The Founding Fathers intended that the House would represent the people and the Senate would represent the states. The Constitution established a few instances that demanded a “super majority” or two-thirds of the Senate (or in some cases, the House) – including convictions in Impeachments, amendments to the Constitution, expulsion of a member, overriding a presidential veto, and, with the 25th amendment, ruling on the disability of the President.
BY JOHN SHAFFER If one were to ask a dozen people what the biggest problem facing our federal government, one may get a dozen different answers. After this weekend’s “Schumer Shutdown,” perhaps a few of those hypothetical folks would say “the Senate rules.” That may not be the biggest problem, but it is a good place to start, since the Senate rules prevent us from taking action that would address many of the other problems. The majority of the US House voted in favor of a budget, and so did the majority of the Senate – but because of a “60-vote” requirement (variously referred to as the “Byrd Rule,” The “Daschle Rule,” or the “Reid Rule”) that majority wasn’t big enough.
The Founding Fathers intended that the House would represent the people and the Senate would represent the states. The Constitution established a few instances that demanded a “super majority” or two-thirds of the Senate (or in some cases, the House) – including convictions in Impeachments, amendments to the Constitution, expulsion of a member, overriding a presidential veto, and, with the 25th amendment, ruling on the disability of the President. BY JOHN SHAFFER The intonation of today's title is important. Depending on how the words are stressed, "What did he say?" can mean either an inquiry of exactly what was said, or an expression of shock or surprise at what words were spoken. For the sake of delicacy we will use the word "mess," which is the same euphemism that The Atlantic used back in 2016 instead of a scatalogical term that President Obama used to describe Libya. In the case of President Trump and the infamous remark, different witnesses disagree on what he said; and few people seem truly shocked or surprised that he said it, and that is the problem - it sounds so much like something we assume the President would say, and most of can believe that he would say it, that we conclude that he said it. We think it possible that the alleged remark was a paraphrase by a witness who was either offended by a sentiment being expressed or who wanted to embarrass the President. Of course, remarks of this type are undiplomatic, and insulting, crude and impolite, and should not be said, and if they are said, they should be regretted. But let us keep a few things in mind:
1) If the President did say that word, he said so in a private, behind-closed-doors conversation. He did not say it in public; or in an interview; or in a speech; or in a statement; nor did he have one of his spokespeople say it or release it. In other words, it was private. We are willing to bet the rent money that he is not the first US President to use nasty language or express disturbing opinions in private. Furthermore, we are willing to double that bet, and say that Senator Durbin, the presumptive leaker, has spoken words of comparable value in private, and probably also has heard them spoken by any or all of the last four US Presidents (or presidential candidates) with whom he has held private meetings over the years. Now, if the Senator would disclose all other instances in which Presidents used scatalogical language, or made insulting remarks about people or places, we can compare them to what has just been disclosed and determine the scale of offenses. BY JOHN SHAFFER For some time, there has been idle speculation on the possibility of Oprah Winfrey running for president, but after her recent address at the Golden Globes, the Oprah for president bandwagon is rolling, and it is picking up speed. It is not hard to understand; after all, she has risen from adversity and bad choices and has attained the pinnacle of achievement in the entertainment world. She is a conventional liberal, but seems willing to engage those who have different opinions; she is not a nasty person, and she seems to be a fine example of "the American dream" coming to fruition. The fact that she has never sought or held public office certainly can't be a problem, considering that the present occupant of the White House didn't hold office until Inauguration Day. He made his reputation in the business world and the entertainment world - worlds also inhabited by Oprah, and the trail that he blazed is one that Oprah probably could blaze as well.
BY JOHN SHAFFER President Trump makes most of his own trouble. For instance, back during the presidential election campaign, he made reference to Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 vanished emails by remarking to the crowd at a campaign rally words to the effect that “If the Russians have those emails, please release them!” His audience, many of whom probably disliked Mrs. Clinton even more fervently than they liked Mr. Trump, roared at the joke. A few days later some emails were released, perhaps by Russian hackers, and Hillary’s supporters took that to mean that “the Russians were working with Trump,” and they have been playing it like a precious violin ever since. Never mind that Mr. Trump’s remark is a relatively common form of argument, and was intended as a sarcastic dig at Mrs. C., not as a command to release stolen emails. The damning content of the emails and Mrs. Clinton’s reckless manner of handling information both were ignored, “trumped”as it were by the fact that the emails were purloined, and Mr. Trump – who almost certainly had nothing to do with the emails at all, became the villain of the piece.
|
Local ColumnistsFind articles by date or topic through quick links below. Categories
All
Archives
March 2020
|