Of course my blog is apolitical. But this is just too good not to post! I apologize for rubbing salt into the wounds of those who suffer Trump Derangement Syndrome as many call it.
I had a Friend tell me on Wednesday that as soon as President Trump was officially impeached that he would break out his bottle of champagne and drink a toast to Nancy and the partisan democrats.
Well, it appears that he'll have to stick his finger down his throat and regurgitate the champagne and save it for a later date if that date does come.
President Trump is not impeached until the House hands over the articles of impeachment to the Senate and Nancy doesn't want to do that. Truth stranger than fiction! No?
Trump Isn't Impeached Until the House Tells the ... - Bloomberg
https://www.bloomberg.com › opinion › articles › trump-impeachment-del...
Now that the House of Representatives has voted to impeach President Donald Trump, what is the constitutional status of the two articles of impeachment?
41 comments:
"The near-unanimous view of constitutional commentators is that the House of Representatives' "sole power" of impeachment is a political question and therefore not reviewable by the judiciary. The House is constitutionally obligated to base a bill of impeachment on the standards set out in Article II. (See Article II, Section 4.) However, the fact that the Constitution's text grants the House the "sole power," and the fact that such a review is not clearly within the Article III power of the federal judiciary indicate that this responsibility is the House's alone."
"But many scholars take the position that the Constitution requires a trial if there has been an impeachment. If such a trial cannot properly occur unless and until articles of impeachment have been transferred from the House to the Senate, and Speaker Pelosi won’t transfer them, has President Trump actually been impeached?
Sure, it’s a stupid question . . ."
Yep, very.
The House adopted Articles of Impeachment. That is what is required for Impeachment. That's why they are called "Articles of Impeachment."
What is "Trump derangement"? Not agreeing with him 100 percent of the time? What is you agree "just" 80 percent of the time? I hear a lot of talk about Democrats wanting to make Trump a one-term president---which doubtless is true, but supposedly is out of bounds. If that is the case, then it must have been the same when Republicans like Mitch McConnell wanted to make Obama a one-term president. Was that Obama derangement?
Noah Feldman isn't an impeachment specialist, or a specialist in English legal history. His specialization is First Amendment law, specifically the religion clauses. Constitutional law professors (and law professors in general) are notorious for thinking they can read a book on rocket science over the weekend and launch a missile on Monday. We should thus take his argument with a huge grain of salt.
Feldman states "If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president." But nothing in the Constitution's language either states or suggests that this is the case. Feldman's comment that "[T]he framers’ definition of impeachment assumed that impeachment was a process, not just a House vote" is merely a gloss--his gloss--on the constitutional text.
Feldman further states "[T]he framers’ definition of impeachment assumed that impeachment was a process, not just a House vote. . . . The whole point of impeachment by the Commons was for the charges of impeachment to be brought against the accused in the House of Lords." First, this overlooks the deterrent value of voting an impeachment, or threatening to do so: articles need not be sent to the Senate, or even approved by the House, to achieve the ouster of an official who shouldn't be allowed to remain in office. Cf. Richard Nixon. Second, I strongly doubt that Feldman has delved into the etymology of impeachment or its early history; the difference between the root word impetitio and the alternative prefixes impech and imped, all of which had subtly different meanings as impeachment was first evolving. Impeachment in American law has been used to mean everything from a single member of the House rising up to move for the drafting of articles of impeachment to the whole thing from inquiry up to conviction. Feldman can argue that this is what he thinks "impeachment" should mean, but that's a far cry from saying that this is constitutionally what it does mean. he doesn't have either the background or the textual basis to argue the latter.
A at 11:53, I firmly believe as an American you vote politicians out of office. That’s not deranged. Impeachment on two flimsy grounds shifts the removal of a duly elected official away from those who elect to the elected themselves. That’s deranged when done on partisan lines and for flimsy reasons.
Impeachment is not removal from office. It is a formal accusation of actions that lead to a trial and potentially removal from office. The House draws the article(s) of impeachment but no action against the president takes place without a trial and vote in the senate. It is interesting to note that the only direct act the House can easily take is to vote down the major initiatives of the president. The reverse has actually happened as often as not so the disdain for the President is primarily personal based on issues that do affect legislation. The House voted basically along party lines and it is expected the Senate will do the same. With fewer party defectors available than is needed to win the 2/3 needed to oust the president the results predict against removal from office.
Bee here:
If an impeachment is analogous to an indictment (which to me it seems to be), and a person is not indicted until charges are filed, then it follows a person is not impeached until the articles of impeachment are "filed."
