Donald Trump: How can he be removed?

On November 8^th 2016, Donald Trump was voted into the Whitehouse by the Electoral College.  Defying his critics, and a rather sizeable 2.9 million popular vote to Hillary Clinton, Trump became the 45^th president elect after achieving 304 of the required 538.


(On publication of this post) It has only been a month since Trump’s inauguration and there are already a number of issues that questions Trump’s position as president.  These issues include:

• The ever present allegations regarding Russia
• Trumps lost nomination of Andy Puzder as labour secretary and
• The resignation of National Security Advisor Michael T Flynn. 

Bookmakers have odds as low as 4/1 that Trump will not see out his first term.  With that in mind, it is necessary to consider how an incumbent president can be discharged from his/her duties by virtue of the US constitution.  This blog will consider the four options: death, resignation, impeachment and the 25^th amendment.

Death

Famously quoted by Benjamin Franklin as being the ‘easiest method of removing a president’, this requires little comprehension of the US Constitution.  As last seen by Lyndon B Johnson’s elevation to presidency, a Vice President will assume the office of President should the president die whilst in office.  This is by virtue of Article II section VI.

In the event of this, Mike Pence would become the 46^th President of the United States.

Resignation

Under Article II Section VI, the constitution also allows for an incumbent president to resign should he/she feel that they can no longer executive the office of the presidency.  There is very little precedent for what constitutes grounds for resignation but, as the above issues develop, this may already result in the second resignation of an incumbent president.

The only president to resign whilst in office was Richard Nixon over the 1974 Watergate Scandal.  Like Gerald Ford, this would also see Mike Pence assume the presidency.

Impeachment

Under Article II Section VI, the constitution also allows Congress to begin formal proceedings to impeach the presidency.  Should congress be successful in convicting the president, this will discharge the president of his/her duties also.  Below is the proceedings for impeachment.

Chamber	Process
House of Representatives	Article II states that any member of the House of Representatives can begin proceedings when they believe that the president has committed treason, bribery, high crime or misdemeanours.   They vote and a simple 1 majority needed.
Senate	Article II states that the Senate require a 2/3 majority (67) to convict a president.  This is a formal trial, with the Chief Justice of the supreme court presiding over the proceedings.    The decision of the senate is not subject to any appeal and will bar the president from holding any public office for life.

 

Although none have been convicted by the senate, two incumbent presidents (Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton) have underwent impeachment.  In fact, in the history of the US Constitution, only 19 federal officials have been convicted in an impeachment process.  It is therefore difficult to imagine this being a feasible conclusion for Trump’s presidency.  Not least the fact that Congress is Republican led till at least 2018.  The midterms may however see a profound change to Trump’s control of the senate to the Democrats.

However, with the polls indicating that 46% of people believe he should be impeached, and with the above issues that Trump faces, it cannot be entirely disregarded as a viable method to remove Trump.

25^th Amendment (1963)

The fourth and final method is relatively new to the US Constitution.  It has never been used and would only be considered in extreme circumstances. 

After the JFK assassination, it was discovered that the original constitution didn’t make allowances for presidents who were ill or had been shot.  Most notably, James Garfield was shot in the 19^th century and was unable to execute the office of presidency whilst spending several weeks in intensive care, later succumbing to his wounds.

This method means that if the Vice President, and majority of his cabinet (8), write to congress explaining that the president is not fit to executive the office of presidency, then the Vice President becomes temporary acting president.  If president contests this, as one would expect Trump to do, it will lead to a 2/3 majority decision in both houses.

The issue here, as Simon Byrne of Sky News put it, it is “one for the fairies” and not designed for Trumps administration team to undergo a ‘House of Cards’ plot because of a disagreement over policy issues.  The reality is, however, that we live in uncertain times and any further ‘extremist’ policies may constitute use of the 25^th amendment.

 

Conclusion

So there we have it.  The next four years is going to be interesting in US politics and people can rest easy knowing that they have the above options to keep the president in check.  Then again….maybe not.

Stoke and Copeland By-election Thursday February 23rd 2017: Labour's to lose?

