This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/19/opinion/impeachment-article-2-trump.html

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Trump’s Scary Precedent: Scorning Congress Trump’s Scary Precedent: Scorning Congress
(about 7 hours later)
President Trump has just become the third president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. In a largely party-line vote, the House majority has sought to hold the president to account for how he has used the powers of his office.President Trump has just become the third president to be impeached by the House of Representatives. In a largely party-line vote, the House majority has sought to hold the president to account for how he has used the powers of his office.
The details of President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and his purported abuse of power, as taken up in the first article of impeachment by House Democrats, have so far received the bulk of attention. But the second article, for presidential obstruction of Congress, is equally urgent, and a necessary step to reassert the rights and authority of Congress. And as important, this applies not just to this president but also to future presidents who might likewise be tempted to scorn Congress.The details of President Trump’s dealings with Ukraine and his purported abuse of power, as taken up in the first article of impeachment by House Democrats, have so far received the bulk of attention. But the second article, for presidential obstruction of Congress, is equally urgent, and a necessary step to reassert the rights and authority of Congress. And as important, this applies not just to this president but also to future presidents who might likewise be tempted to scorn Congress.
The Trump administration has tried to turn the American constitutional framework on its head, and Republican members have signaled their willingness to accept presidential intransigence in the face of efforts by Congress to perform its most basic functions. The White House has claimed that it is not for Congress to question how executive officers are conducting their duties, but rather that it is for the executive to judge whether legislators are performing theirs — and to ignore, stonewall and obstruct Congress when the executive is not satisfied with the answer. In doing so the Trump administration is, in effect, seeking to undo the constitutional checks put in place at our founding.The Trump administration has tried to turn the American constitutional framework on its head, and Republican members have signaled their willingness to accept presidential intransigence in the face of efforts by Congress to perform its most basic functions. The White House has claimed that it is not for Congress to question how executive officers are conducting their duties, but rather that it is for the executive to judge whether legislators are performing theirs — and to ignore, stonewall and obstruct Congress when the executive is not satisfied with the answer. In doing so the Trump administration is, in effect, seeking to undo the constitutional checks put in place at our founding.
The administration has made its obstructionist position clear. A letter to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, from Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, stated flatly that the impeachment inquiry was “invalid” and “illegitimate.” The administration instructed current and former officials with relevant information not to cooperate. It has refused to seek an arrangement by which it could voluntarily assist the investigation, and it has refused to comply with subpoenas for testimony and evidence. When pressed, it has pursued litigation meant to run out the clock on any congressional proceedings.The administration has made its obstructionist position clear. A letter to the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, from Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, stated flatly that the impeachment inquiry was “invalid” and “illegitimate.” The administration instructed current and former officials with relevant information not to cooperate. It has refused to seek an arrangement by which it could voluntarily assist the investigation, and it has refused to comply with subpoenas for testimony and evidence. When pressed, it has pursued litigation meant to run out the clock on any congressional proceedings.
“In the history of the Republic,” the obstruction impeachment article says, “no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively” the ability of the House to do its constitutionally mandated job. This abuse, it continues, is “to seize and control the power of impeachment — and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.”“In the history of the Republic,” the obstruction impeachment article says, “no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively” the ability of the House to do its constitutionally mandated job. This abuse, it continues, is “to seize and control the power of impeachment — and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.”
By pursuing an unprecedented course of absolute obstruction of congressional oversight, the president has effectively dared the House to impeach him. Furthermore, he has threatened to render the impeachment power meaningless if Congress bows to his obstruction.By pursuing an unprecedented course of absolute obstruction of congressional oversight, the president has effectively dared the House to impeach him. Furthermore, he has threatened to render the impeachment power meaningless if Congress bows to his obstruction.
The legislature is empowered to inquire into the conduct of the officers in the other two branches of government and remove them if necessary — the impeachment power is the paramount symbol of the primacy of Congress in the constitutional scheme.The legislature is empowered to inquire into the conduct of the officers in the other two branches of government and remove them if necessary — the impeachment power is the paramount symbol of the primacy of Congress in the constitutional scheme.
It is impossible for Congress to meet its constitutional responsibilities if the executive branch refuses to cooperate with its lawful investigations. The internal workings of the federal government are not transparent. Congress, and the public, cannot know how laws are being administered or appropriations are being spent unless the executive branch shares that information.It is impossible for Congress to meet its constitutional responsibilities if the executive branch refuses to cooperate with its lawful investigations. The internal workings of the federal government are not transparent. Congress, and the public, cannot know how laws are being administered or appropriations are being spent unless the executive branch shares that information.
Congress has long accepted that there is some information that the president appropriately holds back from public view. Congress and the president have sometimes disagreed about where the boundaries of executive privilege ought to be drawn, but disagreements have been worked out through negotiation and compromise.Congress has long accepted that there is some information that the president appropriately holds back from public view. Congress and the president have sometimes disagreed about where the boundaries of executive privilege ought to be drawn, but disagreements have been worked out through negotiation and compromise.
But the executive withholding of information has always been understood to be the exception, not the rule. The president’s pledge has been that such selective withholding advances the national interest, protects American political institutions and is not used to cover up embarrassments or hide mistakes.But the executive withholding of information has always been understood to be the exception, not the rule. The president’s pledge has been that such selective withholding advances the national interest, protects American political institutions and is not used to cover up embarrassments or hide mistakes.
The Trump administration, uniquely in American history, has asserted the right to simply ignore congressional requests for information on the ground that it does not think those requests are justified — not because the president believes that withholding some particular piece of information is essential to his ability to perform his own constitutional duties, but because the president believes that Congress is not engaged in a legitimate effort to carry out its own.The Trump administration, uniquely in American history, has asserted the right to simply ignore congressional requests for information on the ground that it does not think those requests are justified — not because the president believes that withholding some particular piece of information is essential to his ability to perform his own constitutional duties, but because the president believes that Congress is not engaged in a legitimate effort to carry out its own.
If Mr. Trump’s strategy succeeds, future presidents have less to fear from a House pursuit of an impeachment. If a president chooses not to explain himself to Congress or withhold the information that Congress would need to determine whether high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed, then he can render the impeachment power a trifle.If Mr. Trump’s strategy succeeds, future presidents have less to fear from a House pursuit of an impeachment. If a president chooses not to explain himself to Congress or withhold the information that Congress would need to determine whether high crimes and misdemeanors have been committed, then he can render the impeachment power a trifle.
There may be circumstances in which Congress is willing to tolerate such obstruction. But when there are reasonable fears that the obstruction is itself intended to hide abuses of power, then Congress cannot and should not countenance such interference with its duties.There may be circumstances in which Congress is willing to tolerate such obstruction. But when there are reasonable fears that the obstruction is itself intended to hide abuses of power, then Congress cannot and should not countenance such interference with its duties.
Congress is not dependent on the amenability of the president or the agreement of the courts to fulfill its own duty to determine whether high crimes have been committed and to take the necessary actions to address them. The impeachment power itself is the legislature’s ultimate security that executive officers will cooperate with its investigations and that Congress will be able to hold officers to account for misconduct.Congress is not dependent on the amenability of the president or the agreement of the courts to fulfill its own duty to determine whether high crimes have been committed and to take the necessary actions to address them. The impeachment power itself is the legislature’s ultimate security that executive officers will cooperate with its investigations and that Congress will be able to hold officers to account for misconduct.
Keith E. Whittington is a professor of politics at Princeton. Keith E. Whittington (@kewhittington) is a professor of politics at Princeton.
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.