Congress now in impeachment spotlight, but its powers fade

Gordon L. Weil

A funny thing happened to the House on its way to impeachment. It got lost.

It happened a long time ago. Despite the unusual focus of impeachment on the role of Congress, it highlights just how irrelevant the national legislature has otherwise become.

In the congressional conflict with President Trump, its leaders stress that the House and Senate were placed in Article I of the Constitution for a reason. In a government with "three co-equal" branches, the legislative branch is really most important.

The House majority disputes Trump's objections to impeachment, reminding him that the Constitution gives the House "the sole power of impeachment." This congressional power provides no role for the president.

In reality, among the three branches of government – legislative, executive and judicial – Congress may have the least power. Compared with the executive, it obviously comes in second.

Shedding oppression by the British king, the drafters of the Constitution sought to ensure control of the federal government would not be exercised by one person but by legislators representing the states and the people. Hence, Article I.

But they were overly optimistic. Three of the country's greatest presidents would deal with challenges that increased their powers. Washington was empowered to create the federal executive. Lincoln led the country to save the Union. F.D. Roosevelt rallied the nation to reform the failing economy and win a world war.

Even without those events, central control of the military and foreign affairs in the world's major power made a strong executive inevitable.

The country spread across a continent. At the same time, managing public affairs became more complex as government dealt with matters ranging from race relations to railroads.

From the outset, Congress delegated to the president powers that were meant to be under its control. The task of governing became so complex that authority came to be exercised by executive branch officials and regulators.

Gradually, Congress accepted that the president should be granted broad authority because either the chief executive could respond rapidly to new problems or members of Congress could avoid responsibility for necessary but unpopular policies. As impeachment reveals, Congress is left with little ability to control presidential action.

In recent decades, Congress has also allowed the Supreme Court to make legislative decisions that were its responsibility. Because the legislative body either passes unclear and conditional laws or doesn't pass them at all, the Court often fills the gap.

Take the abortion issue as an example. While federal law bans spending for abortions, it fails to define rights or limits, if any, for the procedure. In filling this gap, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Roe v. Wade. The matter was settled, perhaps tentatively, by nine justices, not by the elected Congress.

Strict party allegiance and the resulting partisanship promote executive power. Parties in Congress back, almost blindly, presidents of their own party.

Senate Majority Leader McConnell won't allow votes on major bills unless he is assured of White House support. Ceding all power to the president, the Senate has given up the role of an independent legislature.

What about Maine? Gov. Paul LePage set the record for vetoes, even rejecting bills passed with huge majorities or even unanimously. After the Legislature received a LePage veto, Republicans would often reverse their previous support for the bill and sustain their governor's position to kill it.

Public opinion rates Congress even less favorably than the president. Compared with the president, members of Congress, whose prime focus is gaining re-election, seem to take little action. In part, that appearance results from the media focus on the president, easier to cover than Congress.

During the unusual House exercise of its unique power of impeachment, the favorability rating of Congress has increased. While that rating gain may be heavily partisan, it recognizes a rare moment of congressional action. The people probably want more.

To recover power, Congress could pass simple and unconditional legislative directives, not leaving it to the executive branch to fill in the blanks. It should decide tough issues and not leave them to the courts. Both take hard work and the courage to resist special interests.

By stripping power from congressional leaders, members would be less straitjacketed by party discipline. Beginning in 1994, party discipline became a major cause of extreme partisanship. And, by giving leaders complete power to set the agenda, members allow them, like the president, to weaken the legislative branch.

Voters elect legislators, not political robots. Members should focus more on exercising their legislative powers and worry less about their permanent campaigning for re-election.

Trump, Sanders seek to reform 'liberal world order'

Gordon L. Weil

Is the presidential campaign already boring or confusing?

The pundits endlessly ponder, "Who won the last debate? Who's ahead in the Democratic caucus in Iowa? Can Trump win again?"

As usual, people following politics are being treated to a campaign covered like a sports event.

But this may be a landmark election. Despite appearances, it won't simply be about keeping or rejecting Donald Trump as president. It will offer a stark choice about the country's future. There are three options.

The choice starts, not with Trump, but with the "liberal world order." That's the system that emerged following the end of the Second World War in 1945. It is not "liberal" in the narrow political meaning. In this case, liberal means freedom and democracy for all.

Under this system, American-style democracy was supposed to take root in many countries. Governments would be chosen by the people. Their main task would be improving the quality of life of citizens. Average people would gain a greater share of national wealth through new jobs and prosperity.

Military conflict among countries would be reduced, because nations would agree on rules for settling their differences. The United Nations would allow the winners of the Second World War to ensure the rules were followed, so that peace could be promoted.

In Europe and elsewhere, this new world order succeeded under American leadership, but it also experienced obvious failures, which became more apparent over time.

National democracy produced disappointing results for many people. Instead of promoting prosperity, it could cause a growing gap between the wealthiest people and the rest of the population. Woman and minorities did not gain equality with dominant groups.

In world affairs, the Soviet Union rose, broke the rules, and eventually declined, leading to hopes that Russia, its successor, would join the new order. Instead, Russia rose and broke the rules. So did China. Non-government terrorists attacked. The U.S. engaged in endless wars based on questionable assumptions. The U.N. was helpless.

In the U.S. and other countries, the new order was challenged for its shortcomings. A new generation of leaders offered a second option.