God bless.
Bee
Bee here:
My goodness, the one or several Anonymouses (or would it be Anonymi?) above certainly seem to indicate they have at least a slight case of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
Get help.
God bless.
Bee
Bee, my fellow Tennessean, Andrew Johnson, had articles of impeachment delivered against him by the House to the Senate before they were officially voted or even drafted. This, and other seemingly strange activities by our government demonstrates that we live in a democratic republic. We essentially hire representatives with limited tenure to act on issues by passing laws and funding activities pursuant to those laws. It is an extension of how the president gets elected in a popular election but not directly by popular vote.
I have the general impression that Speaker Pelosi does not have her heart in this event. She may loathe Donald Trump but she is also responsible also for improving her party’s position. Timing is everything and I think she believes this is bad timing from an electoral perspective.
"A at 11:53, I firmly believe as an American you vote politicians out of office."
That may happen OR a politician might resign OR a politician might die OR a politician might be impeached and removed from office.
ALL are valid - none is more valid than any other.
Suppose you are playing Monopoly with your sisters Mildred, Calpurnia, and Sappho. You, Sappho, and Mildred KNOW that Calpurnia is cheating. It is as plain as the noses on your faces. Do you say, "Oh, we shall wait until the end of the game to see who wins in order to determine what the outcome should be! If Calpurnia wins, that means the cheating wasn't important!"
Imagine: "Oh, we know the President has committed impeachable offenses! We shall wait until the next election to see what the outcome should be! If he is re-elected, that means he should not have been impeached and removed."
Balderdash.
The Founding Fathers, being far, far wiser than you, Allan, wrote Impeachment into the Constitution. They intentionally left the causes for Impeachment vague. The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself. And that is intentional.
Obstruction of Congress is a federal crime. Federal Crimes are not "flimsy."
"Obstruction of justice is the impediment of governmental activities. There are a host of federal criminal laws that prohibit obstructions of justice. The six most general outlaw obstruction of judicial proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1503), witness tampering (18 U.S.C. 1512), witness retaliation (18 U.S.C. 1513), obstruction of congressional or administrative proceedings (18 U.S.C. 1505), conspiracy to defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and contempt (a creature of statute, rule and common law). All but Section 1503 cover congressional activities.
Abuse of power is not flimsy. Using high office for personal gain is in anyone's book an impeachable offense. Seeking to enlist foreign governments in our elections is also a crime.
I wonder how many tax-payer dollars $$$ are being wasted on this scam?
Ok, Father, anonymous at 1153, otherwise from 30327, says that we are not sure the impeachment grounds are "flimsy", as we have not heard from Trump's staff, like Mick Mulvaney who has been "Acting" chief of staff for months or John Bolton, the former national security adviser. Trump says it is a hoax, a sham and all the usual bluster he espouses---well,OK. Call the Democrat's bluff, have them testify, and if there is nothing to hide, they should not worry about appearing.
Democrats might be careful what they wish for---even if Trump were to be removed, he would be replaced by the stern evangelical Mike Pence, who makes the thrice-married Trump seem like a libertine.
As for bloggers thinking I have "trump derangement", well you might want to look at how many legislative seats the Democrats picked up in metro Atlanta last year in previously GOP districts. Trump may be accelerating the blue trend in Georgia. So be careful what you ask for...
Nancy Pelosi is also aware that the impeachment of Donald Trump is seen, not only in America but in the wider world, as motivated by party politics, and the high-sounding rhetoric about upholding democracy is just so much humbug.
She probably recalls her words regarding another impeachment in 1998; she called it 'a hatchet job on the presidency' and that the House 'is not judging the president with fairness, but impeaching him with a vengeance.'
Sauce for the goose ...
Impeaching Clinton for lying about sex is one thing, impeaching Trump for trying to enlist a foreign government in our elections AND for obstructing the proper role of Congress is another.
Cost? Oh you mean like the sham Whitewater investigation that cost us $60 million and the other pointless Clinton investigations that ran about $20 million?
Yeah, right.
A@5:54, I am glad you don’t think two extravagant political farces, that is, two wrongs don’t make a right.
Speaker Pelosi has no corner on hypocrisy. Our elected national leaders lie awash in it.
