Life and Times of Alex Esguerra
Posted by email@example.com (Unknown) on
The events on the past few days starting with a twitter tweet to a House Resolution once again pen the debate on this topic.
Racism as define touches on prejudice, discrimination and or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior. The exact words go back to your country without even stating the restof the statements merely serves the definition.
Posted by firstname.lastname@example.org (Alex Esguerra) on
A veto (Latin for "I forbid") is the power (used by an officer of the state, for example) to unilaterally stop an official action, especially the enactment of legislation. A veto can be absolute, as for instance in the United Nations Security Council, whose permanent members (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and the United States of America) can block any resolution, or it can be limited, as in the legislative process of the United States, where a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate will override a Presidential veto of legislation. A veto may give power only to stop changes (thus allowing its holder to protect the status quo), like the US legislative veto, or to also adopt them (an "amendatory veto"), like the legislative veto of the Indian President, which allows him to propose amendments to bills returned to the Parliament for reconsideration.
quoted from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veto
The power of the President to refuse to approve a bill or joint resolution and thus prevent its enactment into law is the veto. The president has ten days (excluding Sundays) to sign a bill passed by Congress. A regular veto occurs when the President returns the legislation to the house in which it originated, usually with a message explaining the rationale for the veto. This veto can be overridden only by a two-thirds vote in both the Senate and the House. If this occurs, the bill becomes law over the President's objections. A pocket veto occurs when Congress adjourns during the ten-day period. The president cannot return the bill to Congress. The president's decision not to sign the legislation is a pocket veto and Congress does not have the opportunity to override.
Hence, this is why the Speaker of the House has expressed her plans moving forward on March 26.
Her bill is to re-introduced a bill or joint resolution that has been vetoed by the President can become law if two-thirds of the Members voting in the House and the Senate each agree to pass it over the President’s objection. The chambers act sequentially on vetoed measures: The House acts first on House-originated measures (H.R. and H.J. Res.), and the Senate acts first on Senate-originated measures (S. and S.J. Res.). If the first-acting chamber fails to override the veto, the other chamber cannot consider it. The House typically considers the question of overriding a presidential veto under the hour rule, with time customarily controlled and allocated by the chair and ranking Member of the committee with jurisdiction over the bill. The Senate usually considers the question of overriding a veto under the terms of a unanimous consent agreement.
Under the new democratic controlled congress, it will be an overwhelming yes to pass the re-introduction. The question lies now whether it goes pass beyond the United States Senate controlled by the Republicans. The recent developments of Republican senators who finally broke the ranks on challenging this President although compelling will still need a two-thirds vote.
Two-thirds of the Senators voting, a quorum being present, must agree to override the veto and repass the bill. The vote must be a roll call vote and not a voice vote, due to the constitutional requirement that the vote be by the “yeas and nays.” A motion to reconsider the vote on the question of overriding a veto is in order only if the Senate fails to override the veto. In other words, if two-thirds of the Senators agree to override the veto, a motion to reconsider that vote is not in order. If the Senate fails to override a veto of a Senate-originated bill (S. or S.J. Res.), then the question of override never reaches the House. The Senate simply informs the House that the override vote on a House or Senate bill was unsuccessful. If the override vote on a Senate-originated measure (S. or S.J. Res.) is successful in the Senate, the bill and veto message are sent to the House for action. If the override vote on a House-originated measure (H.R. or H.J. Res.) is successful, then the bill becomes law because two-thirds of both chambers have agreed to override the veto.
Only after this is successful with this veto be overridden. Hence, this is why is already expected this re-introduction will eventually not get the two-thirds senators to get a "yes". The speaker of the house known from her wits on negotiation for the record is perceive to answer why her next steps plans of re-introduction on March 26. We know, the Senate expected not to get the two-thirds to "yes" but the most important achievement that she and the democrats are aiming to get more Republicans in Congress to break their allegiance to this President.
Regardless, the ultimate goal of the partisan endeavor is the separation of powers between executive and legislative that could be a precedent for future Presidents to simply use a National Emergency without going through congress as a tool to abuse his/her executive authority to use discretionary funds that should been enacted through congress. This is also why the democrats is also considering going to the courts.
We will see what happens next on this actions.