Thursday 23^rd February is the date for the two by elections in Copeland and Stoke on Trent.  The Cumbrian seat of Copeland will be contested due to a resignation from Jamie Reed, who has occupied the vacant seat since 2005.  Stoke on Trent’s vacancy is due to Tristram Hunt taking up a post with the Victoria and Albert museum, leaving a seat he has occupied since 2010.

This blog will explore the issues that have arisen because of this by-election, not least from that of the issues surrounding the Labour Party.

Copeland

Andrew Gwyne, Labour MP for Denton (Manchester), was amongst the plethora of Labour MPs who joined the campaign trail in Copeland.  This week he reported that there is widespread panic across the Labour Party going into the Copeland by-election.  This is not difficult to see when you consider some statistics that would leave Labour rather embarrassed should they lose:

i. Labour has held this seat for over 80 years

Due to boundary changes in 1983, renaming it Copeland from Whitehaven, it has only belonged to Labour and has become somewhat of a core labour territory.   The last conservative to be elected for this seat was in 1924. 

Losing a ‘safe seat’ here could be detrimental to Labour’s claims of being a credible opposition.

ii. Sellafield power station is based here. 

As Labour are ideologically pro-nuclear, having Sellafield power station here should be something that should considerably work in Labour’s favour.  Jeremy Corbyn has historically being opposed to nuclear power and has being active on a number of occasions.  

Andy Barnes of the Financial Times visited Copeland recently and the general opinion is that this has not changed.  Despite having a U-turn publically, Corbyn has not been convincing and could also prove to be detrimental to Labour’s defence of this seat.

 iii. The NHS is under turmoil in Cumbria

Recent developments in Copeland locality NHS services have left the government facing tough questions on the future of it.  It has been reported that constituents may need to travel up to 1 hour to Carlisle for NHS services. 

This includes, not least, maternal services for expecting families.  This should work in Labour’s favour as a recent Theresa May visit was met with hostility at Mrs May avoiding key questions about this.

Even with it being a Labour constituency where this is happening, it should still be factor why Labour should not lose from this position

Stoke on Trent

Financial Times political editor Sebastian Payne recently visited Stoke on Trent and reported that Labour’s main threat comes from the UK Independence Party.  Their leader, Paul Nuttall, is hoping to usurp the Labour seat of 67 years.


Some factors must be considered when the suggestion of a viable UKIP resurgence is mentioned such as Stoke’s EU referendum result:

Votes cast: 117,680 (65.7%)

Remain: 36,027

Leave: 81,563
 

Allied to this, Paul Nuttall’s campaign has attacked the lack of changes that Labour has made to Stoke on Trent.  Not least that of key industries, such as Aynsley China, closing their doors to trade.

However, some research once again proves that Labour rather embarrassed to lose this seat they have occupied since its formation in 1950:

 i. UKIP have a poor campaign record

History tells us that UKIP do not have an exemplary record of winning seats.  This is largely due to their campaigning techniques, which are far inferior to that of the Labour Party machine.  This was evident in the Rotherham Council by-elections when they lost second place to Lib Dems.  This should have been a more successful seat considering how Rotherham voted in the EU referendum. 

ii. Labour have a 5000+ majority

This will be difficult to overcome.  The 67 years and 5000+ majority means that UKIP have a lot of work to do in order to convince a key demographic of voters that their votes would be better suited to UKIP.  I hereby refer you back to point I. again.


iii. Paul Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims

This was a moment that UKIP could have very well done without.  Retracting a statement on having a friend he lost in Hillsborough may well be something that may have sealed Paul Nuttall’s fate.  His absence in the recent hustings will also be noticed amongst the people of Stoke and could be the difference on the night.

 

So there we have it.  A labour win for both should be on the cards and Jeremy Corbyn lives to fight another day.

On the other hand, how much are you prepared to put on that…?

Who is in Control: The UK Executive or Parliament?

The issue of who has the greater power in the UK constitution can be considered more difficult that one expects.  The nature of the UK constitution means that there is not a definite check and balance in place to ensure that rigid controls of each branch exist in the UK. 

