Life and Times of Alex Esguerra — Donald Turmp
A President's General Moral Responsibility to the people
Pubblicato da noreply@blogger.com (Alex Esguerra) il
What is the President’s Greatest Responsibility?
The presidential oath of office that is prescribed by the U.S. Constitution (Art. II, sect. 1) makes it clear that the President’s supreme responsibility is to “…preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Moral Leadership has a different point of view in leading their followers. They take action by choosing the moral and the most ethical decisions to solve an issue. Moral Leaders take beliefs and moral as a personal matter. Moral Leaders follow their moral rather than the organization's value.
Do leaders as a President have moral obligations? ... Morals do not have to be religious or stemming from a certain set of beliefs, they are just what makes a good or bad decision and if the decision is right or wrong. Leaders should know that they have to make decisions that benefit the greater community.
"The president is the very first symbol of American government that children comprehend," she says. "The president, especially in the modern era, comes into our homes — first by radio, then television, now through all sorts of electronic gadgetry — and so we think of him as part of our life. And that's why it's so important for him to model the proper behavior for us."
I find that again and again, no matter what the subject is, we return to the question of leadership. Moral leadership is in fact the central task of our presidents when it’s done correctly,” said Jon Meacham, a Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who has written books about Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson. He spoke at a luncheon in October kicking off a year-long series on Moral and Ethical Leadership in the American Presidency.
The best presidents – including figures such as Abraham Lincoln and George Washington – are celebrated not only as good leaders, but as good men. They embody not simply political skill, but personal virtue.
Why, though, should anyone expect a president to demonstrate that sort of virtue? If someone is good at the difficult job of political leadership, must they demonstrate exceptional moral character as well?
In Nov. 7 2018 during a press briefing at the White House, President Trump defended his rhetoric and his status as a “moral leader” after a reporter asked him about the rise in anti-Semitic attacks during his presidency.
“I think I am a great moral leader and I love our country,” Trump said Wednesday at a White House news conference.
Today's modern era on American Presidency depicts a lot on the presence and influence a President makes to the country through our televisions, radio, online, social media and all channels we see the daily current events. The basics on this moral perspective starts right from the words uttered by a leader and the message he/she communicates to the people.
Unfortunately, each word and statement uttered to the executive actions no mater how significant and valuable they are is tied to a moral responsibility as leader of the free world and as protector of the US Constitution.
Moral responsibility without even looking at the political implications they have dictates the outcome it sends to the people. The daily actions affecting moral responsibility of a president eventually is a writing material for Presidential historians,
The Promise, The Goal, The Enactment to Close The Borders, Stop Immigration and Rule Forever
Pubblicato da noreply@blogger.com (Alex Esguerra) il
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.
How Complicated is it "To End a Presidency" the Analytical Perspective
Pubblicato da Alexander Esguerra il
To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment
is 6 days away as of the writing of this blog. Written by two distinguish authors, Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz. Laurence Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and a professor of constitutional law at Harvard. One of America's foremost constitutional scholars, he is the coauthor of Uncertain Justice (with Joshua Matz) and numerous other books and articles. He lives in Brookline, Massachusetts.
Joshua Matz, a graduate of Harvard Law School and a constitutional lawyer, is the publisher of Take Care, which provides legal analysis of the Trump presidency. He lives in Washington, DC.
I had a personal interest in this book as the topic of impeachment itself is very complicated. 'Impeachment is not like a magic Harry Potter spell or wand nor a doomsday as they say in fairy tales. It such in depth that notoriety in wiring books on this topic requires such expertise and familiarization not only of the process but also constitutional law. Added to that are the democratic ideologies and how it impacts the current administration and president hence is what this topic has been discussed since day 1 when this presidency took effect.
Hopefully, an overview of the process and facts on lay men's understanding can shed some light on the real significance of this topic today. The reality is that is such a hard process to impeach a president. Hence, two past presidents impeachment tries didn't really resonate. America's founding fathers did include this provision from the very start as weakest last resort as if in case of fire break the safety glass cabinet to get the fire extinguisher. While there are really no glass case to break nowadays in this age, that barrier in reference to impeachment is still the same meaning their still is a glass case with a lock.
I remember Psychology plays a big de facto on impeachment. In the past year we have seen the psychology books written about the President's mental health. The truth of the matter, a being disturbed, acting strange even like an idiot, saying different things and versions does not surpassed the test of getting impeached. The said person truly and definitely has to be mentally ill to pass the test.
This is why of all the books written, I believe the closest case if ever if there would be one case for impeachment would be on Bribery and Collusion with a foreign in meddling the outcome of the presidential elections. And even then if the facts of the case gains a positive outcome, the hardest part would be the constitutional process. Both the United States Senate and House of Representatives has to be both having a majority vote to enact the impeachment. Regardless, of the lengthy process in developing the case, without both majority vote will either enact or if ever this case finally dies. One example is in the case of President Clinton in 1998, the vote pass the House of Representatives but failed in the US Senate.
The bigger question even to be ask is "Is it possible that a Congress in which the Republicans control both or even one chamber would consider impeaching Trump?". This is why I'm hoping that this new book written by two notables on the subject will lay out the underling and tedious criteria s on what is really involved even to get a case for impeachment.
When you get to read this new bestseller, please share your comments and we together review not just this book bu the case of impeachment.
If The President does it, that means it's not illegal, is it still true even today
Pubblicato da Alexander Esguerra il
The Conviction of RICHARD NIXON by James Reston, Jr. writes the foreword, "If the President does it, that means it's not illegal," as quoted was the brazen words uttered by Richard Nixon in his famous interview with David Frost in 1977.
Nixon continued and argued that the President is immune. As the book describes about eavesdropping, cover up, and bend government agencies like the CIA and the FBI for his own political purpose. National Security and "Executive Privilege" hence when exposed were "mistakes". With such words and predicament came about "Obstruction of Justice", the case for impeachment which led the way for Nixon to resign as it was inevitable.
Reading through this book trying to get a well deserved sleep gave a lot of comparison to the new book,
The Case For Impeachment by Allan J. Lichtman . Professor Allan J. Lichtman, who has correctly forecasted thirty years of presidential outcomes, makes the case for impeaching the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump.
Excerpt of the book annotation, "The Case for Impeachment also offers a fascinating look at presidential impeachments throughout American history, including the often-overlooked story of Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, details about Richard Nixon’s resignation, and Bill Clinton’s hearings. Lichtman shows how Trump exhibits many of the flaws (and more) that have doomed past presidents. As the Nixon Administration dismissed the reporting of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as “character assassination” and “a vicious abuse of the journalistic process,” Trump has attacked the “dishonest media,” claiming, “the press should be ashamed of themselves.”
Historians, legal scholars, and politicians alike agree: we are in politically uncharted waters—the durability of our institutions is being undermined and the public’s confidence in them is eroding, threatening American democracy itself."
With the recent testimony of the Former FBI Director James Comey about being asked repeatedly on the Russian interference investigations in the 2016 elections, and the case of holding on to his position simply gives a more stronger case of Obstruction than the last impeachment case of Bill Clinton on an affair which never got passed.
The months and circumstances to follow next will be part of the American history books as it unfolds. From the time this new book by Lichtman was release in April 2017, it hasn't yet gotten that much sales from a bookseller standpoint yet however this book is soon to be such an enormous bestseller that the publisher Dey Street Books will probably continually be making reprints.
For now, this is a new discussion between supporters of then failed candidate Hillary Clinton and the current 45th President Donald Trump.