Uncharted waters but there is a reasonable chance that the SCOTUS would have a problem with it unless it materializes as a constitutional amendment.
This is a nice strategy to not have to worry about the problem of “what jobs are now not getting done”. It conveniently avoids thinking about why we have so many people working in government. If you have to actually think about that, it gets a lot harder - do we cut that guy in the Department of Energy currently investigating wayward enriched uranium, the guy in veterans affairs working through the claims backlog, or the guy in the FBI tracking the serial killer? Not an easy question. “Let’s just fire 90% of the government and let the chips land where they may” is much easier. Never mind the collateral damage that comes from that.
This is something you might be able to get thru without amending the Constitution. But you need to be more specific and more clear if you want to pass a law.
Do you mean the President cannot meet with any foreign leader alone? Or just specific foreign leaders? Just hostile ones - OK, who defines “hostile”? Congress? The courts? The President?
Does a translator count, or is it someone else? Can that person be compelled to report on what was said, or, conversely, can they be required to keep it secret? Who picks the person?
It’s all well and good to say “this is unacceptable to me”, but you need to define what is unacceptable, what would be acceptable, and then to convince a majority of legislators to pass a law.
There is always the option of impeachment and removal from office. The House could impeach and the Senate remove Trump from office for meeting with a foreign leader alone. The hard part is convincing a two-thirds majority that it is a good enough reason.
Regards,
Shodan
I think the interests of the nation and the interests of donald are coming into a conflict here.
In a case where there is no US advantage to meeting alone, or if there are extenuating circumstances (special prosecutors looking into the issue) it doesn’t sound intuitive to me to let him exercise this freedom to choose himself over the nation, when he is obviously supposed to be acting as POTUS, and not CEO of T.E.
If there is a reason to meet alone the case should be made by the president. If he just says “because I am boss” then he should be impeached just based on his civics. Totalitarianism is more than a misdemeanor.
I think that there should be three aides in addition to translators, and they come from at least two parties. Everyone will be subject to deposition. Are there compelling reasons why not to do this? Is it awkward? I’m looking around and seeing a lot of awkward anyway.
I don’t recall you complaining about Obama meeting foreign leaders alone. Or Bush, for that matter.
You’re just unhappy that it’s Trump. You have democratic controls. Use them.
Stop doing Trump’s work for him.
When did Obama meet with foreign leaders alone? Or any other president for that matter. Cite for a one on one in private meeting with a foreign leader by any other president please.
Of course you’re wrong.
But more than that: What did you have to say when Obama had his so called “apology tour” or when he supposedly bowed before another leader of another culture and that supposedly signalled an “internatonal event”? Wasn’t that high pitched noise you?
You’d have to amend the constitution to add specific qualifications and/or disqualifications. A few might be conceivable at some point, but not today.
Listing “unbelievable asshole” as a disqualification wouldn’t be enforceable.
Well so far I like the idea of: making changes to the conditions under which you may run, in terms of disclosure of finance, tax returns; and making rules about how our ambassadors interact with foreign leaders in official capacities, in light of recent espionage disclosures.
I think that another big issue we can deal with now is the inauguration committee. It seems to have been a slush fund. The money going in it has already had questions raised. I think there is secret, or at least untransparent, foreign money in it. I also think it has been used for illegal purposes. Just from my laymans news watching it is dirty.
Why isn’t there already a case? Maybe we are overwhelmed with cray cray.
Or perhaps it is an absence of evidence. On what do you base your belief that the money for the inauguration was used for illegal purposes?
Regards,
Shodan
I’m going to answer, but I have to establish now that it isn’t a requirement that there is evidence of illegal activity for us to try to defend democracy by changing standards. This isn’t as much a court of law, but of common sense. We have seen the contempt for our norms and that is reason enough to take an interest in each facet of government that might be manipulated by an unscrupuolous president.
This is a new thing in the world and we should be humble before it: There is a president uncoupled from reality.
The fact that California, in a “you can’t get more democratic than this” straight-up, most-votes-wins election, elected Arnold Schwarzenegger not once, but twice, leads me to believe that any problems democracy may have can’t be fixed to everyone’s satisfaction without getting rid of democracy in the first place.
Did Schwarzenegger do a particularly poor job as Governor? Ignoring the partisan difference I thought Arnold was regarded as an intelligent competent Governor who was at least as effective as his predecessor, a career politician. No?
Arnold’s first election was explainable totally by name recognition in that wacky free-for-all “first past the post” election they got after recalling Gov. Davis. His second, well, he at least had a relevant record by that time to evaluate. I warned people that, regardless of your politics, the presidency is not an entry level position. I would have said to trump, Carson, Oprah, the Rock or anybody else. You think you got something to contribute, great. Run for Governor, Senator, Mayor, dog catcher.
What should we do, post-Trump?
I’m thinking a public apology to the rest of the world and a solemn promise to never go off our meds again would be a great start.
I don’t see why you are so fixated on Trump meeting with Putin alone.
What, exactly, do you think was accomplished by that that could not have been accomplished by other means?
And why should a president have less freedom to meet with people privately than you do?
Is it unprecedented for a President to meet with another president privately? No. In fact, it is not unprecedented for other Presidents to meet with Putin privately.
In your source I see only one private meeting (“in 2007 in Kennebunkport, Maine”) mentioned. And anyway is it clear that “private” means “only two plus interpreters”?
In any event, I don’t think the main concern with Trump’s private meeting is his treasons — he can find other ways to deliberately deliver secrets to his blackmailer — but with Trump’s stupidity. Even if not trying deliberately to subvert U.S. interests, this pompous stupid man could give away top secrets in boast, bluff, or false camaraderie.
Due to being, in some ways, even more of a conservative, I’d rather go back to being a constitutional monarchy.
George III a dictator? Just not true. And – because of actual responsible government – when the American Revolution was lost, the Prime Minister then lost a vote of confidence. That’s what happens when you have the good governance of a constitutional monarchy.
I know the above paragraph is a pipe dream. But so is going back to the non-democratic ideas of our republican founders such as property-holder voting qualifications, legislators selecting senators, and having nominees selected by notables rather than primaries. You and I are both tilting at the windmills as we’re stuck with this democratic mess.
I see no evidence in your cite that any president met Putin without notetakers or other aides in addition to the translator. Please quote the part that says any president met privately with Putin.
This is from your source too.
Do you understand that there are not actually many “other means” to communicate securely in the criminal world? Ask Gen Flynn about it.