Posted by email@example.com (Alex Esguerra) on
|Impeaching the President|
A few days before a new year 2019 before the Democrats takes over control of the House of Representatives again opens the case on the subject of Impeachment.
Reading through Alan Hirsch book validates the process of impeachment. A process that has been improved yet raise on every President since 1994's Bill Clinton's case of impeachment. From George Bush to even Barack Obama's issue of being not born in the US and using an Executive Order for DACA, it seems to be now a trend that "Impeachment" has been always a discussion in Congress. Whether it does happen, discuss or even a bill created towards impeaching the current Commander In Chief is the real question. What's the main difference as the author noted in previous Presidents is that most of the impeachable cases came about on the previous Presidents second term in office. The main relevance on this case today is on April 2017, 3 months right on the start of the 45th President Donald J. Trump first term presidency solidified his impeachment case followed by the creation of the Special Counsel to investigate on the Russian intervention of the 2016 Presidential elections.
As of this writing, it is the 3rd government shutdown on this administration when no deal came about with Congress and the White House. The main issue tackled is a "Border Wall" between Mexico and the United States, the main requirement of President Trump. The democrats as known will never agree to this border wall. The President now trying to get more and more open to negotiations, says it may now be a "Steel Barrier Fence" instead of a "Concrete Wall". Whether this new nomenclature will be agreeable still raises the question. If you really want to end the shut down Mr. President, a simple grammar correction might be "Border Security". Your business acumen knows better by using corrected grammar then identifying the right necessary steps and tools you might need taking into consideration what are the allowable actions in such terms.
Hirsch did a good representation of the historical narratives, engravings, illustrations and documentations on the impeachment episodes dating from Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon to the last one of Bill Clinton. Clinton's case made the trend to start an impeachment discussion on every President that followed from Bush, Obama and now Trump.
America as the greatest country is the epitome of democratic principles. Authoritarian rulers are commonly seen in history from third developing countries for example as their President, Prime Minister, General are above the law coupled with corruption and human rights violations. Hence is why Saddam Hussein is now history. Such authoritarians act and lead on their own choice and command, controls their Congress and titled as military ruler. This is why some of them were deposed by their own military by way of a Coup D Etta.
As I see it, firing the AG, FBI Directors neither is obstruction on the case of President Trump is a long shot towards removal from office. Him holding the highest office of enforcing the law given to him sort of immunizes him being removed or sued right now. The campaign spending issues may or may not be legal cases but that will come after his presidency.
Congress is mainly focus on protecting the Special Counsel Mueller's from being removed or dictated. This is because this is the prime case that may lead to a case of impeachment if this President or his enforcers derails Mueller's investigation unless Mueller acted improperly. When a President prevents a Prosecutor to do his or her job because he feels threaten as signs shows in the past then this obstruction of justice for an impeachment case of the 45th President.
Richard Nixon as verified by the author in book made the strategy to change the Special Prosecutor and was not later impeached. It is agreeable that if Trump does replace Mueller it might or not reduced an impeachment case. However, today is very much a different case as this President has since already concluded on him being threaten by this Prosecutor's actions. Likewise, Nixon eventually resigned from office as a last resort. What happens to this President amidst a new Congress is there to see in 2019. It might turn things around for the better good by being non-partisan between Congress and the White House as seen in previous Presidents or whether a case of impeachment is doom, we will have to see.
May we enjoy the blessings of this Holiday Season and Hoping for the best of the New Year.
Posted by firstname.lastname@example.org (Alex Esguerra) on
The power the President has over “immigration” is limited to what is established by the Constitution. The President cannot establish new rules of Naturalization. He cannot issue waivers to overturn rules of Naturalization that are established in compliance with the Constitution.
From the issue of the ending DACA when this administration started by the Attorney General, building walls on the border of Mexico, the impending show of military might on a caravan fleeing persecution from a hostile country and now the ending of the constitutional birthright in the United States. It's kinda hard really to simply stay silent when all this adds to the divisions and the new way how people see America as a country.
The power over foreign immigration is delegated through Article 1 section 8 clause 4; “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Because it is delegated under Article 1, we know this power is specifically vested in Congress. Separation of powers dictates that since the power to establish this Rule is rests in Congress, it cannot be exercised by any other branch. We can see that the executive branch cannot ESTABLISH the Rule of Naturalization, but what authority does the President have over the naturalization process?, quoted from Presidential Power Over Immigration article.
