In the early days of the Trump administration, when things were much simpler, there was so much turmoil surrounding Donald Trumps erratic behavior and repeated interference with the Russia investigation that Rod Rosenstein, the deputy attorney general, briefly floated the idea of secretly recording the president and invoking the 25th Amendment to the United States Constitution. That suggestion, which never went anywhere and which Rosenstein has played down, was made in the chaotic days after Trump fired James Comey; triggering the amendment wouldve allowed the Cabinet and the vice president to declare him unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

That was then. Now, with Trump spending a few days at Walter Reed Medical Center as he is observed and treated for the coronavirus, the section of the Constitution allowing for the temporary or permanent replacement of the president is fully on the table, at least in principle. The presidents vitals over the last 24 hours were very concerning, and the next 48 hours will be critical in terms of his care, Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, said on Saturday in a candid assessment. Were still not on a clear path to a full recovery. Of course, Trump doesnt like candor, and he immediately scrambled to paint a rosier picture of his current condition. As of late Saturday, he was not yet out of the woods. And on Sunday, it became clear that the presidents doctors arent telling us the full picture of his true prognosis.

Because, in fairness, the Trump administration cannot be trusted to be forthright with the American public, not even on matters of life and death, wed be all the wiser to understand how the 25th Amendment works, how the prospect of presidential incapacity could trigger the legal line of succession, and how the election and transfer of power themselves can go into unchartered territory if not complete chaos.

Get ready for some game theory.

First off, the United States has been through drills like this before. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan was shot at close range while in office, and his aides considered the 25th Amendment as a possibility. Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law School professor who was a young lawyer in the Justice Departments Office of Legal Counsel at the time, wrote recently in Bloomberg about how he became the offices resident 25th Amendment expert and, when Reagan was shot, was asked to draft two declarations under it: One involving section 3 of the amendment, which allows the president to voluntarily and temporarily declare himself unable to perform the duties of his office, thus transferring those responsibilities to the vice president, who then becomes acting president; and another involving section 4 of the amendment, where a majority of the Cabinet plus the vice president declare the presidents inability.

In the latter scenario, the president may regain power by declaring in writing that hes recovered and ready to regain power. That would be the end of it, unless the Cabinet and vice president disagree with the presidents assessment in which case the disagreement would be kicked over to Congress, which would render its verdict on the presidents capacity to hold office on a two-thirds, supermajority vote.

Far more straightforward is what would happen in the event Trump were to die from Covid-19. Thats governed by section 1 of the 25th Amendment. Under the clear and simple terms of that section, the Vice President shall become President upon creation of a vacancy in the office of President, states a memorandum prepared by the Reagan administration in 1985. No ambiguity there. That means Vice President Mike Pence would succeed Trump as president, and the office of vice president would become vacant, triggering section two of the amendment, under which Pence could nominate a new vice president subject to a majority vote in both houses of Congress.

View post:
What Trumps Covid Diagnosis Means for the Election - GQ

Since Donald Trump has been diagnosed with COVID-19, the health of the president is suddenly an issue. And given the nasty trajectory the disease is capable of taking, the possibility of presidential disability must be considered. Unsurprisingly, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has taken the opportunity to score political points by considering legislation to change the specific procedures on how to deal with presidential disability a move that is sure to go nowhere but no doubt thrills her partys liberal base.

Political angling aside, there are some basic questions members of the public are surely wondering. What happens if the president is incapable of discharging his duties? What do law and history tell us? While it is unlikely that these will actually come into play, its no doubt possible, and understanding what our government is supposed to do can be useful.

The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967, deals with vacancies in the executive office. It explicitly affirms that if the presidential office is vacated, the vice president becomes president. This had been understood by implication and historical tradition, but when President William Henry Harrison died in 1841, it was not entirely clear whether Vice President John Tyler became president in his own right or simply acting president. Tyler importantly asserted that he was the president arguably his only positive contribution to American history (he would later vote to secede from the Union as a member to the Virginia Convention in 1861). The 25th Amendment also calls for vacancies in the vice presidential office to be filled through a process of nomination by the president and ratification by Congress. It gives the president the power to transfer executive power to the vice president when he is unable to perform his duties. And in the case that the president is not able to make a formal transmission, it invests the power in the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide.

