| Advertisement |
Donald Trump's opponents will mistakenly embrace this piece as fiercely as Trump supporters will reject it. But, ironically and for entirely different reasons, Osama bin Laden and Trump, in concert with Democrats, raise (un)clear and present dangers to the Constitution. Bin Laden, in killing nearly 3,000 Americans, brought extreme terror to these shores for the first time in eight decades.
Advertisement
We forget the waves of labor strikes and two dozen letter bombs that killed a hapless night watchman during 1919-20. An unprecedented reign of terror was imposed throughout America. The resulting government repression and massive impositions on civil liberties were shortsighted attempts to restore calm. The perpetrators of those bombings were never caught, and tens of thousands of Americans were arrested. Many were deported without due process. The tension, of course, was between protecting constitutionally guaranteed individual rights and public safety, a tension that arises in time of crisis, such as war or after a catastrophic event.
The Patriot Act and greater domestic surveillance that followed 9/11 came close to eliminating the line between civil rights and safety. Had a J. Edgar Hoover been in charge of the FBI or the Justice Department, the illegalities and disregard for due process of the earlier period could have returned. To underscore the seriousness of this risk, suppose bin Laden or al-Qaida used chemical or biological weapons in threatening or carrying out more successful and hideous attacks, killing many, many Americans. What would have been the response of any administration to protect the nation? Shredding the Constitution was the greatest threat bin Laden posed.
Circumstances have conspired to enable the current assaults on the Constitution. Paradoxically, the so-called loyal Democratic opposition is assisting Trump -- even if it is inadvertent and unintended -- due to how it is conducting this impeachment proceeding. What should deeply worry Americans?
First and most serious is the conflict between Article I and II of the Constitution. Most people may not recall that the legislature was meant by the Founding Fathers to be first among equals and the executive was to carry out and enforce the laws it passed. During President George W. Bush's tenure, Republicans argued for a "unitary executive" in which the president has, if not unlimited power, virtually unrestricted authority. Called the imperial presidency five decades ago over the waging of the Vietnam War, this view is driven by inconsistencies in the Constitution.
War powers is one ambiguity. Only Congress can declare war, which it has refused to do since December 1941. The president is commander-in-chief, tasked with foreign policy. In a nuclear crisis, the president will not have time to consult Congress before ordering a response that could spark a world war.
In the Persian Gulf last summer, suppose the president retaliated against Iran for downing a U.S. drone. What then if the American action led to further Iranian escalation against U.S. and regional forces that led to war? Where is Congress in the decision-making process, out of the loop once again?
Second, what about oversight? Trump argues with certain legitimacy that executive privilege means a president can withhold information and staff from appearing before Congress. Of course, Richard Nixon's attempts to prevent the Hill from obtaining the tapes that would force his resignation failed.
But when must the president be compelled to turn over information or make staff available to Congress for oversight? If resolution is left to the courts and the Supreme Court rules 5-4 either way on a partisan basis, does that mean the judiciary has finally become politicized? Some believe this happened in 2000 with Bush vs. Gore. The high court ruling on whether or not the president must provide Congress with his tax returns could be further evidence of judicial politicization.
Third and perhaps of greatest concern is the president's seeming disregard for the law, truth and his own conduct. Even his strongest supporters agree that the president is fast and easy with the truth and will change his story with an instantaneous tweet. No matter where impeachment ends -- most probably dying quickly in the Senate -- even staunchest allies will acknowledge that Trump's actions in Ukraine to gain leverage over a political rival were inappropriate. And taking two convicted and now pardoned war criminals to campaign with him is at best tasteless.
All things being equal, which they never are, Trump must be favored now to win in 2020. That will make political polarization radioactive. The tragedy is both Republicans and Democrats are co-conspirators in this latest assault on the Constitution.
Harlan Ullman is UPI's Arnaud de Borchgrave Distinguished columnist and serves as a senior adviser at the Atlantic Council. He was a professor of military strategy at the National War College and the Naval War College. His latest book is "Anatomy of Failure: Why America Has Lost Every War It Starts." Follow him @harlankullman.
