10th Amendment, You’re Fired

 

The latest from Mr. Constitution:

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Thursday vowed to issue an executive order to mandate the death penalty for anyone who kills a police officer.

“One of the first things I’d do in terms of executive order, if I win, will be to sign strong, strong statement that would go out to the country, out to the world, anybody killing policeman, police woman, police officer, anybody killing police officer, the death penalty is going to happen,” he said.

The transcript has the unfortunate effect of casting the remarks in Hulk Smash! mode, but you get the point. Defenders of Mr. Trump may point out that we’ll have an overdue conversation about the death penalty for cop-killers, but it would seem to be more instructive to focus on the use of Executive Orders to set the penalty in criminal trials. Unless you’re cool with with the whole “rule by decree” thing, because the other side did it.

Published in General
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 73 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Hank Rhody Contributor
    Hank Rhody
    @HankRhody

    Manfred Arcane: Look, Trump will be confined by the constraints of his office because the rest of the government will so constrain him. I take this to be understood, but you seem not to have any sense of this, so maybe you are right we have an irreconcilable disagreement.

    This is a very bad way to look at this stuff. If the Congress never considers whether the Constitution allows them to write a given law, and if the President never considers whether the Constitution permits such a bill, and if the Supreme Court shows undue deference to these branches of the government you get Obamacare.

    • #61
  2. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Hank Rhody:

    Manfred Arcane: Look, Trump will be confined by the constraints of his office because the rest of the government will so constrain him. …

    This is a very bad way to look at this stuff. If the Congress never considers whether the Constitution allows them to write a given law, and if the President never considers whether the Constitution permits such a bill, and if the Supreme Court shows undue deference to these branches of the government you get Obamacare.

    I am just making an observation on what I expect to happen should Trump get elected, not endorsing his weakness here.  We can’t know for sure how careless he will be with his executive powers, unfortunately, at this time.

    But you can’t have paralysis in the Chief Executive office either (or least this is what I think).  Where do we draw the line?  Obamacare is a case in point – it was criminal that the Democrat Legislature passed that bill, with nary a single Republican vote, and without careful scrutiny of its provisions, probably we all agree.  But once passed, do we then overly restrict the President in making it work?   There were a score of moments where a Republican Legislature or Judiciary might have intervened to stop his seeming excessive use of executive powers.  I am of a divided mind whether, once the initial affront occurred, he wasn’t still entitled to enact the law in accord with its ‘spirit’, or not.

    • #62
  3. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Manfred Arcane:

    Arizona Patriot: I think that both the founders and Lincoln got this one right.

    Are you going to maintain that A. Lincoln had a spotless record for abiding by the Constitution? Do any of the charges here cause you to reconsider?

    Sorry, MA, I don’t have the time to sit in judgment on all of Lincoln’s actions.  I was addressing the incorrect assertion that suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is unconstitutional.  This appeared to be a common misunderstanding.

    • #63
  4. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Arizona Patriot:

    Manfred Arcane:

    Arizona Patriot: I think that both the founders and Lincoln got this one right.

    Are you going to maintain that A. Lincoln had a spotless record for abiding by the Constitution? Do any of the charges here cause you to reconsider?

    Sorry, MA, I don’t have the time to sit in judgment on all of Lincoln’s actions. I was addressing the incorrect assertion that suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is unconstitutional. This appeared to be a common misunderstanding.

    Well shucks, what y’all planning on doing today?  Okaaaaay, I guess I too will have to go out and do the yard work thingeee.

    • #64
  5. Brian Wyneken Member
    Brian Wyneken
    @BrianWyneken

    Manfred Arcane:

    But I further submit it is you who has no clue what our chief executive’s role is.

    Without the benefit of understanding your tone and intent in this remark, it seems insulting. I generally try not to write things like that unless I know the recipient very well, and even then I would not write something like that on a shared forum.

    It’s been over 20 years since I took a 3rd year thesis course on presidential powers from Mark Rotenberg (assistant to Ted Olson in the Office of Legal Counsel under President Reagan). It’s been about 7 years since taking courses in the roles of the DoD, State, Congress, and the President in executing war as part of my USAF Air War College. I’m no scholar, however, I’m just a guy who had to know about these things as part of my work.