It is this latter provision that is garnering attention right now. How sick is the president? is a question for the medical team attending to him. How sick is too sick to continue to be president, and are we nearing that point? are, ultimately, political questions asked of the men and women of the presidents Cabinet.

Pundits have wondered if the Cabinet should transfer power to Vice President Mike Pence while Trump has been recuperating. That is a matter for the political process, which is informed under the 25th Amendment by our constitutional systems doctrine of separation of powers. If the president is to be declared incapable of discharging his duties, that decision rests with the principal officers of the government notCongress or the courts. The only direct role Congress has in the process of presidential disability (beyond establishing the laws to effectuate the 25th Amendment, a power it shares with the president) is to resolve a dispute within the executive branch namely, if the Cabinet and the vice president believe the president is still unfit but the president believes he is well. If the president is going to be stripped of power because of disability, that decision is to be made within the executive branch alone. James Madison hinted at this reasoning inFederalist 51, in which he noted that the separation of powers requires that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others. Otherwise, members of one branch might seize power by interfering with the officers of the other branches.

The congressional version of this is located in Article 1, Section 5, which gives each chamber the exclusive power to be the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own Members determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Similarly, judges on federal courts enjoy tenure for good behavior and cannot be removed by any traditional reason. The only exception to these rules, whereby the members of each branch are independent from the others, is the power of impeachment and removal, which is housed exclusively in Congress. But impeachment cannot be for no reason the Constitution states that the impeached must be guilty of Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. It also requires the House to indict and two-thirds of the Senate to convict. That is a high bar.

So, outside of clear instances of executive malfeasance, the president or the Cabinet gets to decide whether the president can fulfill his duties. Thats it. Congress mainly arbitrates disputes between the two, while the people only get a say at the ballot box. And though the 25th Amendment was only ratified in 1967, the executive historically has been protective of its prerogatives on questions of presidential capacity, even when that has meant not disclosing fully to the people what is going on. This long history of such concealment no doubt informs the public and the medias skeptical dissection of every update on Trumps condition.

The first presidential health scare came very early, when George Washington contracted influenza and pneumonia in 1790. Rumors circulated around Congress, at that point located in New York City, that the president was sure to die, or that if he lived, he would be deaf. But Washington recovered, and the executive administration of the government was not interrupted. In the summer of 1813, Madison became extremely ill during a special session of Congress called to deal with the problems of the War of 1812. Madison usually fled the swampy climate of Washington, D.C., for the more pleasant environment of his Montpelier estate, located in the Virginia piedmont, but he had stayed to give direction to Congress when he became severely ill. Again, rumors swirled that the president was not long for the world, and since Vice President Elbridge Gerry was recovering from a stroke (and would die the following year), there was the possibility of two vacancies in the executive. But Madison recovered, never yielded the executive authority, and indeed never fully disclosed to Congress what had afflicted him.

The first real succession crisis occurred with the assassination of President James A. Garfield in 1881. Charles Guiteau shot Garfield at a train station in Washington, D.C., on July 2, but the president did not die right away. In fact, the early prognosis seemed hopeful, but the efforts of the presidents doctors to remove the bullet only made matters worse, and he died on Sept. 19. All the while, Vice President Chester A. Arthur was waiting in the wings but unwilling to take over the executive duties officially, lest he appear to be grasping for power even though Garfield was too weak to carry them out.

Arthurs successor in the White House, Democrat Grover Cleveland, would also have a health scare during his second term. Clevelands doctors discovered an abnormal growth in his mouth in 1893, at which point the country was sinking into the worst economic downturn outside of the Great Depression. Doctors performed a secret surgery on the president aboard a boat, under the cover story that the president was vacationing. Cleveland had part of his jaw removed and later was given a rubberized prothesis as a replacement. When the press grew suspicious, the administration leaked false information that he merely had two bad teeth replaced.