It has been suggested to me that if the Senate held a secret vote, Trump would be gone in a jiffy. The evangelical Christianity Today certainly thinks he should be removed, presumably making way for Pence:
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2019/december-web-only/trump-should-be-removed-from-office.html
I also am no constitutional law expert but it is my understanding that when the House of Lords held a trial, witnesses were called. Someone should tell McConnell, although he may be trying his best to steer the ship of the Senate Republicans between the Scylla of supporting Trump and the Charybdis of cooperating in efforts to remove him, with Pelosi’s help of course. What beats me is why anyone in their right mind would want to immerse themselves in that awful cesspool up there (have I just answered my own question?).
“The evangelical Christianity Today certainly thinks he should be removed, presumably making way for Pence”
Clarification—The editorial states:
“Whether Mr. Trump should be removed from office by the Senate or by popular vote next election—that is a matter of prudential judgment. That he should be removed, we believe, is not a matter of partisan loyalties but loyalty to the Creator of the Ten Commandments.”
“Speaker Pelosi has no corner on hypocrisy. Our elected national leaders lie awash in it.”
Amen.
The Dems said that the wanted to impeach The Donald even before he took office. Their political strategy has been to attack him at every opportunity, and that could be the reason some folks roll their eyes every time the Dems go on attack. One could guess that it’s payback for the Clinton impeachment saga, I think they would be correct. I wonder why the press hasn’t been doing any investigative reporting on the Biden's? I briefly heard that they and especially Hunter made millions from the Ukraine.
Anonymous 2
The last examples of impeachment in Britain were those of Warren Hastings (1788-1795) and Henry Dundas, Viscount Melville (1806). Both were partisan affairs, although not exclusively so; both resulted in acquittal. In Melville's case, anti-Scottish prejudice played a part. You are quite correct; the House of Lords examined witnesses, both in person and by written testimony.
The charges against Clinton were not as trivial as the anonymous contributor above would have us believe, involving perjury and obstruction of justice. From what I have read, the charges against Trump are also serious but it will not be easy to make them stick.
Impeachment is now effectively obsolete over here - partly because it is an excessively cumbersome procedure, but mainly because in the course of the 19th century the principle that cabinet ministers were responsible to Parliament rather than to the Crown became firmly established.
I realize that given the greater conservatism regarding legal and constitutional matters which prevails in the USA means that impeachment is probably here to stay, although it is regrettable when it descends into farce.
In recent months the political atmosphere in Westminster was highly toxic. The result was that the public held Parliament and politicians in increasing contempt. Healthy scepticism is one thing, but near-universal disillusionment is not good for democracy. In the last ten days the air has cleared as a result of a decisive General Election.
Who will detoxify American politics? The state of the world's greatest democracy concerns us all.
Wishing you and yours a merry Xmas and a prosperous New Year.
A2, while the author of the article you quote has freedom of speech, I know that if I wrote that in my bulletin or preached it from the ambo, that the parish and/or diocese could lose our tax exempt status if some zealous secularist wanted to prosecute that.
American Evangelicals like to be in cahoots with political powers and wield that power, think of the most visible ones (most now deceased) who wanted and courted that power.
I think the moral imperative, apart from castigating the President’s moral failures, is to castigate witch hunts that become coups. Of course there may be no moral imperative in this regard since the only moral law broken is a secular moral law of the USA that our constitution would not allow a coup or recognize a new leader that became such as a result of a coup.
Political leaders are not our moral leaders as much as we would like for them to be. An an immoral president can still do some good things like conquering political correctness that disallows Christian sentiments, like Merry Christmas. And it is interesting that this immoral sinner president is the most pro-life president we’ve had. So God can bring morality out of an immoral person.
As a Catholic, I have to agree that Donald Trump can be vulgar, egotistical, insensitive and shows poor prudential judgment with his words on a regular basis and, under normal circumstances, that is not the kind of man we would want as our president.
We are not living in normal circumstances.
We have entire sectors of the public that believe truly evil things like abortion and same-sex marriage are good things. We have large segments of once so-called "minority" groups who believe that hating and blaming white America and punishing white America is the antidote to all of the injustices and perceived injustices they have suffered or suffer now.
We have at least three generations of people who have grown up under the cult of illegitimacy, fatherlessness and welfare-funded living, and demand that it must continue in perpetuity.
We now have large numbers of college students and college-educated adults who fancy themselves as "enlightened" who believe that all dissenting voices must be silenced--a clear violation of America's First Amendment.
These are just plain EVIL trends, and all the integrity and niceness in the world isn't going to persuade any of these people to change. The only thing an effective government can do with problems like this is deal with them and solve them, opinion be damned.