    I mention my background knowing full well that it is poor form to do this on Ricochet, but I am responding to your remark that I am ignorant. You have no evidence or need for this. My knowledge of our Constitution was not germane to the post or to the conversation. I had made no assertions about the Constitution other than what could have been stated by an educated high school student. Under those circumstances, I can question whether that remark was made in good faith, so I think my response is warranted.

    (Continued in next comment)

    • #65
  6. Brian Wyneken Member
    Brian Wyneken
    @BrianWyneken

    (continuing from comment #65)

    I’ve reviewed the comments during our part of the conversation. I honestly do not see where I was so unclear. You did, however, seem to understand Hank Rhody in post #61. Hank evidently has better communication skills than I on this particular subject, so just understand that I was trying to say something very close to what Hank said.

    I understand that you are not as concerned about what Trump says or implies with respect to presidential powers because you are comfortable finding out later what he knows or believes, and/or that advisers and the separation of powers will mitigate any ill effects of actual ignorance. We are both in the process of assessing candidates. I am not comfortable with a candidate who is either being glib or is actually ignorant about something so fundamental to the office sought. We have differing frames of reference on this – that was, I thought, the conversation. Although I have nothing more to add on this point, I’m willing to continue any conversation unless I think it truly pointless or continues in the vein of me being described as “not having a clue.”

    Finally, I recommend listening to Peter Robinson’s “Uncommon Knowledge” interview with Larry Arnn as it will provide insight.

    http://www.hoover.org/research/larry-arnn-declaration-and-constitution

    I certainly don’t claim to be anything even remotely close to a Professor Arnn, but I admire his words greatly.

    • #66
  7. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Brian Wyneken:

    Manfred Arcane:

    But I further submit it is you who has no clue what our chief executive’s role is.

    Without the benefit of understanding your tone and intent in this remark, it seems insulting. I generally try not to write things like that unless I know the recipient very well, and even then I would not write something like that on a shared forum.

    Alright, I apologize for my tone.

    Advice for future postings:

    1) Cut the Uriah Heep, “Oh, so humble” stuff.  Everyone here is a work in progress when it comes to writing.  This is understood.  Doesn’t need to be explained every other post.

    2) Write with fewer words.  Good writers do that, bad not so much.  It takes time to learn, but is decidedly worth learning.

    Regards

    • #67
  8. Brian Wyneken Member
    Brian Wyneken
    @BrianWyneken

    Manfred Arcane:

    Brian Wyneken:

    Manfred Arcane:

    But I further submit it is you who has no clue what our chief executive’s role is.

    Without the benefit of understanding your tone and intent in this remark, it seems insulting. I generally try not to write things like that unless I know the recipient very well, and even then I would not write something like that on a shared forum.

    Alright, I apologize for my tone.

    Advice for future postings:

    1) Cut the Uriah Heep, “Oh, so humble” stuff. Everyone here is a work in progress when it comes to writing. This is understood. Doesn’t need to be explained every other post.

    2) Write with fewer words. Good writers do that, bad not so much. It takes time to learn, but is decidedly worth learning.

    Regards

    I wasn’t seeking an apology, but thank you for taking the time to reply. I think I have this situation figured out.

    • #68
  9. Manfred Arcane Inactive
    Manfred Arcane
    @ManfredArcane

    Brian Wyneken:

    Manfred Arcane:

    Brian Wyneken:

    Manfred Arcane:

    But I further submit it is you who has no clue what our chief executive’s role is.

    Without the benefit of understanding your tone and intent in this remark, it seems insulting. I generally try not to write things like that unless I know the recipient very well, and even then I would not write something like that on a shared forum.

    Alright, I apologize for my tone.

    Advice for future postings:

    1) Cut the Uriah Heep, “Oh, so humble” stuff. Everyone here is a work in progress when it comes to writing. This is understood. Doesn’t need to be explained every other post.

    2) Write with fewer words. Good writers do that, bad not so much. It takes time to learn, but is decidedly worth learning.

    Regards

    I wasn’t seeking an apology, but thank you for taking the time to reply. I think I have this situation figured out.