In 1919, Woodrow Wilson was barnstorming the country in support of the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I and created the League of Nations. Exhausted from the tour, Wilson returned home in September, only to suffer a severe stroke the next month, which left him partially paralyzed. Not only was the country at large not informed of the presidents condition, Wilson himself was never told how badly he had been injured. Political insiders knew of the graveness of his condition, but Vice President Thomas Marshall refused to assert a constitutional claim to the presidency.

Wilsons assistant secretary of the navy, Franklin D. Roosevelt, would go on to become president some 13 years later, and remain in office for more than a decade thereafter, guiding the country through both the Great Depression and World War II. All this had a terribly debilitating effect on the presidents well-being, which is evident when one compares pictures of him at the start of his presidency in 1933 to those at the end, in 1945. Like Wilson, FDR was not fully informed by his doctors how badly his health had suffered. And there were certainly no details leaked to the public. Indeed, FDR had carefully hidden the ravages of polio from the people, taking care never to be pictured in his wheelchair. Still, political insiders who spent any time with the president knew there was a high chance he would die in office, which led to one of the most consequential vice presidential nominations in 1944, as party insiders competed with one another to secure the preferred candidate. Ultimately, the bosses chose Harry Truman because they could all live with him.

President Dwight Eisenhower, who had served under FDR as the supreme commander of allied forces, became president in 1953. He had a serious heart attack in 1955 that left him hospitalized for six weeks. During that period, Vice President Richard Nixon and Secretary of State John Dulles took on most administrative duties in the executive branch. Later in his administration, Eisenhower suffered a stroke and also had surgery due to Crohns disease.

In 1981, President Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley. Though this occurred after the enactment of the 25th Amendment, power was never officially transferred to Vice President George H.W. Bush, and there was a great deal of confusion in the immediate aftermath. When Reagan was struck, the vice president was in Texas, and Secretary of State Alexander Haig, speaking to the press, assured the country that he was in control here, in the White House, although technically he was fourth in the line of succession.

Ironically, for all the drama surrounding presidential health and successions up until the enactment of the 25th Amendment, its invocations have been anodyne. President Reagan formally transferred power under it to Vice President Bush in 1985 to have colon surgery, and President George W. Bush invoked it twice, in 2002 and 2007, when he underwent colonoscopies. It likely should have been invoked when Reagan was shot in 1981, but the confusion surrounding the assassination kept the Cabinet from acting swiftly.

Indeed, the events of 1981 probably serve as a lesson for why it would be hard in practice to declare a presidential disability in an orderly fashion. It is the flip side of the virtues of a unitary executive. The Founding Fathers wanted a single person to be president rather than a council because he can provide vigor, direction, and swift action when it is called for. The 25th Amendment, meanwhile, empowers a council the presidential Cabinet that will inevitably be slow to act relative to what the president can do as a single individual. Factoring in the presidents desire to keep physical weakness as quiet as possible, the vice president not wanting to look like hes grasping for power, and the doctrine of separation of powers that keeps Congress mostly out of these considerations, it is hard to see anything but confusion surrounding presidential health scares. The 25th Amendment offers guidance and clarity, but it is just a text that has to be carried out by people in the midst of a crisis with multiple competing interests. Each such crisis is unique but similarly confounding.

See the original post:
COVID in the capital - American Enterprise Institute

Share

Share

Share

Email

On Tuesday, October 6, Japan will be hosting the second Australia-India-Japan-U.S. quad foreign ministers meeting in Tokyo against the backdrop of rapidly changing geopolitical dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. The quadrilateral strategic dialogue also known as QSD or Quad started as an ambiguous discussion on the international order launched by Abe Shinzo during his first premiership in 2007 convening major regional allies India, Australia and the United States. However, rather than the Japan-led initiative being driven in reaction to Chinas regional assertiveness, U.S. retrenchment, or even by Japans influential bureaucracy, it is has much more to do with the office of the prime minister, or the Kantei. Since this institutionalized executive branch takes the lead in foreign policy formulation in Japan, Abes Kantei-led diplomacy was arguably what enabled Japan to pursue the Quad.