Back in 1916, I watched just about every Republican debate, and was a stalwart supporter of Ted Cruz. However, after about three debates, the lights went on: I realized Ted Cruz could never beat Hillary Clinton, the very embodiment of evil in the modern world. Only one man on that stage was willing to play dirty enough to beat that vile thing at her own game: Donald Trump. I switched allegiances and have no regrets.
The "impeachment" show we've just witnessed was NOT bipartisan, as impeachments should be. It was one resentful group of angry, hateful people seeking to thwart an election because nothing else they have tried has worked. Any other president would have buckled under this kind of pressure. For some reason, all of this rage and daily stupidity seems to run down Trump's back like water off of a duck.
Philandering, thrice-married, vulgar Donald Trump has done more than any other so-called "pro-life" president to try to curtail abortion. George W. Bush was a joke in comparison.
The unfortunate reality is presidential elections require selecting the lesser of two evils. Running from that responsibility and refusing to vote because "they're both terrible" is a copout and makes us complicit with the worse evil should he or she win.
Hillary Clinton is the most vile, duplicitous, manipulative, cunning and wicked female politician since Queen Elizabeth I and I thank God daily she was not elected.
Reality check folks: We're never going to get the ideal president that we want. We live in the real world.
John,
I am glad the political air has cleared in Britain but I worry that it may retoxify in 2020 after Boris Johnson’s “honeymoon period” and result in contentious, even acrimonious, debate over Britain’s future relationship with the EU and threats, especially from Scotland, to break up the United Kingdom. How do things look in these respects across the Pond?
You are rightly concerned at the current state of American politics. To pursue the image of detoxification, perhaps a political 12-step program, suitably adapted (for example, replacing alcohol” with “power” or some such) may be in order! I know it’s quixotic but it is nice to think about nevertheless:
1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol—that our lives had become unmanageable.
2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.
3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.
4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.
5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.
6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.
7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.
8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.
9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.
10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God, as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.
12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to alcoholics, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.
Thank you for the Seasonal good wishes, which are heartily reciprocated!
Father McDonald and Natcho,
Even assuming Donald Trump alone could defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016, aren’t we now in a different place? Isn’t Pence far preferable to Trump? And surely the Republicans can find a good candidate to defeat the sorry lot of Democratic candidates currently on offer.
But he’s only been impeached on two generic charges. Why no specific charge.
I don’t like the man’s moral character in some things but that’s what got him elected and will get him elected again with those who love his championship wrestling persona and with Catholics and evangelicals who love his pro life help and with others who love his anti political correctness and with millions and millions who love his economic and stock market!
Democrats rightly distrust those who elect and want them sidetracked!
Anonymous 2
The attempt by the House of Commons to take control of the Brexit negotiations and ensure that, despite the referendum result of 2016, we stayed in the EU, amounted to a coup against the executive. This was only possible because the government did not command an overall majority. The British constitution cannot function properly if the executive is at loggerheads with the legislature.
It is highly likely that we will have a majority Conservative government for the next decade. So negotiations with the EU and other trading partners can proceed without the risk of their being derailed by any faction in Parliament.
Sophia here:
A2. You were obviously delighted to reference The Christianity Today article. However, in case you missed it- Evangelist Billy Graham's son, Franklin Graham had a blistering response to said article. He mentions that his famous father knew President Trump, supported his candidacy, "believed he was the 'man for this hour in history for our nation', voted for him and would have thoroughly disagreed with the article you referenced.
https://www.newsweek.com/billy-grahams-son-says-its-unfathomable-christianity-today-would-side-democrats-totally-1478463
Sophia here:
Natcho, I could not agree with you more! President Trump has exceeded everything I prayed for despite all the forces arrayed against him! Deo Gracias! I continue to pray that God will once again deliver us from "the party of death" (per Cardinal Burke) in 2020!
"But he’s only been impeached on two generic charges. Why no specific charge."
Allan, there are no "generic" charges, and the Bill of Impeachment, "116th Congress, First Session, House Resolution 755, Report No 116-346" spells out IN DETAIL what constitutes Abuse of Power and what constitutes Obstruction of Congress.
Here's the link: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/755/text
Sophia, Franklin graham has shown himself to be a hypocrite in terms of his support for President Trump.
Regarding Bill Clinton's behavior, Franklin Graham said, "Mr. Clinton's extramarital sexual behavior now concerns him and the rest of the world, not just his immediate family. If he will lie to or mislead his wife and daughter...what will prevent him from doing the same to the American public?"
YET, regarding Donald Trump's behavior, Franklin Graham said, "I think some of these things - that's for him and his wife to deal with. And I think the same with Stormy Daniels and so forth is nobody's business."
