The answer is not very well, as my colleague Andy Koppelman and I explain in an oped for CNN.com. Here is the opening paragraph:
Rep. Jason Chaffetz has some explaining to do. As chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the Utah Republican spared no effort in leading the multiple investigations of Hillary Clinton. Yet he has shown little interest in investigating, or even questioning, President Donald Trump's myriad financial entanglements. His explanations of the difference suggest that Chaffetz doesn't even understand why Congress has the power to investigate in the first place.
You can read the whole piece here.
I believe Rep. Chaffetz believes his job is to carry water for the Republican party, and so the answer to your query is "yes." However, should anyone believe his job is broader than that, the answer shifts to "heck no" immediately…
Big whoop. I am no Trump fan. However, the "business of America is business." What is good for Trump enterprises is good for America. We need to pick our battles… If he defies court orders or threatens individual liberties or grabs Putin by the @#$%^##%%$%#$%$^%^, you know what, and sells us out, he deserves to be investigated. We are on notice: We made our bed. We knowingly and voluntarily elected a monumental ass to the Presidency. Can't investigate him for that…WAIVER!!!!
The end of a democratic republic, like the death of a human, is a process, not an event.
The norms have eroded, and the humans involved have become less and less qualified.
Governments rise and fall. Most people survive.
However, thermonuclear weapons are a new element.
When Rome fell there weren't 1,700 species ending nukes spread all over the Mediterranean.
Yes, the world will end because someone mentioned buying some jewelry and CONGRESS HASN'T ACTED!!!!
Shame! Shame! Shame!
Your authority that requires the President to divest is what, exactly?
This: " no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”?
Really? Please, cite the case. You can't.
You freely admit you have no authority in law, constitutional or statutory. As usual, long on rhetoric, short on facts and law.
Now, you argue that indictment and technical violation of the law isn't the standard. There is rich irony here. Keep writing this stuff. It is LOL material and better than SNL (except for Spicy: that is truly hilarious).
What's best about the partisan Party talking points these days? These arguments are erasing almost all of the arguments we've heard from them over the last eight years (the motives for obstruction, etc.)
Thank goodness mentioning jewelry sales was the only transgression of 45 and his minions, because otherwise I would have been very worried…
Not a Trump fan but is Congress supposed to go on fishing expeditions? Have specific allegations been made against Trump at this point? There were many made against HRC and the foundation, Bill's dealings with shady business associates while she was SoS. Is there a wonder as to why donations to the foundation have pretty much ceased, esp. from foreign entities? The Clinton Global Initiative is closing. The process started in July when it was likely she would win and they did not want problems. She lost. Why close it and not continue its good works?
Every media outlet, the Democratic Party, Soros, etc. are looking for dirt on Trump. That is not the job of Congress.
Anon
The panic and hysteria of the Party is because it has lost so badly, so often, and it can't figure out the reason. It is just spouting venom indiscriminately, and, if you think a joke about jewelry sales is trivial, then SAY SO!
Let's see if Lubet posts a piece in some newspaper about Chicken Little's approach to life …
Yes, Chaffetz is doing his job in a one sided, partisan manner. Just like congressmen like Henry Waxman and John Dingell did when they were committee chairs and there were Republican administrations. St4ve, is your objection to this fact of life or does it bother you only when the party that you don't support behaves like this?
This is not normal.
Donald Trump is not a flamboyant Mitt Romney or John McCain.
This is the demagogue the framers designed the system to guard against, with the knowledge of Locke, Hobbes, Hume, Montesquieu. et. al.
What we are seeing is weaponized ignorance.
It will not end well.
terry Mallory,
Donald Trump is a combination of Ron Popeil, Howard Hughes and Jimmy the Greek for his labeling stereotypes. You mentioned our famers and their knowledge of political and moral philosophy in designing our system. You forgot the Native American Tribes.
It is not the end because of one key observer that came after our founding. De Tocqueville. He talked about fragmentation and the assorted checks and balances that that entails. We are seeing it with our Judges and at the municipal and local levels of government. We see it in the lawyers who voluntarily showed up at airports. We see it in all stripes of people who are imbued with small "d" democracy in their blood.
I hope you're right, anon.
The framers didn't fail, we, as citizens, are failing them.
The constitution is not a self-executing document.
Call me whatever name you'd like.
Right now, the falcon cannot hear the falconer.
Hm. Good point on Tocqueville, Cpt.
Hope springs eternal that the constellation of american civil institutions will help heal the deeply broken federal state.
BTW, speaking of name calling that Lubet approves.
THe word "demagogue" is thrown around here in the FL. The word means "a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument."
During the last campaign, can you think of ANYONE in the Party that might fit the bill?
Someone, for example, quick to label others as racist, xenophobic, sexist, etc.? ANYONE?
Nearly all, if not all, politicians are demagogues to some degree.
I believe I limited my criticism to "the demagogue the framers designed the system to guard against." I stand by that assessment.