Abe formed the Quads first informal grouping in May 2007 and it followed after former Abe administration foreign minister Aso Taros Arc of Freedom and Prosperity speech in November 2006 which focused on values-oriented diplomacy and the rule of law while excluding mention of China. As a result, the new Quad grouping quickly came to be viewed as a strong anti-China frontline, despite the considerable political ambiguity from Japan around what this grouping actually meant to achieve. By September 2007 Abe had stepped down as Japans prime minister due to health problems and by early 2008 Abes unfinished Quad forum had disbanded partially due to Indias and Australias reluctance, but also due to pressure from China. Abes replacement, Fukuda Yasuo, with his pro-China tilt ensured there was no talk of the Quad, and by the time the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) swept into power in 2009, the Quad or any possibility of a Quad-like concept had lost traction.

The Quad discussion forum has made a come back but explaining its rise and fall and its rise again is more counterintuitive than might be expected. First, if the Quad was simply a reaction to the geopolitical context, it does not explain why Fukuda had predispositions to Beijing while Aso did not, and Aso was unsuccessful when he again tried to promote his Arc conceptualization. Secondly, while the Democratic Party of Japans (DPJ) tenure has often been accused of leaning towards a pro- China shift, Stanford Universitys Danial Sneider convincingly argued that the DPJs new Asianism was actually an effort to manage the rise of China rather than accommodate it, demonstrating that the DPJ shared the same strategic unease about the changing balance of power as policymakers in the LDP. Both Hatoyama Yukios and Kan Naotos administrations also actively courted India, Australia, and Vietnam on various military and security initiatives. So why didnt the DPJ advance the Quad, or their own alternative of it, given that the 2010 Senkaku Islands incident precipitated a very serious crisis in Japans relations with China?

The answer is found in the Kantei. Both LDP and DPJ leadership between 2006-2012 simply did not have a Kantei that was sufficiently capable and well-staffed to lead such an initiative or any variant of it. Unlike Koizumi, who had successfully led from the Kantei, the first Abe administration, alongside Fukudas and Asos premierships all stumbled in key areas related to the Kantei and its key personalized appointments (the Cabinet Secretariat, cabinet appointments, and unofficial staff). The DPJ was also unable to lead from the Kantei, with Hatoyama taking a strong anti-bureaucratic stance upon becoming prime minister while also aiming to empower the executive branch. This move greatly undermined his relationship with the bureaucracy and fractured a key source of organizational support.

Upon Abes return to premiership in 2012, there was a renewed Japanese embrace of the Quad and greater clarity on the Quad concept. Abes 2012 essay titled Asias Democratic Security Diamond portrayed a Japan that was willing to be less coy about its motivations this time round. Indeed, from 2017 onwards, the group has met five times, even holding ministerial level talks in New York in 2019. Not only is this a change from Abes predecessors, but the shift towards emphasizing an apparent anti-China grouping also occurred amidst a rapprochement or reset in Japans relations with China, with Abes historic 2018 visit to Beijing.

Upon Abes return to premiership in 2012, there was a renewed Japanese embrace of the Quad and greater clarity on the Quad concept

While external factors such as Chinas continued aggressiveness in the East and South China Seas and U.S. unpredictability under the Trump administration have of course been a part of shaping Japans foreign policies, Japans approaches to them have in no way been the reactive of passive stereotypes that have frequently characterized Japanese foreign policy for decades. In fact, Japan has been markedly proactive and calculated, primarily because Abe has been able to lead from the Kantei.