    It wasn’t the loss of time that hurt, it was the….apologizing.  :)

    • #69
  10. Brian Wyneken Member
    Brian Wyneken
    @BrianWyneken

    Manfred Arcane:

    Brian Wyneken:

    Manfred Arcane:

    Brian Wyneken:

    Manfred Arcane:

    But I further submit it is you who has no clue what our chief executive’s role is.

    Without the benefit of understanding your tone and intent in this remark, it seems insulting. I generally try not to write things like that unless I know the recipient very well, and even then I would not write something like that on a shared forum.

    Alright, I apologize for my tone.

    Advice for future postings:

    1) Cut the Uriah Heep, “Oh, so humble” stuff. Everyone here is a work in progress when it comes to writing. This is understood. Doesn’t need to be explained every other post.

    2) Write with fewer words. Good writers do that, bad not so much. It takes time to learn, but is decidedly worth learning.

    Regards

    I wasn’t seeking an apology, but thank you for taking the time to reply. I think I have this situation figured out.

    It wasn’t the loss of time that hurt, it was the….apologizing. :)

    Thank you – I mean that sincerely.

    • #70
  11. Umbra Fractus Inactive
    Umbra Fractus
    @UmbraFractus

    Jim Kearney: Trump may say “executive order” but, yes, the part he really means is “strong strong statement,” a bully pulpit kind of deal. Don’t be too literal, because he’s rarely being literal. He does want to influence the national conversation about cop killers, or Moslem immigration, and/or himself, or whatever. He’s been demonstrating that he can take control of the national conversation about anything for several months now, and not with fine-tuned Op-eds and polite private Q&A’s with the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

    So what’s the magic word? How do we know when “executive order” actually means “strongly worded statement?” Would you make such allowances for Hillary Clinton? Bernie Sanders? Marco Rubio? Why is Donald Trump the only one who is given the benefit of a doubt when he displays gross ignorance if not open contempt for the Constitution.

    • #71
  12. Could be Anyone Inactive
    Could be Anyone
    @CouldBeAnyone

    Umbra Fractus:

    Jim Kearney: Trump may say “executive order” but, yes, the part he really means is “strong strong statement,” a bully pulpit kind of deal. Don’t be too literal, because he’s rarely being literal. He does want to influence the national conversation about cop killers, or Moslem immigration, and/or himself, or whatever. He’s been demonstrating that he can take control of the national conversation about anything for several months now, and not with fine-tuned Op-eds and polite private Q&A’s with the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board.

    So what’s the magic word? How do we know when “executive order” actually means “strongly worded statement?” Would you make such allowances for Hillary Clinton? Bernie Sanders? Marco Rubio? Why is Donald Trump the only one who is given the benefit of a doubt when he displays gross ignorance if not open contempt for the Constitution.

    Because tRump is YYYYUUUUGGGGEEEEE and he is wealthy and he is a gonna make America Great Again. All the others are not tRump therefore they could not possibly be aiming for the better of the nation. Only tRump would because tRump is fabulously wealthy and he only does well if the nation does well and other assorted talking points is the reason why.

    HE GETS STUFF DONE they say!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • #72
  13. Jim Kearney Member
    Jim Kearney
    @JimKearney

    Umbra Fractus: So what’s the magic word? How do we know when “executive order” actually means “strongly worded statement?”

    I’m no Rosetta Stone but my best guess is whenever he give you two choices like that, executive order or “strongly worded statement,” you should pick whichever pleases you more.

    Given your constitution about the constitution, I’d say “strongly worded statement” suits you. Trump senses that “executive order” will get the press to amplify his statement, so he included that for them. What counts is the result. Since the statement, he’s up to 41%.

    Trump Syntax is based on his principle of “truthful hyperbole.” (The Art of the Deal, Chapter Two – Trump Cards: The Elements of the Deal; section heading Get The Word Out.) People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole. It’s an innocent form of exaggeration — a very effective form of promotion.

    Today’s example. Trump passes physical. New York Daily News headline: Donald Trump’s personal doctor claims GOP front-runner’s health is “astonishingly excellent” — “If elected … will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” Ordinary event + truthful hype = more free publicity … no, better make that more spectacular publicity like you’ve never seen ever, before or since!

    • #73
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.