Lawrence Lessig: Trump's border wall demand is constitutionally illegitimate

[babylonsister]

Trump's border wall demand is constitutionally illegitimate
Lawrence Lessig
No reading of our constitution would ever uphold the view that a president can stop the functioning of government, to insist upon a program unsupported by the public

Fri 4 Jan 2019 06.00 EST


It feels quaint – maybe a bit absurd – to remark the fact that Donald Trump has no constitutionally moral justification for his demand that Congress fund the building of a wall on the Mexican border. Such an argument feels absurd when made against this president. Yet it should not be insignificant to Congress.

The president ran on a promise to build a wall “paid for by Mexico”. No majority of Americans has ever voted to support that idea. But that idea is not the notion that is now shutting down the government. A wall paid for by taxpayers is. That wall certainly was a central issue in the 2018 midterm elections. Overwhelmingly, the public rejected it as well. Thus has the president earned public support for neither version of his Mexican wall. Yet he is using his veto power to demand that Americans pay for a wall before he will allow the government to reopen.

The American constitution does not contemplate such presidential unilateralism, at least unsupported by the public’s will or the constitution. Perhaps the most salient historical parallel is President Andrew Johnson’s insistence that he had the constitutional right to control (and effectively stop) reconstruction after the civil war. Like Trump, Johnson insisted on his power; like Trump, he campaigned across the country to rally the nation to his view; like Trump, his view was overwhelmingly rejected at the polls; like Trump, nevertheless, he persisted – until a Congress, exhausted by his recalcitrance, impeached him and came within a single vote of conviction.

History has taught that Johnson had the better argument constitutionally, at least on the narrow question that ultimately determined his fate – whether the president has an unconstrained right to fire executive officers. But no reading of our constitution would ever uphold the view that a president can morally stop the functioning of government, to insist upon a program unsupported by the public or unrequired by the constitution.

more...

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/04/trumps-wall-is-constitutionally-illegitimate?fbclid=IwAR2By5V4Uv-sbUJUyXM1xvIWE2tBtkBeDybxEhHONPZYI2gbHuY4q8eSIPo

[Cha]

1. Excellent points! trump campaigned on

"Mexico paying for the wall". That's what his fans voted on.

And, Midterms? Forget about it.. trump and his wall were rejected.

[FredsterKathy]

11. Ransom is what it is...

When terrorists or other criminal sorts demand payment of some sort in exchange for whatever it is that they are holding from someone, that is called ransom or extortion. It is time that the Dems start screaming that Trump is a terrorist of the highest order for what he is doing with the shutdown. Demanding $5 million+ which is only the beginning of his demand is worthy of criminal charges, which is highly unlikely. I don't believe that there have been words created yet that describes Trump, and his behavior.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Wouldn't taking this to a federal court address this issue of unconstitutionality?

[smirkymonkey]

3. K&R

[watoos]

4. A heck of a lot of those federal workers

come from heavy Democratic areas. Trump assumes that the federal workers are Democrats, and he may be right, the majority may very well be Democrats. The longer the shutdown goes more areas of the government are going to run out of money, the court systems are running out of money.

This shutdown does what many rich neoliberals want, shrinking government and drowning it in a bath tub.

We had better start thinking about the possibility that it isn't just Putin who wants to destroy our institutions and destroy our democracy, there may well be a lot of American "oligarchs" who want our democracy destroyed also.

Vulture capitalist Mitt Romney is being primed to take over when Trump is deposed.

[True Blue American]

7. I just heard one say

“ If it did not affect my family personally, I would tell him to stand tall, but since it affects my family!”

All about me.

[czarjak]

8. SAD!

[getagrip_already]

9. what neoliberals want? go back to brietbart.. n/t

[Vinca]

5. This would be over if the GOP did their jobs and represented the people and not the orangutan.

[watoos]

6. I apologize, this is OT a bit, but,

speaking of fulfilling campaign promises; how is that IRS audit of Trump's taxes coming along? I remember Trump promising to release his taxes when the audit was finished.

[kentuck]

10. Right on!

He does not have the authority to make such demands. It's past time for the Congress to hold him accountable.