Upon returning to office in 2012, Abe immediately significantly expanded the Kantei. He distributed key positions to very close and trusted aides, and this politicization and personalization of key appointments became a key characteristic of the Abe Kantei. He then appointed cabinet ministers that bridged the Kantei and the bureaucracy to help ensure that the bureaucracy remained in the Kanteis grip. By appointing Yachi Shotaro as secretary general of the newly-formed National Security Secretariat (NSS), Abe elevated a very important figure in the conceptualization of Asos Arc and Abes Free and Open Indo-Pacific.

These moves allowed Abe to deal with Japans infamous bureaucratic infighting and other disagreements among policy elites, such as those between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) regarding Chinas Belt-and-Road Initiative or the Northern Territories negotiations with Russia. It also helped Japan pursue security issues such as the Quad while also continuing to build economic ties with China through Seikei Bunri Japans old policy of separating economic and political issues. In effect, this allowed Abe to be successful in responding or overriding both domestic and systemic structures and gave his Kantei the ability to pragmatically maneuver and control the internal policy formulation process, all while dealing with external pressures.

But with the beginning of Sugas premiership, the question is whether Suga will be able to lead from the Kantei as his immediate predecessor did. On the first day as prime minister Suga tweeted he is determined to tear down bureaucratic sectionalismand also give birth to a cabinet that works for the people.

The Suga administration has been branded as a continuation cabinet given his role as Chief Cabinet Secretary and Abes right hand man for almost 8 years. But as Suga an independent of any LDP faction it means that the dynamics in the personalization and politicization of appointments will be slightly different than those of his predecessors. It was the China-friendly LDP Secretary General Nikai Toshihiro that lobbied the main LDP factions to support Sugas election bid which could very well mean China will continue to get a prominent push from the party.

But as Suga an independent of an LDP faction it means that the dynamics in the personalization and politicization of appointments will be slightly different than those of his predecessors

Additionally, while Suga will likely rely heavily on an experienced Motegi as Foreign Minister, Sugas replacement of Kono Taro with Kishii Nobuo as Minister of Defense has raised eyebrows. At a time when the party will need a voice to advance a new National Security Strategy, along with policies related to strike capabilities and agreements that would formalize security partnerships with countries like Australia and India, an appointment made for possible reasons of factional influence or personal favors could backfire for Suga.

On the other hand, Sugas Kantei is already showing signs of proactive pragmatism in balancing complex internal dynamics with structural external pressures similar to that which Abe showed in the latter half of his second administration. Motegi is reportedly scheduling a potential visit of Chinas Foreign Minister Wang Yi Wang for as early as October 2020, and Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison plans on traveling to Japan to meet Suga as early as November.

Sugas Kantei is already showing signs of proactive pragmatism in balancing complex internal dynamics with external pressures

The Quad will certainly have a full agenda when it meets, though it does not have an explicit military dimension or even a formal institutional structure. Before Abes resignation, the Quad members had already started to focus on supply chain resilience, with Australia, Japan, and India, launching a special initiative around the beginning of August 2020 against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and Chinas controversial moves toward Taiwan and Hong Kong. What also remains striking about the Quad is that it has resisted openly identifying China as the primary target it seeks to rein in.

These are just an outline of the broader issues Suga will have to grapple with in terms of working with their respective Quad partner states. But understanding whether Sugas Kantei will be successful in leading the Quad to coordinate its response to these latest challenges means understanding the changing landscape of Japans deeply complex internal foreign policy formulation apparatus, and not just its external environment.

Vindu Mai Chotani is a PhD student at the University of Tokyo's Graduate School of Public Policy. Her dissertation focuses on Abes Kantei Diplomacy, while her broader research examines Japanese foreign policy, India-Japan relations, and the evolving security architecture of the Indo-Pacific.

Related

Read the original here:
Leading from the Kantei: Japan and the Quad - Tokyo Review

Fox News and its biggest stars currently enjoy an unprecedented influence over the federal governments actions because President Donald Trump is obsessed with the networks propagandistic programming and relies on its incendiary right-wing personalities for advice.