It is therefore necessary to explore how there is an argument in favour of both having control over each one. 

How does the UK Government control the UK Parliament?

i. Government usually has an overall majority:  

The electoral system virtually guarantees an overall majority when the government proposes legislation to Parliament.  It is rare that Parliament can prevent this. 

There has only been select few time when PMs have lost the vote in the Commons: 

Blair	4 times in 10 years
Brown	3 times in 3 years
Cameron	6 times under a coalition
May	0 at present

 

ii. The power of prime ministerial patronage renders many MPs excessively compliant and loyal 

There is a term for this…. ‘Lobby fodder’.

Many, perhaps most, MPs are ambitious and therefore prefer to be loyal to the P.M. who has sole power over government appointments.

Margaret Thatcher had several Reshuffles which helped maintain her success in Parliament (only suffered 4 defeats in 11 years)

iii. Party loyalty is very strong

 

MPs are elected under a party manifesto and have a strong mandate to support the party’s policies. Defying the party leadership might be seen as a betrayal of the mandate.

Eg The European Union Referendum Act 2015 was passed 544-53 without any control from Parliament

iv. The whips have great influence.

The analysis is that they can be both persuasive and threatening. They have influence over careers and in extreme circumstances can threaten suspension from the party or can persuade a local party to ‘de-select’ them. 

Eg Nadine Dorris was suspended by the Conservative Party for differences with David Cameron and George Osborne.

 v. Parliament Act 1911-49/Salisbury Convention limits the powers of the House of Lords

This very important Act of Parliament has led to the House of Lords not be able to adequately block any proposed legislation that has been voted on in the House (remember this rarely gets defeated).

They are restricted to delay or amendments.

The Salisbury convention also prohibits the House of Lords from obstructing anything that appears in the winning party’s manifesto.

Eg, The House of Lords were powerless to prevent the implementation of the Human Rights Act in 1998

 

How does the UK Parliament control the UK Government?

i. Select Committees are able to act independent and scrutinise departments effectively.

As select committees comprise of cross party MPs, this means that the UK Government are not free to make laws without them being adequately checked by all parties in select committees.  They cannot rely on their own party to help them out.

Also, as they are ran by backbench MPs, this is the opportunity for the wider Parliament (not just the front benches!!) to have a chance to control Parliament.

And they can control the Government!! Remember that the health select committee ordered the government to act on the swine flu epidemic in 2010! 

ii. Parliament does have the power to recommend changes to legislation (even if they can’t block it)

 This happens quite regularly.  In 2015, George Osborne’s proposed tax cuts were delayed by the House of Lords to allow people time to “deal with the impact £4.4bn cuts to tax credits”.

These delays mean that the government need to re-strategize and present some legislation that has been addressed.

It also means that the government need to take into consideration the influence of the House of Lords and ensure that they careful present it in the first place.

iii. In extreme circumstances, Parliament can remove the government through a vote of no confidence.

This is rare.  The last time this happened was in 1979 when the House of Commons carried the conservative motion of no confidence 311-310 again Jim Callaghan’s Labour government.

When a government, like in the above case, is ineffective it can be removed. Jim Callaghan lost 36 votes in 2 years and this was too many for the government to keep their position.

 

iv. Parliament has sovereignty over the government

The government cannot make any fundamental changes/updates to the law without Parliament voting on it first.  This is even if it is part of their manifesto pledges.

Eg, Parliament needed to vote in order to pass the Constitutional Reform Act 2005.  This was part of Labours 2005 pledge to remove judges from the House of Lords

Furthermore, Parliament can veto legislation if they believe that the government does not have the mandate for the proposal.

Eg, in 2006 The House of Commons vetoed Labour’s Freedom Of Information Act 1999 on exposing MP salaries.

 

In Conclusion….

There seems to be little doubt that both have influence over the other and that conventions and legislation alike do leave both chambers with something to leave them still feeling like heavy weights in Westminster.  With this in mind, a good the above will leave you ready to tackle a previous question asked by Edexcel:

 

To what extent do Parliament control Government Power? 

40 marks