Category: Observations

Observations

Is impeachment the right move?

pollywannamath

Almost always, yes. For the last three and a half years, the Democratic party has tried to impeach president Donald Trump. I say the Democratic party, rather than a subset of Americans, because Trump’s approval rating with conservatives has remained north of 80% for most of his presidency and his overall approval rating has rested between 40-45%. The conservative approval rating matters in impeachment process, because impeachment is considerably more of a political concern than a judicial one. Only one senator has ever voted to remove a president of his party from office (Mitt Romney).  It’s clear that impeachment, and the threat of removal from office, does not serve as a deterrent from presidential abuses of power.

What if impeachments and removals were significantly more common? Would it remain true that senators would continue to vote along party lines? Are there past presidents who would have been similarly strong candidates for impeachment?

To start exploring these questions, it is worth an overview of the impeachment process. The Constitution gives the House of Representatives the power to draft articles of impeachment against the president. The articles of impeachment include a charge of misconduct of the President. The Senate evaluates the articles of impeachment under the direction of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. If two-thirds, or greater, of the Senate convict the President, the President will be removed from office. 

The House of Representatives are limited to “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as reasons to impeach a sitting president (or other official). Unfortunately, the phase “high crimes and misdemeanors” has never been clearly defined.

The Articles of Impeachment for Donald Trump included two principle charges:

  1. Abuse of Power for alleged quid pro quo dealings with the president of Ukraine.
  2. Obstruction of Congress for hindering the subsequent investigation.

Both charges referenced high crimes and misdemeanors as the basis of impeachment. Imagine a banking official charged with abuse of power and obstruction of justice, would Americans prefer that the banking official is let free with no investigation? No, evidence from the Great Recession makes it clear that Americans desired stricter treatment of Wall Street Officials. If impeachment did not carry the weight that it does politically, Americans would be much less split on whether Congress should try the President through impeachment proceedings.

Are there other presidents who could have been impeached with similar charges?

Yes. this post will not review all Presidents who would have been likely candidates; I have identified three that could have faced similar charges and are worth summary:

  1. Andrew Jackson– Endorsed a state law that did not allow white Americans to live on American Indian land, when the Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional, Jackson refused to force the state to comply with the ruling. His treatment of American Indians invalidated numerous treaties with various American Indian tribes.
  2. Abraham Lincoln– During the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of  habeas corpus, enacted war-time executive powers, and gave the Emancipation Proclamation without the approval of Congress or the Supreme Court. When Chief Justice, Roger Brooke Taney, dissented to the suspension of habeas corpus, Lincoln ignored the dissent.
  3. Ulysses S. Grant– During the Grant administration, distillers in the Midwest did not pay the required taxes on alcohol. To escape taxation, the distillers had a wide-spread and complex bribery scheme, that kept officials from collecting taxes. Grant used the weight of his presidency to appoint and then defend his allies who were embroiled in the scheme.

Each of the three could have been subject to impeachment on the same terms: Abuse of Power, and obstruction of another branch or investigation. I am not advocating that all should have been removed; it is hard to imagine a United States after the Civil War had Lincoln been removed. Impeachment is a process to review and try Presidents who perform acts of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanor;” if the general public and Congress is not open to having these trials, then the general public is doomed to have Presidents who continue to toe each line. If removal is not a threat, then sitting Presidents will not be threatened by it.

Trump should have been impeached, so should many past presidents. The removal process does not work, and I do not have a solution for it. It is unclear to me which presidents should have been removed; it is clear to me that with more impeachments and more chances for removal, there will be more opportunities for the Senate to get the process corrected in the future.

 

 

 

 

Observations, Prediction

Korematsu 3? 4?

pollywannamath

It wouldn’t be shocking to many on the left to learn, after the election of 2016, that the Supreme Court would need to decide a  “Korematsu 3” during Trump’s presidency; what they wouldn’t be able to guess is that it occured based on the actions of the left in the worst U.S pandemic in the last 100 years.

Korematsu v. United States was the case that, in effect, permitted Japanese internment during Eorld War II in the U.S. The Supreme Court, at the time, understood that their decision to uphold the program’s constitutionality had the potential to pervert future readings of the Constitution, but deemed the risk of a Japanese attack too great to ignore.

Justice Hugo Black, writing for the majority wrote:

Compulsory exclusion of large groups of citizens from their homes, except under circumstances of direst emergency and peril, is inconsistent with our basic governmental institutions. But when, under conditions of modern warfare, our shores are threatened by hostile forces, the power to protect must be commensurate with the threatened danger.

To the court’s credit, the original ruling was clear that it should not be used in future cases. To the court’s discredit, the Korematsu decision was used as justification in one of Justice Jackson’s opinions only 5 years later.

What does Korematsu have to do with the situation the U.S finds itself in now? Many state and local governments have issued “shelter in place” orders as a result of the COVID-19 epidemic. For some localities, the need appears obvious and can be tied to a specific number of cases and forcastable public risk. Seattle, for instance, saw an early and imminent risk of outbreak when first calling for quarantine measures.

When other cities and states followed suit, it wasn’t always as obvious that the order protected against an imminent threat. Many municipalities now under state-wide shelter-in-place laws, have no confirmed incidences of COVID-19 in their communities. Should it be legal for state governments to shutter their businesses, close their community centers, and halt daily life because of an abstract, so-far-unrealized threat?

Many doctors think so. Lessons from other countries seem to reinforce the effectiveness of a quarantine; however, I expect a legal challenge to state quarantine before the pandemic is over. The shelter-in-place mandates are too broad, too economically damaging, and are attached to no exit criteria.