Fox has effectively merged with the Trump administration, an event with no analogue in modern American history. The networks sway over the political universe has become so great in recent years that whether you watch it or not, its coverage and commentators have had a tangible effect on your life. In 2020, that impact of the presidents fixation with Fox's coverage culminated inthe deaths of an untold number of Americans during the coronavirus pandemic.

Trump and Fox have a symbiotic relationship dating back nearly a decade. He used its platform and supportive coverage to propel himself to conservative political stardom, the Republican presidential nomination, and the presidency.

Since his election, Trump has filled the top ranks of his administration with friendly faces from the networks airwaves -- but those who remained at Fox rather than joining the administration may be even more powerful. Several network hosts have also become informal presidential advisers, dual roles that would not pass muster at any other news outlet. Sean Hannitys unsecured nightly phone calls with the president led White House aides to describe him as the shadow chief of staff. Laura Ingraham and Jeanine Pirro counseled Trump during West Wing visits, while Tucker Carlson traveled to his Mar-a-Lago resort to do the same. Jesse Watters and Pete Hegseth are close enough to the president to be invited to the White House for private dinners. Trump even reportedly had Lou Dobbs conferenced in to provide feedback during administration meetings.

It is dangerous that the president takes advice from the people he sees on his TV. The members of his Fox News Cabinet are bigoted extremists who lack anything resembling the qualifications you would want in senior advisers to the most powerful man on the planet. They have their jobs because they are willing and effective members of a corrupt propaganda machine -- they know how to wield disinformation and marshal the fear and hatred of the networks hard-right viewers to keep them coming back for more and supporting Republican politicians. And they have the presidents ear because they use their programs to praise him and denounce his foes. Those arent credentials for presidential advisers -- they are ingredients for disaster.

Meanwhile, the presidents most important source of information isnt the U.S. intelligence community -- its the dimwitted pro-Trump shills at the networks morning show, Fox & Friends. The president watches hours of Fox News and its sister network, Fox Business, each day and regularly tweets in response to segments that attract his attention -- at times dramatically shifting the news cycle and government policy. He sent 1,146 of these Fox live tweets from September 2018 through August 2020 -- 7.5% of his total tweets during that period --according to a new Media Matters report.

This Trump-Fox feedback loop impacts the presidents worldview -- and thus, the governments actions -- on a scope far beyond any other news outlet in the recent past. And the networks hold on both have only been strengthened over the course of his administration.

Here are 15 ways Fox drove federal policymaking and political events over the last two years.

See original here:
15 examples of Fox News' unrivaled federal influence over the last two years - Media Matters for America

Many have come forward opposing 20A totally

Recently Donald Trump while engaged in a public debate with his rival Joe Biden in the US Presidential race side-tracked a sensitive question put to him, stating, Stand back and standby. Matching the rhetoric Trump is famous for, his choice of words well suited to his disavowal of the blame game centred round White Supremacy, a penalty kick he would inevitably incur in the play ahead of him.

In Sri Lanka, the controversial 20A has many shafts from different groups aimed at it, however, with no fatal certainty. The standby dictum pronounced by President GR looks a similar side-tracking. The indication is no give and take come what may!

It appears that the Government is hell bound towards a goal best known to it with least regard to the concerns expressed not only by rival political groups but deflecting even their ardent supporters and promulgators. To the independent onlookers this confrontational approach has become a worrying factor as to why things could not have been dealt with more harmoniously, causing less friction.

In such a context the constitutional tangle has to be perceived and focused from a different intersection. Many have come forward opposing 20A totally. Elements politically hostile and inimical obviously have to take this approach because they all played a key frontline role to bring the 19A.

But the majority of those MPs now saddled with the responsibility of carrying the 20A through are the same who supported 19A to annul their own 18A passed soon after coming into power in 2010. This group is now reduced to a dilemma in extreme puzzle.

Constitutional amendments

The 18th Amendment was brought in on 8 September 2010, to remove the sentence that mentioned the limit of the re-election of the President and to propose the appointment of a parliamentary council that decides the appointment of independent posts like commissioners of election, human rights and Supreme Court Judges.

