Now that the President is in office and his Cabinet in place for the most part, he has begun the work of delivering on his campaign promises. He is clearly making an earnest effort to do what he said he was going to do. What he said he was going to do is the reason he won the election, in profound ways, I might add. But, as was to be expected, in a bipartisan system of government there is going to be those who are opposed to practically any executive action. You know, as Mark Twain once said, "You can please some of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time." That's all fine and good, and as it should be. It's why it's called democracy, while allowing for debate the majority rules. Winning an election doesn't give the president free rein to any type of autocracy. Another wonder of a constitutional democracy, checks and balances and separation of powers.
However, I think the framework of the system of checks and balances has gotten a little out of whack, with the whimsical, partisan input of federal judges when they personally (and I mean that word literally...) take offense to a particular executive action. Let's take the U.S. Agency of International Development (USAID) controversy as an example. This is a case of executive control over government priorities and spending. There is an element of constitutional interpretation involved that goes back to John Marshall and Thomas Jefferson and has been affirmed in Supreme Court jurisprudence as practically unconditional. There are a few exceptions, such as the power of Congress to declare war, the power of the Senate to ratify treaties, and the requirement of Senate consent before diplomats may take their posts. There are numerous cases where congress may compel the president to operate bureaucracies and spend public funds but in general, foreign affairs is not one of them. USAID was established by president Kennedy in 1961. The original charter of USAID was quite progressive in nature, very well-meaning but also very vague, and in the long term very short on American interests.
Last Friday, Judge Carl Nichols of the Federal District Court in Washington DC, temporarily paused Trump's directives placing about 2,700 USAID employees on administrative leave and evacuating them from their host countries on an expedited basis. The objections were raised by employee unions. Nichols rejected the union's objections to stopping new spending after being informed that the administration was not blocking spending for obligations already in progress. Judge Nichol's concern was whether there would be irreparable harm resulting from the abrupt manner in which employees have been cut off from USAID information systems and directed to evacuate. It is not the role of any judge to rule on potential illegalities.
FULL STOP. This is clearly, even to the most casual observer, well into the realm of foreign diplomacy. A US Federal District Court judge has no damn business issuing orders, of any type to a US president on any matters that involve foreign diplomacy. This role was relegated to Congress and having a law degree is not required to comprehend that. Federal judges who take it upon themselves to inject their (almost always) liberal bias into executive action should also take it upon themselves to stop trying to usurp the role of the United States Congress. I can assure you the framers of our constitution did not intend for small-minded, biased judges to force their opinions on the executive branch.
Judge Nichols and Judge Engelmeyer, stick to your dockets and leave governing the country to those we, the American peopled elected to do so. Had we wanted you to make these decisions we would have elected you to the office of president. We did not do that.
#USAID. #Trump. #JudgeCarlNichols #JudgeEngelmeyer
No comments:
Post a Comment