When these laws are challenged, what will the Supreme Court rely on? Korematsu?

**To provide some hope to our hypothetical character at the beginning of the post, Korematsu did come up during the Trump presidency in the exact way she anticipated. In a time where many fear the degradation of minority libraries, the U.S Supreme Court condemned Korematsu in 2018 to demonstrate societal progress.

Observations

Viva the Minivan

pollywannamath

I do not own a minivan. I crippled from the pressure of others. “What are you a mom?” they said. “No one wants a minivan,” they said. “You don’t have kids, and I’m not riding in it,” they said.

Okay, they, I don’t care if you want to ride in my vehicle. A minivan probably made the most sense for me at the time. It probably does for you as well. In fact, it is probably the best all-around vehicle body style in the US right now.

Let’s start by looking at the best selling new cars of 2019. The best selling vehicle was the Ford F-series (yes, they cheat every year by combining the sales of different trucks). The best selling small SUV was the Toyota RAV4. The best selling sedan was the Toyota Camry, and the best selling full-size SUV was the Toyota Highlander. The best selling minivan of 2019 was the Dodge Grand Caravan.

To judge how the minivan compares, let’s review what most drivers actually need in a vehicle. Most drivers:

  • Occasionally drive 3-4 other adults
  • Occasionally haul “weekend warrior” project materials
  • Frequently drive children and their things (if applicable)
  • Want to reduce fuel costs
  • Spend most of their driving at city speeds or on highways
  • Desire a quiet, comfortable ride
  • Choose vehicles largely based on cost
  • Are not very good at driving in uncomfortable situations

The Grand Caravan or Highlander are the best suited for carrying kids or other adults based on second row space. Both offer captain’s chairs as an option for the second row seating (although it is much cheaper in the Grand Caravan). The Highlander, F-series (F150 from here), and Grand Caravan are the best suited to carry weekend build projects and the clutter that comes with kids. It’s clear that the bed of the F-150 is best suited for home improvement because it does not have a ceiling, but the Grand Caravan is the second-choice. It has more room than the Highlander (it will fit a sheet of drywall or plywood) and the low load height will be the easiest on the back.

Neither the RAV4, nor the Camry are suited to fit four adults or haul home improvement materials. That leaves the Highlander, Grand Caravan, and F-150 as vehicles that can conceivably meet all needs listed above. All three are able to drive comfortably at city and highway speeds. None are great on fuel economy, but the Highlander is the best. Of the three, the Caravan has the lowest starting and lowest fully-optioned price.

For new cars on my arbitrary list. Its clear that the Dodge Grand Caravan best suits the requirements. But what about 4-wheel drive? You probably don’t need it. In fact, it will probably help you get into scenarios that you aren’t comfortable driving. All cars have four wheel braking, that’s what matters most. What about cool factor? How does one measure it objectively? What about top speed or acceleration? When was the last time you floored it from 0-60, or hit your car’s top speed? What about the ability to tow or haul that a truck brings? How often do you actually do either?

Most people don’t buy new cars, and minivans are a better value proposition the older they get. Trucks and SUVs do not depreciate nearly as fast. If this article didn’t convince you, listen to Jalopnik. Or do what I did, buy a wagon and love it. But love it knowing that it is a poor imitation of a minivan.


Observations, Prediction

COVID-19 and the Election

pollywannamath

Coronavirus could cost Trump the election, Goldman Sachs warns. Goldman’s argument is that widespread Coronavirus will depress U.S growth and voters will look for the Democratic party to improve economic outlook in a recession:

“If the coronavirus epidemic materially affects US economic growth it may increase the likelihood of Democratic victory in the 2020 election,” Goldman Sachs analysts led by Ben Snider wrote in a report published Wednesday night.

Shockingly Goldman is looking at Coronavirus as an economic shock, rather than a social one, and is coming to the wrong conclusion. Broadly, I see two scenarios where Coronavirus actually helps Trump win re-election in November:

  • COVID-19 ran its course, no longer poses a health concern, and the markets are recovering.
  • COVID-19 caused school closures, healthcare shortages, panic and death in the elderly population, and the country has not yet recovered from the social and humanitarian tolls of the virus.

In the first scenario, Trump will point to his leadership as the singular reason that the United States recovered and will craft a narrative that the democrats would have lengthened a recession and ruined the healthcare system. He will contrast the health outcomes of United States with China, or Iran, and claim that the “socialist” Democrats would have turned the country into the modern-day Soviet Union. I predict that his messaging will be effective enough to cement support from the elderly, and will pick up moderate independents who are wary of the Democrats leftward trajectory.

The second scenario will play out politically like a war or a natural disaster. In this scenario, Trump’s right-wing ideas will spike in popularity and Americans will look for  consistency in political office. It is worth noting that no sitting president has lost re-election during wartime. Trump will point to his warnings and actions against China, and his proposed travel bans, to claim that he was prescient on the risks of outside actors. Trump will play on the fears of at-risk or unwell Americans, and cast the Democrats as un-American.

Does that mean that there are no scenarios that help the Democrats? I think there is a third, relatively likely scenario:

  • COVID-19 spreads through the US and lingers without causing hysteria. Trump’s administration mismanages the outbreak and independents reasonably believe that a Democratic administration would have been better suited to handle the outbreak.

In the third scenario, it does not matter if the virus was actually mismanaged or if the Democrats could have done a better job. What matters is that independents and moderate Republicans believe that Trump mishandled the situation (his Twitter makes that somewhat likely.

COVID/Trump Timeline for further enjoyment.