Has Trump Never Heard of the Veto Override?

The President seems to think that he has the final say over whether the government will be open or shut down if he doesn’t get his wall.  Not surprisingly, he does not seem to understand the constitution’s careful structure of checks and balances among the three branches of government.

If Congress passes a bi-partisan spending bill that does not provide for Trump’s wall and Trump vetoes it, Congress then has the ability to override his veto if 2/3 of those voting in each chamber so vote.  That means 67 Senators and 290 Representatives.

If roughly a third of the Republican members of Congress finally show some spine, the override would pass.  It would require 20 Republican Senators and 55 Republican Representatives.

Given the recent behavior of Republicans in Congress, it’s hard to imagine that many bucking the President.  However, many have become nervous about the shutdown, of the effect it was having on their constituents, and thus on their future electability.  After just having gone through the ordeal of a 34-day shutdown, they do not want to be tagged with supporting another one.  So it is possible.

It would be heart-warming to see democracy in action again!

The other way out that both Republicans and Democrats are actively discussing is to categorically prevent future shutdowns by continuing funding at current levels when there is a dispute that prevents funding legislation from passing.  That would not have the “beauty” of an override, but it would do the job of keeping government open and end the history of cliff-hangers that we have experienced so often over the last decade or more.

An Open Letter to Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi: It’s Time to Stop Protesting the Wall

Ok.  You’ve made your point that the wall, as opposed to other types of increased border security, is not a good idea for various reasons.  And you’ve made clear that you are not going to let Trump roll over you and the new Democratic majority in the House.  As a liberal/progressive I have supported your position.

However, in week 3 of the shutdown the issue is a different one.  The issue is the welfare of the 800,000 federal employees who are not being paid, even some who are working, as well as the impact of the shutdown on the welfare of the country.

In this context what do you as leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress do?  You say you’ve passed funding bills to open the government while border security is negotiated, but Trump won’t sign them and Senator McConnell will not even schedule them.  Both sides are intransigent over funding for the wall.

We all agree, I think, that immigration should happen in an orderly manner, in accordance with the procedures and numbers set forth by Congress.  No one, not even the most fervent progressive, is in favor of illegal immigration.  This is completely separate from the issue of what we should do with the illegal immigrants who are already here and have become part of the fabric of their communities.

What is it then with the wall?  It has become a symbol of resistance to Trump and to his stand on immigration policy.  He not only wants the wall, but he has vilified illegal immigrants throughout his Presidential campaign and his time in office.  The wall has been made repulsive because it has been tainted with his offensive language.  

But even given all that, is this something over which you draw the line in the sand?  The answer should clearly be, no.  The issue of the wall does not rise to the level of importance that would lead to a lengthy shutdown.

Now of course once could ask, why should the Democrats blink?  Why doesn’t Trump back down.  And that’s a fair question.  But this is not a game of chicken.  It’s not even a question of right or wrong.  We are talking about the welfare of our country and the livelihood of millions of Federal employees.

Some Republican Senators have suggested combining the $5 billion for the wall with legislated protection for the Dreamers and other immigration reforms.  But these are not easy matters to legislate and you quite rightly don’t trust Trump to follow through with any commitment he makes.

You should therefore hold a press conference to announce your decision to give Trump his $5 billion for the wall, stating strongly that while a wall, as opposed to other increased security measures, is not in the country’s best interest, you are at this point more concerned about the welfare of the 800,000 federal employees going without pay and the overall welfare of the country which the continued shutdown is impacting in many ways.  Make clear that you have tried passing legislation to open up the government while negotiating this issue, but Trump and McConnell won’t budge.  This is the only way left for you to act responsibly as leaders of the Democratic Party in Congress and protect the interests of the country.

You will come out of this smelling like roses.  And if your fervent resist base has a fit, which undoubtedly they will, it’s time for them to act like grown-ups and not be blinded by their hatred and disgust of Trump.  You have fought the good fight; now it’s time to do what is best for the country, even if means having to listen to Trump gloat about his “win.”

Reflecting on 75 Years

Yesterday was my 75th birthday.  Usually I treat my birthdays just like any other day, although a cause for some celebration.  I have always felt good about birthdays, as opposed to the way many people feel.  I’ve never felt myself “growing old.”  