Trump would "make America great again," going back to a time before the new order. Taxes would be cut. The growing political power of minorities would be reduced. Environmental controls on business would be slashed, because they are obstacles to wealth creation.

The U.S. would reject allies and alliances as having failed to produce results. The only international rules worth following are homemade.

Trump is no great theorist. His focus is self-promotion. To gain support, he chose to serve as the conduit for the political views of those who reject the post-war order.

He is not alone. The U.K. move to leave the EU and Turkey's move to reduce its NATO ties depart from the "liberal" view. Dictators, or at least authoritarians, displace democracy. The ruler of Hungary openly proclaims he is "illiberal."

If you were unhappy with the results of the "liberal world order," you wanted change. Whatever else Trump offered, it surely was change.

The third option is a different kind of change. Bernie Sanders in the U.S. and Jeremy Corbyn in the U.K. believe people reject a "liberal world order" that has produced inadequate public services, economic discrimination and unnecessary wars. Unlike Trump, their vision does not look back.

They believe the post-war order did not go far enough. If the "liberal order" gave freedom to corporations and left society under the control of the wealthy few, then they say it is time to give power to a truly democratic government in which each person counts the same.

The three choices lie just below the surface of the 2020 campaign.

Trump offers a continuation of the modern Republican program to reduce "political correctness" in favor of a more authoritarian government, less emphasis on minority rights, and less environmental regulation.

The Democrats are divided on the alternative to offer voters. Some want to erase the Trump presidency just as he has tried to erase the Obama presidency. They would return to the liberal order, while improving health care and fighting global warming.

Other Democrats respond to the demand for change and would repair the failures of the old order through greater common action led by government and financed by higher taxes on the wealthy. Though exaggerated, some label this "socialism."

This is not a routine election about who wins the impossible job of president. It is about making a major decision on where the country wants to go.

The impeachment and trial of Trump – in three acts; Search for the 'smoking gun'

Gordon L. Weil

Americans are not great theater-goers. But the theater is now coming to us.

It is a major national show: "The impeachment and trial of Donald J. Trump – in three acts."

We already have a pretty good idea of the plot, but we remain fascinated by the leading character.

Act 1 is the impeachment inquiry. Democrats seek to build a case that President Trump improperly asked a foreign leader, the Ukraine president, to announce a review of the false claim that former Vice President Joe Biden undermined a Ukraine investigation of his son Hunter. An earlier investigation there had turned up nothing.

The Democrats also want to show that Trump withheld vital military aid to Ukraine to force an announcement about the Biden case and the discredited claim that it had meddled in the 2016 campaign to help Hillary Clinton. This trade-off would be the famous "quid pro quo."

In the now famous July 25 call, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky thanked Trump for military aid and promised even more military purchases from the U.S.

Trump immediately responded, "I would like you to do us a favor though...." Does the use of "though" mean that aid depended on that favor?

Republicans claim there's no direct evidence that Trump took any such improper actions, though Trump tries to block his staff from testifying and withholds documents. And nothing really happened, because the aid flowed, though only after a whistleblower revealed the call, and there were no new Ukraine investigations.

Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee are drafting a list of charges and will recommend impeaching Trump. The House Judiciary Committee could add obstruction of justice and other charges.

Act 2 will be the House debate. A united GOP will argue that Trump's requested "favor" and efforts to block the investigation fall short of impeachable offenses. The Democrats, without Republican votes or hope of removal by the Senate, will vote to impeach.

Why would they impeach Trump, if they can't win?

Though impeachment will look partisan, Democratic leaders believe it is important to act if they find Trump abused his powers.

This case will be only the fourth time the House has considered impeachment. If a president is ever again charged, House action now would help define the broad offenses in the Constitution that could one day influence that case. Of course, it would also strike a political blow at Trump in an election year.

Act 3 will be the trial in the Senate. It would take 67 senators to remove Trump from office. At least 20 Republicans would have to decide Trump is guilty. That seems virtually impossible.

Why won't Republican senators vote against Trump? The GOP has become Trump's party and is now so closely tied to him that his defeat could threaten Republican senators in the 2020 elections and the future of the party itself.

Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton all left obvious fingerprints on their offenses, so the charges were easily pinned on them. Republicans stress that proof of Trump's responsibility comes mainly from others, even though some reports come from multiple witnesses.

The Republicans charge witnesses are biased. For the GOP, not only must there be a "smoking gun," but there must be a picture of it in Trump's hand. The Democrats keep looking for it.

The only remaining question is if Trump's actions rose to a sufficiently high level that he should be removed. The two previously impeached presidents were not removed. Nixon would have been forced from office, so he became the only president to resign.

The GOP will continue to argue that, even if Trump had threatened a "quid pro quo," he caused no harm. His mere attempt is not an impeachable offense. The Democrats will say lives were lost because of the aid freeze.

The Republican position is bolstered by Zelensky's failure to claim that he felt any pressure from Trump. Obviously, he is mindful of his country's dependence on the U.S., which may influence his attitude. He wants to stay out of American politics.

Though the plot of this drama seems easy to forecast, the show will go on. We want to see the actors perform, and we hope for surprises.

There is at least a slight possibility that, even though not removed from office, Trump would fail to gain the majority support of the Senate. That might take the opposition of only three Republicans. And that could influence the 2020 elections.

Whatever happens, this play won't be a comedy; it could well be a tragedy.