Graham DEFENDS Trump's misbehavior while condemning Clinton's.
He has zero credibility.
2016.
Unknown Sophia,
Thank you for the reference. I was unaware of it although does not surprise me. I have now read Franklin Graham’s response, and am unpersuaded, not least because of the apparent errors and misrepresentations in it.
More generally, this is the problem with binary thinking and polarization—a third way becomes inconceivable. Disliking Trump and wanting him out of the White House does not make Christianity Today, me, or anyone else “on the left” or “liberal” even though there are many on the left and many liberals who want the same.
So, I ask again: Do you prefer Trump to Pence or another Republican? If so, why exactly is that? Would Pence, or any other Republican who might replace Trump as candidate, be any less pro-life than Trump, for example, or any less likely to defeat the sorry bunch of Democratic candidates?
John,
I am concerned that when many of those supporting Brexit realize that “Getting Brexit done” involves much more than they had been led to believe, there will be a backlash. Related, has the election resolved, or only postponed, the battle over exactly what type of “Brexit” will prevail? Hasn’t Nigel Farage, for example, already put the government on notice that everything depends on this question?
This said, you may well be correct about a decade-long conservative government—at least as long as Corbin or Corbinism holds sway in the Labor Party. By the way, why on earth would the Labor Party do this? Didn’t they learn anything from the miserable years under British socialism? Or do younger people just not know about all that?
Oh dear me, I mean “Labour Party” of course. Apparently I have been subjected to the Procrustean strictures of American computer spell check software for too long!
Anonymous 2
I'm afraid that you are simply regurgitating the now-defunct pro-remain argument that the 17.4 millions who voted 'leave' in 2016 didn't really know what they were voting for. The 'type' of Brexit is in the political declaration and the withdrawal agreement. Both have already been agreed by the EU and will come into effect on 31 January. The British people have been listening to gloomy predictions by so-called experts for nearly four years. They are not taken in by them.
The precise details of the future relationship with the EU remains subject to negotiations, but these will not be conducted on the floor of the House of Commons. Negotiating a trade deal from an existing position of alignment is not the same as starting from scratch, and the self-interests of the UK and the EU are more or less congruent.
The Labour party is still controlled by the hard Left who have no intention of relinquishing power. After its overwhelming defeat in 1983 it took 14 years and three changes of leadership to move the party back to the centre and make it re-electable. This time the situation is even worse since the party has managed to alienate many of its core working-class supporters.
Anonymous 2
The -or suffix in words such as color, labor, honor etc. is actually preferable as it accurately renders the Latin.
The Australian Labor Party is so spelt, although Australians normally adhere to British spelling.
John,
On Brexit, I am quite simply perplexed. How could those voting to leave know what they were voting on except in the vaguest possible terms, given that no future relationship with the EU had been negotiated at that time? Even now, as I understand it, some may like what is in the Political Declaration; others may not. Has the tension between those who want minimal involvement with the EU and those who want greater involvement been resolved?
What is your sense of the likelihood of another Scottish referendum? Is it possible, likely even, that Scotland will vote to leave the U.K. and rejoin the E.U? If so, is an England independent of the E.U. worth the price of a Scotland independent of the U.K.? I heard, but have been unable to verify, that very few Scottish MPs voted for the withdrawal bill and that no DUP members did. Is that correct? I am finding it hard to get accurate information on this point.
I realized after my previous post that I had misspelled Corbyn. I would like to be able to say it was a pun on Corbyn being in the bin (dustbin of history and all that), but it was simple error. I appreciate your graciousness in not correcting me on it.
The Flag in the Whirlwind: An Update from CT’s President
Why our editor in chief spoke out against Trump, and why the conversation must continue.
Reader responses to Mark Galli’s recent editorial have spanned the spectrum. We have received countless notes of encouragement from readers who were profoundly moved. They no longer feel alone. They have hope again. Many have told us of reading the editorial with tears in their eyes, sharing it with children who have wandered from the faith, rejoicing that at last someone was articulating what they felt in their hearts. They felt this was a watershed moment in the history of the American church—or they hoped it would prove to be. Stay strong, they told us, knowing we were about to reap the whirlwind.
On the other hand, we have heard from many readers who felt incensed and insulted. These readers felt the editorial engaged in character assassination, or maligned a broad swath of our fellow evangelicals, or revealed that we prefer the Democrats to a President who has done a lot of good for causes we all care about.
