2016 have such a reason?
Only twice in our past has the electoral college selected a president against the will of the people — once in the 19th century and once on the cusp of the 21st. (In 1824, it was Congress that decided the election for John Quincy Adams; likewise in 1876, it was Congress that gave disputed electoral college votes to Rutherford B. Hayes.)
In 1888, Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote to Grover Cleveland but won in the electoral college, only because Boss Tweed’s Tammany Hall turned New York away from the reformer Cleveland (by fewer than 15,000 votes). In 2000, George W. Bush lost the popular vote by a tiny fraction — half a percent — and beat Al Gore in the electoral college by an equally small margin — less than 1 percent.
In both cases, the result violated what has become one of the most important principles governing our democracy — one person, one vote. In both cases, the votes of some weighed much more heavily than the votes of others. Today, the vote of a citizen in Wyoming is four times as powerful as the vote of a citizen in Michigan. The vote of a citizen in Vermont is three times as powerful as a vote in Missouri. This denies Americans the fundamental value of a representative democracy — equal citizenship. Yet nothing in our Constitution compels this result.
Instead, if the electoral college is to control who becomes our president, we should take it seriously by understanding its purpose precisely. It is not meant to deny a reasonable judgment by the people. It is meant to be a circuit breaker — just in case the people go crazy.
In this election, the people did not go crazy. The winner, by far, of the popular vote is the most qualified candidate for president in more than a generation. Like her or not, no elector could have a good-faith reason to vote against her because of her qualifications. Choosing her is thus plainly within the bounds of a reasonable judgment by the people.
Yet that is not the question the electors must weigh as they decide how to cast their ballots. Instead, the question they must ask themselves is whether there is any good reason to veto the people’s choice.
There is not. And indeed, there is an especially good reason for them not to nullify what the people have said — the fundamental principle of one person, one vote. We are all citizens equally. Our votes should count equally. And since nothing in our Constitution compels a decision otherwise, the electors should respect the equal vote by the people by ratifying it on Dec. 19.
They didn’t in 1888 — when Tammany Hall ruled New York and segregation was the law of the land. And they didn’t in 2000 — when in the minds of most, the election was essentially a tie. Those are plainly precedents against Hillary Clinton.
But the question today is which precedent should govern today — Tammany Hall and Bush v. Gore, or one person, one vote?
The framers left the electors free to choose. They should exercise that choice by leaving the election as the people decided it: in Clinton’s favor.
townsend
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 5,377
Republican defectors could just as easily vote for Mickey Mouse and force the vote to the Republican controlled House of Representatives. If electoral votes were awarded proportionally Trump would have 252, and Hillary would have 256 so a non decision would technically be the best interpretation of the will of the nation.
Then maybe we luck out and get Paul Ryan.
Smitty
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 25,303
Republican controlled house can only award Presidency to someone who received in the top three of the electoral vote.
And I don't know if the electoral college can award their votes to someone who did not run.
townsend
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 5,377
Didn't realize that. *Resumes building fallout shelter*
E_D_Guapo
Brand New Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 3,158
I am starting to get the feeling that Trump could walk into a room, pour gasoline all over the carpet, and stand there with a lit match and some people would insist that he hasn't done anything wrong yet and it would only be unfounded, irresponsible speculation that he was intending to burn the place down.
fortsbest
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 3,888
townsend
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2013
- Messages
- 5,377
The entire world needs to taken note that Putin is a full scale dictator and that the Kremlin's interference in our election is a shot at our national sovereignty.
Jiggyfly
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 9,220
Former White House ethics lawyers explain.
With Donald Trump’s global business empire already reaching such nations as Azerbaijan, Turkey, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates—and eager to enter new realms—the potential for conflicts of interests both domestically and internationally has long been obvious.
It’s clear also that the “blind trust” candidate Trump has been talking about setting up since last January between himself and those far-flung business interests will be neither blind, nor a trust, nor provide any meaningful insulation whatsoever.
He will let his adult children run his businesses, he has said, even though they are also now serving on his transition team, will certainly stay in close touch with him, and may well serve as de facto advisers on presidential business as well. (CBS News reported Monday that Trump is seeking top secret security clearances for his children.)
Several people have asked me why the federal conflicts of interest law, which bars every lowly executive branch official from acting on matters that affect their personal financial interests, won’t apply to President Donald Trump.
To find out answers to that and related inquiries, I did some research and also spoke to Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, the former top White House ethics counsels for George W. Bush (2005-2007) and Barack Obama (2009-2011). Here are the answers.
