Debate moderators must vigorously question Trump's understanding of presidential power.
By Dan Berger
Donald Trump’s rhetoric has been so dangerously outside the
bounds of normal American political discourse — which, at least, pays lip
service to constitutional governance and democratic rule — that legitimate
questions about whether he could be relied on to fully and faithfully execute
the laws of the United States have been raised.
In particular, Trump’s irresponsible threats have raised serious
doubts about his knowledge and understanding of the Constitution, basic
democratic procedures, and the extent of executive power.
That’s why it’s imperative that moderators in the upcoming
presidential debates vigorously inquire about Trump’s commitment to
constitutional and democratic rule. For the second debate on October 9, that
burden falls on moderators ABC’s Martha Raddatz and CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
The president is both Commander in Chief of the nation’s armed
forces and head of the agencies responsible for the external and internal
security of the country.
Unlike the powers of the presidency in domestic affairs, which are limited by the power of Congress and the courts, when it comes to national security, executive power is much broader and less constrained.
That’s why executive power can be and has been subject to abuse.
Indeed, in 1974, Richard Nixon was impeached by the U.S. House of
Representatives and accused of abuse of power for directing the IRS, FBI, and
CIA to investigate his political enemies.
This danger takes on particular concern as a result of the
vastly increased powers of surveillance assumed by the federal government
post-9/11. And it’s especially disturbing in the hands of someone like Trump,
who recently declared he wants “surveillance on certain
mosques,” an obvious infringement on the constitutional right of religious
liberty.
Up to the present, the dangers of NSA and other electronic
surveillance agencies have been largely associated with using information for
purposes other than terrorism prevention, in particular, by law enforcement.
But it can also be used for illegitimate political purposes.
Such an abuse could push the nation to the threshold of a police state.
Given his vindictive nature, unusual sensitivity to criticism,
and apparent indifference to the harm of others, his possible abuse of national
security institutions and practices cannot be ruled out — and should be
reasonably feared.
Trump’s unseemly relationship with Vladimir Putin should also
give us pause.
He’s shown a strange admiration for Putin’s abuses, with the GOP
candidate once praising Putin’s invasion of Ukraine as “so smart.”
Getting cozy with Putin, who doesn’t exactly
believe in democratic rule of law, shows where Trump’s values lie, and may
breed more potential for unconstitutional abuse of power as president.
There’s also the possibility that Trump could embroil the U.S.
in ramped up military action abroad. His foreign policy plans, which include
“waterboarding and a whole lot more,” would violate all international laws of armed combat, according
to former NSA and CIA Director, General Michael Hayden.
The recently released report of the special parliamentary
inquiry into the UK’s involvement in the U.S.-instigated Iraq War revealed that
George W. Bush recklessly ignored the risks of invading Iraq and cavalierly
dismissed British misgivings out of total ignorance of the political and social
effects that U.S. occupation would unleash.
And Bush had reasonably experienced advisers. Imagine the
disasters Trump could unleash with the added dangers of ignorance and
monumental hubris.
The thing about Trump is, we just don’t know what would happen. But we can assume
that a combination of ignorance of foreign affairs and arrogance is a disaster
waiting to happen.
Raddatz, Cooper, and all of the following debate moderators must
force Trump to face the basic issues of constitutional and democratic law
raised by his rhetoric to reveal if Trump truly grasps the scope of the high
office he seeks.
Dan
Berger is a Philadelphia lawyer specializing in complex litigation from the
plaintiff’s perspective. For his long career in the law, he was recently
named as a “Titan” in the field of complex litigation by the publication, Law
360. Distributed by OtherWords.org.