Of course, we appreciate the support and listen humbly to the criticisms. But at the end of the day, we write for a readership of One. God is our Tower. Let the whirlwind come.
President Donald Trump would have you believe we are “far left.” Others have said we are not Bible-believing Christians. Neither is true. Christianity Today is theologically conservative. We are pro-life and pro-family. We are firm supporters of religious liberties and economic opportunity for men and women to exercise their gifts and create value in the world. We believe in the authority of Scripture.
We are also a global ministry. We travel the world and see the breadth and depth of what God is doing through his people all around the planet. It is beautiful, and breathtaking, and immense. The global Body of Christ—and the community of evangelicals—is vastly larger than our domestic political squabbles. But partly on behalf of that global body, we can no longer stay silent.
American evangelicals have always been a loose coalition of tribes. We have fought one another as often as we have fought together. We at Christianity Today believe we need to relearn the art of balancing two things: having a firm opinion and inviting free discussion. We need, in other words, both a flag and a table.
Continued...
Continued...
First, then, the flag. Numerous reporters have asked whether the ministry supports what was stated in the editorial. Was Mark Galli speaking on behalf of the institution? CT does not have an editorial board. Editors publish under their own names. Yet Galli has stood in the trenches for men and women of faith for over three decades. He has been an outstanding editor in chief. While he does not speak for everyone in the ministry—our board and our staff hold a range of opinions—he carries the editorial voice of the magazine. We support CT’s editorial independence and believe it’s vital to our mission for the editor in chief to speak out on the issues of the day.
As an institution, Christianity Today has no interest in partisan politics. It does not endorse candidates. We aim to bring biblical wisdom and beautiful storytelling both to the church and from the church to the world. Politics matter, but they do not bring the dead back to life. We are far more committed to the glory of God, the witness of the church, and the life of the world than we care about the fortunes of any party. Political parties come and go, but the witness of the church is the hope of the world, and the integrity of that witness is paramount.
Out of love for Jesus and his church, not for political partisanship or intellectual elitism, this is why we feel compelled to say that the alliance of American evangelicalism with this presidency has wrought enormous damage to Christian witness. It has alienated many of our children and grandchildren. It has harmed African American, Hispanic American, and Asian American brothers and sisters. And it has undercut the efforts of countless missionaries who labor in the far fields of the Lord. While the Trump administration may be well regarded in some countries, in many more the perception of wholesale evangelical support for the administration has made toxic the reputation of the Bride of Christ.
Referendums can only offer a straight yes/no choice. The 1975 referendum on what was then the EEC had two options: stay in or come out. The public cannot be expected to vote on the details. And the man or woman in the street is not concerned with the details. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats (the latter are the sad remnant of the once-great party of Palmerston, Gladstone and Lloyd George) voted overwhelmingly to implement the result of the 2016 referendum and then did their best to try and scupper Brexit by means which verged on the unconstitutional. As a direct consequence they were severely punished at the polls.
There is no likelihood of a second Scottish referendum, since it depends on the approval of the UK government which will not be forthcoming. The economic factors which would make an independent Scotland viable are even less favourable now than they were in 2014. Scotland relies on subsidies and investments from the rest of the UK. In 2014 the SNP was pledging that an independent Scotland would close the Trident submarine base at Faslane despite the resulting job losses, but would still expect to get orders for RN warships (both new aircraft carriers were built on the Clyde and work is already under way on a new generation of global combat ships). Scotland cannot rely on revenues from North Sea oil to stay afloat, especially with the pressure to move away from fossil fuels.
It is unlikely that an independent Scotland would be admitted to the EU. Spain would certainly veto it since it would encourage Catalan secessionists.
This has been a fascinating discussion. My comments are those of an American so please take them with as much salt as they deserve.
1) Brexit. I have followed this event with great interest and some concern. The concern is for the general economic welfare of individual British citizens that can be harmed by economic changes of this size. It was obvious from the start that the resistance to a quick and clean severance was done through misuse of constitutional processes driven by the sizable minority that lost. Time that could have been spent devising processes to protecting trades and small businesses was instead put to use creating hostage situations for them.
2) How this relates to President Trump. During the recount of the 2000 presidential election Al Gore commented that if the popular vote went his way then he should win. That was very disturbing coming from the man who had just completed eight years as the President of the Senate, an office created specifically to enforce Constitutional processes. At that time I noticed a test of processes that were very similar to the vote of no confidence used in parliamentary style governments. This has become a permanent tactic used to amplify antipathy when the Executive Branch and House or Representatives are of different parties.
Post a Comment