But at 75 years, it does seem to warrant some reflection.  I have lived through 3/4 of a century.  That sounds like a very long time, and yet it doesn’t seem long at all really.  Yes, my childhood, even my 30s seem like a long ways back, but not 3/4 of a century.  That concept is hard to wrap my head around. 

Our concept of time seems to vary depending on whether it is personal experience or whether it's historical.   When it’s personal, we don’t feel like we are part of history, that we are part of the march of time.  And yet we surely are.  If I think of all the periods I’ve lived through … Vietnam, AIDS … to name just a few, I have been witness to a lot of history.   But I don’t feel like I’ve been part of this vast moving scope of humanity and the cosmos, ala watching an American Experience episode.

The other thing is that on reflection, I’m aware that I almost feel distant from this historical period, probably because I don’t or didn’t feel part of its sweeping movement.  And I don’t feel like it’s a period I’m particularly proud to have been part of.  Quite the contrary, it has been a period filled with pestilence of one sort or another, whether war or disease or various forms of inhumanity and dysfunction.  

We tend to look back at past epochs with nostalgia, at the great things, the transformational things that happened.  Even the disasters are remembered with nostalgia, again think of American Experience.  

WWII is always held up as something that people were very proud to be part of, which is great.  But was WWII uplifting?  Not really.  It wasn’t fought to save the Jews … hardly.   African-Americans were segregated and treated shamefully in the armed forces.  It was entered into by the American leadership because they wanted to save Europe, and ultimately save us; so it was largely self-interest.  

But for most people it was an exercise in patriotism, answering the call of the country.  And since almost everyone was involved in one way or another and everyone pulled together, it was something people honestly could feel proud about.  In this sense it was uplifting … people were ready to sacrifice even their lives for a larger cause.  There was a sense of community.  

The cataclysmic events of my historic period had no such upside.  Some would say that within the gay community AIDS had an upside, but that was I feel very limited; there was far more fear and distrust than caring for your fellow man.  

Even the often-cited coming together of the country after 9/11 only lasted perhaps a few days.  The potential was possibly there, but the people were never asked to sacrifice, other than their privacy.  The main drumbeat from the government was one of fear, not duty.  The period’s wars impacted mostly our disadvantaged class who enlisted as a way out of their dead-end lives.  Yes, some enlisted out of a sense of patriotism, but they were isolated in our society.  For the returning troops there was little support at home, not even among those who supported the wars.

When one looks at these cataclysmic events, past and present, one sees clearly how our sense of community, of our all being fellow citizens of our country, has deteriorated if not vanished.  That is not good for America.  And that is the root cause why I feel distant from the period in which I have lived, why I don’t feel part of its sweeping currents.

But aside from these cataclysmic events, life is not really different now than in the past, viewed objectively.  There have always been and will always be bright spots, inspirational things that man has achieved, random acts of kindness, but they always occur in the larger context of overwhelming misfortune, suffering, and pestilence.  

Truly such is life, and all I or anyone can do is to live his life as well as he can by offering himself and others joy … meaning this in a spiritual, not hedonistic, sense.  To the extent that there have been bright spots over the millennia in the midst of so much suffering, it has been because of those individual spots of light.  I have certainly been blessed to have received such light and love from many people throughout my life.  The truth of the old proverb is revealed: better to light a candle than curse the darkness.  That is our purpose in life, our only purpose.

Sen. McConnell's Dereliction of Duty

Senator McConnell’s refusal to consider legislation that the President will not sign is a dereliction of duty and a betrayal of Congress’ role under the Constitution.  

Our democracy is justifiably famous for its then-novel system of checks and balances.  The three branches of government check each other.  Simply put, the executive checks the legislative through its veto power.  The legislative checks the executive through its power to override a presidential veto.  And the courts have the power to overturn executive or legislative action if it is either unconstitutional or if it doesn’t conform to the authority under which it was taken.

But we now have a Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, who has stated very bluntly that he will not put any measure before the Senate that the President will not sign.  So much for the legislative check on the President by overriding his veto.  It is the President who now calls the tune.  

This is no small matter.  It goes to one of the most basic aspects of our system of government.  If the Senator insists on maintaining this kowtowing to the President, then he should be removed from his office of majority leader.