Steven Miller, Trump Advisor, yesterday: "[t]he president's powers here are beyond question." Does that sound right to you, as a citizen of a democratic republic?
Terry,
In what context did Steven Miller say that? Who is Steven Miller? Al Haig famously noted "I am in charge here" and Bob Dole's hero, Richard Nixon said, "If the President does it, it is legal." No doubt, we need to be vigilant, but the Republic did survive. With you and a whole bunch of small "d" democrats, we will survive.
It was said in regards to the immigration executive order, where presidents do receive significant deference from the courts.
that said, are you comfortable with any of the president's actions being 'beyond question.' Are we a country of laws or a country of men? If any man's actions are 'beyond question,' we are no longer a country of laws.
One of the finest speeches ever given, was President Ford's on August 9, 1974.
The authority of the President is not unreviewable; however, that word is used by laypeople in lieu of "a nonjusticiable political question."
Anyone who has seriously studied the Supreme Court precedents on this subject knows that the Constitution is silent on immigration policy and that the Supreme Court held, a long time ago, that the president and congress share the authority to admit and exclude. The media fails to report that the Ninth Circuit focused on persons who had already been granted some form of permission, or were already present, and did NOT hold the EO to be a religious ban. As these topics had already been addressed by a "guidance" (see, ACA, distinguishable in that Congress granted the HHS authority to issue these), which the Court refused to recognize, the reissuance of the EO would appear to be in order.
As for the Congress investigating the newly elected President for "conflicts" I have yet to hear the law on this subject. Cite the apposite law, please. Be sure to incorporate in your discussion a thorough analysis of the trust documents prepared by a reputable law firm, the "give back" of certain profits and the legal effect of these arrangements. Cite an example of the "conflict" and prove the effect some sum of money had on policy (as in, e.g., "You can't prove that donations to a foundation and exorbitant speaking fees influenced any decision, no matter how close in time.") (This latter task will be especially enjoyable, as we have three weeks of decision making to work with).
The Party has attempted to link the selection of the countries for the EO to the president's business interests. This one is really rich, as the prior administration selected these countries and the Congress enacted a statute memorializing the special scrutiny required.
Can we expect the Party to properly prepare its complaints?
Don't put words in Steven Miller's mouth. He said what he said, unqualified.
You're quick to spot the gymnastics others perform to support 'the Party.'
Doctor heal thyself.
Unqualified , non reviewable, a nonjusticiable political question.
SOrry, I'm not getting fine distinction here. Nor will the public.
The bottom line: when the prior president acted with respect to travel from Iraq, was there outrage?
Read USA Today, Jan. 30, 2017, regarding the statements from hearings therein quoted regarding a "hold" and the "stringent vetting" then newly required:
“As a result of the Kentucky case, the State Department stopped processing Iraq refugees for six months in 2011, federal officials told ABC News — even for many who had heroically helped U.S. forces as interpreters and intelligence assets,” ABC News reported.
Yes, one remembers all the members of the Party stating that the end of human decency had arrived.
Are you an attorney, anon?
The difference between 'power beyond question' and 'non-justicable political question' turns on who makes the decision. in the former the king crowns himself, in the latter the court decides that it is not within their power to review, the scope of such power is in the hands of the polity. In the former serfs, in the later citizens.
You know this.
It's why 'first you kill all the lawyers.'
Because we're supposed to be citizens, not just consumers.
Iraq immigration under Obama in 2011?. . . I'm sorry. . . did you just change the subject?
anon,
The distinction between President Obama's 2011 Order and Leader T-Rump has to do with vagueness and over breadth. Obama was responding to a specified threat. T-Rump was pandering to a campaign promise.
The president isn't a King. No court will agree with that.
This thread was about financial entanglements, not the EO.
Let's get all worked up about those now.
"Iraq immigration under Obama in 2011?. . . I'm sorry. . . did you just change the subject?"
Oh, sorry, I meant to refer to Bush. That's ok, right? Isn't that what I've been hearing non stop for eight years?
"The president isn't a King. No court will agree with that."
You see the tension in those two sentences right?
The wolf isn't a carnivore. No lamb will agree with that.
It is far more important than the president and body politic agree with this than the court.
The court, and the rule of law generally, has the power we give it.
No one has defied a court.
THe prior administration was stayed and overruled on EOs dealing with immigration. This is the natural way of it.
BTW, the wolf analogy makes no sense.
Better:
The wolf is a carnivore. The hunter has a rifle.
It doesn't matter if the wolf agrees.
Nor do the public matter much. Unless there is a revolution, respect for the courts is about all that is left, and, the prior administration and the Party worked non stop to destroy that (see, e.g, "Citizens Unites" as a rallying cry for the demagogic who didn't understand the case). The present administration is carrying on too, although it has backed off for now.
Let's follow it with a less antagonistic and more open mind, shall we?