Ironically, it was a replacement to the 17th Amendment, brought in 2001 to make provisions for the Constitutional Council and Independent Commissions. Several who supported the 18A in 2010 happen to be the same people who stood up in favour of 17A in 2001.

The 17th Amendment to the Constitution was passed by Parliament during the office of Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake and President Chandrika Kumaratunga on 3 October 2001. Several key figures in the current Government were in Parliament then.

The 18th Amendment was passed on 8 September 2010 during the Office of President Mahinda Rajapaksa and Prime Minister D.M. Jayaratne. Most of the MPs who were in the Parliament when the 17th Amendment was passed subsequently supported its replacement with the 18th Amendment.

19A was passed in Parliament on 28 April 2015 when Maithripala Sirisena was the President and Ranil Wickremesinghe was the Prime Minister. Parliamentary majority however was with the MPs who were elected to the Government of Mahinda Rajapaksa. It was passed by MPs present voting for, except one against, one abstention and 10 absentees. The political party composition of the Parliament when the 19th Amendment was passed was as follows:

UPFA headed by Mahinda Rajapaksa: 144 seats

UNF headed by Ranil Wickremesinghe: 60

Tamil National Alliance: 14

Democratic National Alliance (JVP): 07

Total: 225

The 19th Amendment could not have been passed without the support of the UPFA majority headed by Mahinda Rajapaksa.

Irony of history

The irony of history is, those who voted for 19A then are now clamouring to abolish it. The purpose of 19A was to annul the 18th Amendment which they brought, replacing the 17th. When we look at this hotchpotch situation, we see a total aberration of polarisations and compromising of policies under different leaderships.

It is relevant and important to recall a statement made by John Seneviratne MP, on the day of passing the 19th Amendment in Parliament. He said that all those who voted for 18A did not do so because they liked it. But when you are in a government you are compelled to stand by the party they represent.

He made a long speech and said that the Government surreptitiously included the removal of executive powers of the President bestowed on him by the Constitution in the bill undermining the peoples sovereignty knowing very well that the Supreme Court would not allow such an amendment without a referendum. He also made reference to the highly-unpalatable position regarding the representative capacity of a MP under the proportionate voting system that was in existence. He stressed that the system did not augur well to provide any meaningful representative right for the voters.

This clearly shows that the Ranil/Sirisena minority government had either wooed the Opposition majority to believe that the voting system would be changed in due course or subverted them to surrender under threat of being prosecuted under the pending legal action contemplated against many of them for various alleged wrongdoings during the previous regime. Why the MPs not sitting with the government should have believed and trusted such a promise is a matter beyond anybodys apprehension. But all MPs who supported the 19A are now trying to use this to rationalise and justify their stand.

Historical developments

It is interesting to recall the historical developments of the Countrys constitution. The country received autonomy within the British Commonwealth in 1948 as the Dominion of Ceylon. Ceylon had two constitutions, Donoughmore Constitution and the Solbury Constitution. It is the Solbury Constitution that provided a parliamentary form of government for the first time.

The Government of Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike set up a joint select committee to consider a revision of the Constitution on 10 January 1958 but this committee could not conclude the matter due to the dissolution of Parliament in 1959. Even the Dudley Senanayake Government that came to power subsequently attempted to bring a new constitution but it was not successful. The only major change in the administration during this period was the abolition of the Upper House, the Senate, in October 1971.

Madam Sirimavo Bandaranaikes United Front Government brought the first major constitutional change by promulgating a Republican Constitution for Sri Lanka in 1972. The National State Assembly so created became the unicameral legislature for the country with a nominal president.

In July 1977, this Government was defeated under the leadership of J.R. Jayewardene who secured a five-sixth majority in the State Assembly. A new Constitution drafted by his Government was adopted replacing the 1972 Republican Constitution on 4 October 1977 transforming the nominal president to an executive president.