Why doesn’t the federal conflicts of interest law apply to the President?
Congress was most likely avoiding direct confrontations between branches of government, which would also raise Constitutional issues.
The Constitution sets out the qualifications for being President (things like being at least 35 years old and a “natural born citizen”). If Congress added supplemental strictures, those could at least be challenged in court as unconstitutional.
The conflicts of interest law—which carries federal criminal penalties—avoids those issues by exempting the President and Vice President from its provisions.
It also leaves out members of Congress (though not their staffs), perhaps, similarly, to avoid confrontations with prosecutors from the executive branch. Each branch of Congress has set up its own ethical rules, which that branch alone enforces.
Do Presidents, then, simply govern despite conflicts of interest?
Not in the past 50 years.
According to Painter, “every other President in modern times has tried as best they could to act as if the law did apply to them.” President Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama, all used “blind trusts” to manage assets, he says. Painter is now a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.
(Vice President Dick Cheney was dogged by criticism for allegedly not adequately severing his relationship to Halliburton, the oil services company he had once run. In that instance—trivial when compared to the conflicts Trump is gearing up to incur—he merely continued to receive deferred compensation and options proceeds, which he had pledged to donate to charity.)
What’s a blind trust exactly?
With a true blind trust, Painter says, a president would typically sell his business, and then have an independent trustee—someone with no familial ties—reinvest the proceeds in assets the president doesn’t even know have been selected.
That would be very difficult for Trump. Without such an elaborate divestiture, are the conflicts really so serious?
“Profound,” argues Eisen, who is now with the Brookings Institution. “They are the most serious set of business conflicts any president has faced in modern times.”
Like what?
The “core conflict” is that “real estate businesses often thrive on easy money from banks,” according to Painter. That industry and the banking industry therefore “have a mutual interest in loose credit and loose regulation,” he continues. So Trump’s stated goal of “dismantling” the Dodd-Frank reforms of 2010 presents at least the appearance of a personal conflict. (The Trump Organization and campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry seeking comment. In a statement to the New York Times published Monday evening, the organization said: “We are in the process of vetting various structures with the goal of the immediate transfer of management of the Trump Organization and its portfolio of businesses to Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump along with a team of highly skilled executives. . . . This is a top priority at the organization, and the structure that is ultimately selected will comply with all applicable rules and regulations.”
So are there no other existing restraints? Are we simply at Trump’s mercy when it comes to conflicts?
Well, if Congress thinks an abuse of power becomes obvious and outlandish, it could impeach him. Federal criminal bribery statutes apply to presidents, too, but only for egregious and blatant abuses. Then there’s the emoluments clause, too.
What’s the emoluments clause and how does it factor in?
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution bars federal officers from, among other things, accepting, without the consent of Congress, payments and gifts “of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” The Justice Department has interpreted this provision very broadly.
A retired Army officer, for instance, who wanted to take a post as a visiting professor at a foreign university, would have to jump through multiple hoops, seeking permission from both the Army and the State Department. The same would go for a Navy reservist who joins a private law firm that happens to have a sovereign wealth fund as a client—even if the reservist doesn’t work on that account.
In Donald Trump’s case, according to the New York Times, at least one of his businesses has outstanding loans from the Bank of China, which is majority owned by the state. Loans typically have dozens of conditions, and if the bank were to ever forgive or forbear on any of those, or Trump were to negotiate a refinancing, it would be scrutinized microscopically to see if it was a “gift.” If Trump’s policy toward China were tough, it might look like was exerting pressure in an effort to win better terms on his company’s loans. If his policy were accommodating, it might look like he feared retaliation by the bank in the form of tighter terms on those same loans.
White House ethics lawyers ordinarily pore over presidents’ tax forms each years (and those of cabinet members and nominees) to make sure there are no emoluments problems. Because Trump has refused to make his returns public, scrutiny of potential problems has been impossible so far.
Is there anything the public can do to protect itself right now?
Painter recommends that Congress pass a law right now that would require that when a President or his businesses have specific matters pending before a federal agency—like, say, an Internal Revenue Service audit, or a case before the National Labor Relations Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a licensing issue before the Federal Communications Commission—that the matter must be decided by a career civil servant, rather than by a political appointee. (Trump has said that his taxes are currently under audit, and his hotels are also known to have active disputes with unions pending before the NLRB.) In the event that a White House official tried to intervene in any such matter, Painter continues, the bill he envisions would require the agency to notify the House and Senate oversight committees.