Hence, President Obama during his 8 years also wanted Immigration reform tried several times through Congress but was not successful. Finally, he came up with an Executive Order which created the DACA which the Trump administration tried to stop. Thanks to the courts, DACA recipients are still protected. It is an expected bombshell that right after hours when this so called new Executive Order to end the birthright of people born in the United States will immediately start the legal battle of lawsuits to challenge and stop this said order. Whether the US Congress will react on this Executive Order depends the outcome of the mid term US elections in two weeks.
Posted by Alexander Esguerra on
The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump, release 12 months ago confirms
In THE DANGEROUS CASE OF DONALD TRUMP, twenty-seven psychiatrists, psychologists, and other mental health experts argue that, in Mr. Trump’s case, their moral and civic “duty to warn” America supersedes professional neutrality.
This book upon release made sure this was not leading to a diagnosis. With all the dumbfounded and madness in Helsinki, regardless the fear concludes by itself. It's practically a brainwash analysis why this President's actions are.
Of course, regardless on the political resentments that will arise as I've stated in a sitting President can never be impeached bu virtue of the the reality of not creating a constitutional crisis. The persona and gestures while this impeccable speech was being given confirms the body language of someone needing mental intervention
.On Tuesday, September 11 as we commemorate 9/11, opens the realities of bestseller author Bob Woodward is the most compelling book on Trump's presidency. Fear-trump-in-the-white-house
Woodward's 448-page book, "Fear: Trump in the White House," provides an unprecedented inside-the-room look through the eyes of the President's inner circle. From the Oval Office to the Situation Room to the White House residence, Woodward uses confidential background interviews to illustrate how some of the President's top advisers view him as a danger to national security and have sought to circumvent the commander in chief.
Part of the excerpts including the recent anonymous article by the New York Times touches on taking a confidential paper out of the desk of this President so he never gets to see or read it as it will affect national security. Remembering the days of the deposed dictators in history, this is was of the strategy when these dictators were either ill, incapacitated but has to be the mocked ruler head of state. Thus, it got to the point that the inner circle of these depose leaders were actually running the government. One case in remembrance was when Ferdinand Marcos in the 80's was severely ill with Lupus and then First Lady Imelda Marcos was giving marching orders together with then the newly elected Prime Minister.
Any circumvention to the effect like taking the said confidential paper from the actual view of the President is illegitimate. When such acts are started it thus continue and to what extent we do not know until the personalities are exposed. The fact of the matter is either we can prove there is an incapacity in performing the duties of the presidency due to mental health. Or is just a mere case of incapability to real act as the leader of the free world which is the long shot to prove.
Watching the 44th President Obama finally hit the campaign the last 2 days indeed opens the realities. The United States is the epitome of democracy. Although I've mentioned past dictators in history, as mentioned I do not foresee in my lifetime to see any US President to be indeed impeach unless they resign as President Nixon did. Obama shows the long way on the process if ever if it does happen or to the nearest it can be in history. It starts by "Voting". In any democratic country it starts from the local and mid term elections that continues to the the Senate and Presidential elections.
This new book is indeed expected to be much compelling than the series of books written about the dysfunctional state of this presidency. The author also has credibility all the way from the Nixon years and most of all as we all know, a lot written in this book we already know and it reinforces those events and knowledge.
In one revelatory anecdote, Woodward describes a scene in the White House residence. Trump's lawyer, convinced the President would perjure himself, put Trump through a test — a practice interview for the one he might have with Mueller. Trump failed, according to Dowd, but the President still insisted he should testify. This part again is a known fact as we see the daily appearances of TV, the use of words, the stories changing from what was said before and after. I remember back in the day being a young businessman who was so use to be direct and stick to the point, assessing if a buyer will buy or not, or another business person agreed with me or not. Then when I started to be involve on projects together with government leading the be a delegate and representative for young entrepreneurs, I started to hone my words, I learned the outcomes of business actions cannot be necessarily applicable to leadership involving society.
The best part then was I was young and it was easy for me to understand change. A 70 year old businessman well enriched himself through the years can never have the decorum I had as it's too late as the brain cells are too developed to even comprehend what's going on.
60 days from now, after the New Congress has been elected, we can continue the discussions. This is the way democracy works in America as this is best legitimate way of approaching this as the people have spoken.