Donald Trump crossed a constitutional line on January 6 when he recklessly urged his followers to march on the U.S. Capitol. This is an impeachable offense. Here is how it is likely to play out:
- The Democratic House of Representatives will impeach him.
- Since the Republicans still control the Senate until January 20, when Joe Biden becomes president, there may not be a vote to convict, and if there is, it may fail to get the required 67 two-thirds majority.
- It is unlikely that Mr. Trump will be the Republican presidential nominee again in 2024. He has now become too toxic for many traditional Republican voters, who were already starting to leave him in the 2020 election.
But consider his significant accomplishments as president:
- First of all, the focus on populist and nationalist policies such as cracking down on China for unfair trade policies and securing our southern border to keep out illegal immigrants. Both of these policies are directly beneficial to his working-class base.
- The tax reform and deregulation led to the low unemployment rate of 3.5% for several months before the pandemic hit. Such low unemployment means big wage gains for low-income and middle-income workers and increases their economic wellbeing.
- Major reform in foreign policy: withdrawing troops from Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq and switching focus from the Middle East to eastern Asia and especially China. China is rapidly becoming the biggest challenger to continued U.S. world primacy.
- Aggressively and successfully appointing 200 conservative judges to the federal bench. This will have a long-lasting stabilizing effect on American society.
Conclusion. Of course, some of these significant successes will be diminished by the incoming Biden administration. But this will draw a sharp contrast between the Trump policies and the likely less successful Biden policies. Trump’s free-market reforms will compare well with what is likely to come next. Such political competition will define the national elections in 2022 and 2024.
Sign-up for my Email Newsletter
Follow me on Facebook
Follow me on Twitter
His unfortunately unbridled narcissism eventually became dangerously unhinged by a masked depression from the electoral results. I still wonder what it would take to amass the basis for establishing standing before the Supreme Court to mediate the State by State interactions charged with stabilizing a set of uniform standards for our nationally serving, elected officials, viz Presidency and Congressional Persons. I am aware that a Constitutional amendment for Congressional term limits lacks action by only a small number of State Legislatures to become the law of the land. Maybe it needs some language to require the Supreme Court to mediate reduce State by State voting regulations. States are allowed to sue each other to maintain water rights along the course of a river. Why not voting rights?
The constitution clearly gives the states complete responsibility for running elections. This can’t be changed without an amendment to the constitution which is highly improbable and also undesirable from my perspective. I think it would be dangerous to give election authority to the national government because it could then be seized by a narrow group of officials.
Frankly, I think our constitutional processes are working very well in the current situation. Trump has been totally unsuccessful in overturning the election results which means our complex system is working exactly the way it was designed to. The wisdom of our founding fathers is incredible!
What remains to be seen is the role Trump will be able to assume once he is out of office. He will still have his base. How will he try to influence the political process? I have no idea!
To approach the Supreme court you must have “Standing.” A legal term that means any injustice must involve an issue specified by the Constitution. If a group of states would allege that their votes were negated by the unjustly unequal influence of another state’s justly reported election results, then the Supreme Court might justly offer standing to a group of States’ Attorney General to petition the Supreme Court to mediate a resolution among the related states. As noted above, this has already occurred in the instance of each State’s rights to the supply of water from within a drainage watershead involving multiple states. The Consitution would not allow the Supreme Court to mandate the solution. The issue of fair and accurate elections has been a recurring issue for many years since our nation’s founding. The city of Chicago has a distant history of suspicious elections. Omaha had a similar pattern during the early years of the 1900s. It is well that the Trump era has now ended. I would hope that the recently occurring, election-related turmoil never occur again during our nation’s future survival.
Unquestionably there were voting irregularities in various states in November, often involving state laws modified by state courts. But I am leery of federal interference in this issue. It could lead to some sort of nationalization of election procedures. This is not a good idea, in my opinion. I want to protect state control over election procedures. It is an example of how our federalist, decentralized, form of government protects our fundamental liberties.