Eisen would go further still. He believes that the Congress has the constitutional power to extend the existing conflicts of interest law to cover the President, and he thinks Congress should try to do so. “If the drafters of the conflicts law had foreseen something on this scale,” he says, “they never would have exempted the President and Vice President.”
With Donald Trump’s global business empire already reaching such nations as Azerbaijan, Turkey, Indonesia, and the United Arab Emirates—and eager to enter new realms—the potential for conflicts of interests both domestically and internationally has long been obvious.
It’s clear also that the “blind trust” candidate Trump has been talking about setting up since last January between himself and those far-flung business interests will be neither blind, nor a trust, nor provide any meaningful insulation whatsoever.
He will let his adult children run his businesses, he has said, even though they are also now serving on his transition team, will certainly stay in close touch with him, and may well serve as de facto advisers on presidential business as well. (CBS News reported Monday that Trump is seeking top secret security clearances for his children.)
Several people have asked me why the federal conflicts of interest law, which bars every lowly executive branch official from acting on matters that affect their personal financial interests, won’t apply to President Donald Trump.
To find out answers to that and related inquiries, I did some research and also spoke to Richard Painter and Norman Eisen, the former top White House ethics counsels for George W. Bush (2005-2007) and Barack Obama (2009-2011). Here are the answers.
Why doesn’t the federal conflicts of interest law apply to the President?
Congress was most likely avoiding direct confrontations between branches of government, which would also raise Constitutional issues.
The Constitution sets out the qualifications for being President (things like being at least 35 years old and a “natural born citizen”). If Congress added supplemental strictures, those could at least be challenged in court as unconstitutional.
The conflicts of interest law—which carries federal criminal penalties—avoids those issues by exempting the President and Vice President from its provisions.
It also leaves out members of Congress (though not their staffs), perhaps, similarly, to avoid confrontations with prosecutors from the executive branch. Each branch of Congress has set up its own ethical rules, which that branch alone enforces.
Do Presidents, then, simply govern despite conflicts of interest?
Not in the past 50 years.
According to Painter, “every other President in modern times has tried as best they could to act as if the law did apply to them.” President Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama, all used “blind trusts” to manage assets, he says. Painter is now a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School.
(Vice President Dick Cheney was dogged by criticism for allegedly not adequately severing his relationship to Halliburton, the oil services company he had once run. In that instance—trivial when compared to the conflicts Trump is gearing up to incur—he merely continued to receive deferred compensation and options proceeds, which he had pledged to donate to charity.)
What’s a blind trust exactly?
With a true blind trust, Painter says, a president would typically sell his business, and then have an independent trustee—someone with no familial ties—reinvest the proceeds in assets the president doesn’t even know have been selected.
That would be very difficult for Trump. Without such an elaborate divestiture, are the conflicts really so serious?
“Profound,” argues Eisen, who is now with the Brookings Institution. “They are the most serious set of business conflicts any president has faced in modern times.”
Like what?
The “core conflict” is that “real estate businesses often thrive on easy money from banks,” according to Painter. That industry and the banking industry therefore “have a mutual interest in loose credit and loose regulation,” he continues. So Trump’s stated goal of “dismantling” the Dodd-Frank reforms of 2010 presents at least the appearance of a personal conflict. (The Trump Organization and campaign did not immediately respond to an inquiry seeking comment. In a statement to the New York Times published Monday evening, the organization said: “We are in the process of vetting various structures with the goal of the immediate transfer of management of the Trump Organization and its portfolio of businesses to Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump along with a team of highly skilled executives. . . . This is a top priority at the organization, and the structure that is ultimately selected will comply with all applicable rules and regulations.”
So are there no other existing restraints? Are we simply at Trump’s mercy when it comes to conflicts?
Well, if Congress thinks an abuse of power becomes obvious and outlandish, it could impeach him. Federal criminal bribery statutes apply to presidents, too, but only for egregious and blatant abuses. Then there’s the emoluments clause, too.
What’s the emoluments clause and how does it factor in?
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution bars federal officers from, among other things, accepting, without the consent of Congress, payments and gifts “of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” The Justice Department has interpreted this provision very broadly.
A retired Army officer, for instance, who wanted to take a post as a visiting professor at a foreign university, would have to jump through multiple hoops, seeking permission from both the Army and the State Department. The same would go for a Navy reservist who joins a private law firm that happens to have a sovereign wealth fund as a client—even if the reservist doesn’t work on that account.
In Donald Trump’s case, according to the New York Times, at least one of his businesses has outstanding loans from the Bank of China, which is majority owned by the state. Loans typically have dozens of conditions, and if the bank were to ever forgive or forbear on any of those, or Trump were to negotiate a refinancing, it would be scrutinized microscopically to see if it was a “gift.” If Trump’s policy toward China were tough, it might look like was exerting pressure in an effort to win better terms on his company’s loans. If his policy were accommodating, it might look like he feared retaliation by the bank in the form of tighter terms on those same loans.
White House ethics lawyers ordinarily pore over presidents’ tax forms each years (and those of cabinet members and nominees) to make sure there are no emoluments problems. Because Trump has refused to make his returns public, scrutiny of potential problems has been impossible so far.
Is there anything the public can do to protect itself right now?
Painter recommends that Congress pass a law right now that would require that when a President or his businesses have specific matters pending before a federal agency—like, say, an Internal Revenue Service audit, or a case before the National Labor Relations Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission, or a licensing issue before the Federal Communications Commission—that the matter must be decided by a career civil servant, rather than by a political appointee. (Trump has said that his taxes are currently under audit, and his hotels are also known to have active disputes with unions pending before the NLRB.) In the event that a White House official tried to intervene in any such matter, Painter continues, the bill he envisions would require the agency to notify the House and Senate oversight committees.
Eisen would go further still. He believes that the Congress has the constitutional power to extend the existing conflicts of interest law to cover the President, and he thinks Congress should try to do so. “If the drafters of the conflicts law had foreseen something on this scale,” he says, “they never would have exempted the President and Vice President.”
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,875
Conflicts of interest situations will not exist until such time as Trump is seated as the President. When that happens then the rules will be engaged.
White House ethics lawyers ordinarily pore over presidents’ tax forms each years (and those of cabinet members and nominees) to make sure there are no emoluments problems. Because Trump has refused to make his returns public, scrutiny of potential problems has been impossible so far.
Trumps tax forms are already in the hands of government officials and likely in the hands of his attorneys who are under attorney client privelege. His lawyers can provide the information to those who will need them for the transition. This writer only indicates that there is lack of scrutiny because the tax returns are not available to the public. There is no requirement for the public to see them but the transition officials of the ethics council will have access to them.
White House ethics lawyers ordinarily pore over presidents’ tax forms each years (and those of cabinet members and nominees) to make sure there are no emoluments problems. Because Trump has refused to make his returns public, scrutiny of potential problems has been impossible so far.
Trumps tax forms are already in the hands of government officials and likely in the hands of his attorneys who are under attorney client privelege. His lawyers can provide the information to those who will need them for the transition. This writer only indicates that there is lack of scrutiny because the tax returns are not available to the public. There is no requirement for the public to see them but the transition officials of the ethics council will have access to them.
Last edited:
Jiggyfly
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 9,220
http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/PresidentialTaxReturns
This is the only thing I have seen on the matter please post something that disputes this.
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,875
Are you hung up on the verbiage that says Trump has not made his returns public. If so I will repeat it again, He doesn't have to release them to the "public". IRS has his returns and if the Ethics committee feels they must see them arrangements can be made between Counsels. Perhaps you would like to go back and reread the statements made in the article. It says that the ethics people usually pore over the tax returns. Do you know that they haven't. The writer then says the returns haven't been released to the public. It's a play on words. Everyone knows his returns havent been released to the public but this writer doesn't know whether the ethics group has seen them or not.
L.T. Fan
I'm Easy If You Are
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 21,875
I think maybe the confusion of Trumps financiall records is that some think the ethics group requires tax returns as part of their documentation for vetting the nominees and possibly the President and Vice President. The financial disclosures they require are the financial statements and disclosures of interest held in companies and other business interests as well as bank relationships.
Tax returns are generally not party of the scrutiny since this area of financial interest rests with the IRS. To my knowledge tax returns are not something that is disclosed in ethics reporting. I never released mine in the reporting process nor was I asked to submit them. It would have been an unauthorized request. I suspect the writer of this article is confused about his concerns over Trumps tax returns.,
https://ethics.house.gov/financial-dislosure/specific-disclosure-requirements
Tax returns are generally not party of the scrutiny since this area of financial interest rests with the IRS. To my knowledge tax returns are not something that is disclosed in ethics reporting. I never released mine in the reporting process nor was I asked to submit them. It would have been an unauthorized request. I suspect the writer of this article is confused about his concerns over Trumps tax returns.,
https://ethics.house.gov/financial-dislosure/specific-disclosure-requirements
Last edited:
Jiggyfly
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 9,220
Thanks for making my point for me.
And how is the reporter confused he is talking exsplicitly about tax returns.
- Status