Prime Minister J.R. Jayewardene became the Executive President of Sri Lanka, automatically, on 4 February 1978. This Constitution provided for amendments by a majority of two-thirds in the Parliament barring certain fundamental provisions dealing with important aspects which required an approval at a national referendum in addition to the two-thirds majority in Parliament. This provision remains valid to date.

Between the period starting from 20 November 1978 to 17 December 1988, the Constitution of Sri Lanka has undergone 16 amendments, all during the Presidency of J.R. Jayewardene. The most significant amendment was the 13th for the establishment of Provincial Councils on 14 November 1987. Many of the amendments sought to provide strength to the ruler and facilitate his authoritarian rule.

We remember how J.R. resorted to obtain undated letters of resignations from his five-sixth MP force while holding the extremely forceful Executive powers denounced by many as highly dictatorial. JR realised that even such an autocratic constitution could not guarantee the uninterrupted continuation of the power base. That is why he resorted to secure the status by keeping the MPs well under his control. But he failed to realise the possibility of the emergence of a future leader who would attempt to hold onto the presidency as long as desired.

Bone of contention

Matters contended by those challenging the 20A are very much in the public domain now. The present Government was given a mandate by the people to establish a constitution which would address the elimination of all bad experiences of the past. Rushing to bring an amendment which while eliminating certain bad features already identified to exist, simultaneously resurrecting some provisions discarded with much public demand has become a bone of contention. This is where the new Government blundered in stirring up a hornets nest.

When the public sympathy and support committed to them remained so fresh, why did the Government act with such an undue haste paving the way for huge accusations such as attempting to exercise executive powers without the valve and conduit of the Cabinet?

On the part of the citizens of the country (voters) the most important right they wish to be assured to them is the affirmation of the provisions under Article 3 of the Constitution, viz. in the Republic of Sri Lanka sovereignty is in the people and is inalienable. Sovereignty includes the powers of government, fundamental rights and the franchise.

In whatever form the Constitution did not intend the president to function as an unfettered repository of executive power unconstrained by the other organs of governance. Before the 19A, the Cabinet of Ministers was charged with the direction and control of the Government of the Republic, which shall be collectively responsible and answerable to Parliament while the President shall be a member of the Cabinet of Ministers and shall be its head.

The Constitution also provided that the President shall continue in office notwithstanding the dissolution of the Cabinet of Ministers under the provisions of the Constitution. There cannot be any dispute that until such time other provisions are made this state of affairs has to be restored for the operations of the Government to be conducted smoothly with a Cabinet charged with the exercise of Executive power.

It is interesting to note that as pointed out by John Seneviratne MP in the Parliament in 2015 before the passing of 19A, Supreme Court held inter-alia, that seven paragraphs in the bill submitted to the Supreme Court require the approval of the People at a Referendum in terms of Article 83 of the Constitution.

Nevertheless, we are faced with a situation understandably complicated arisen after the 19A with regard to the Prime Minister exercising powers which are reposed by the people to be exercised by the Executive, namely the President and not the Prime Minister. The Courts held that the President cannot relinquish his executive power and permit it to be exercised by another body or person without his express permission or delegated authority.

While these adversities and controversies were identified as requiring immediate correction, there are other issues that have stayed on over a period of time to be addressed in the long term. Independence of the Judiciary, economic development encompassing all sectors of the polity, inclusion of the minorities in the political process assuring equal opportunity, regional autonomy under decentralisation, while maintaining main national structure and unity, and guaranteeing peace and communal harmony are some of those.

The country was plagued with the problems devolving round these issues, trying to find solutions under many regimes. The current opportunity given by the people as a clear mandate to put an end to this state of affairs should not be wasted engaged in tinkering and patchwork exercises.

A meaningful approach towards finding permanent solutions would receive the public accolade without any hesitation to stand against anybody or any force acting with ulterior motives to sabotage such an approach. Unity of purpose should be the theme of the day to take the country forward from the mess it is now.

See the original post here:
Constitutional morass and the 'standby' enigma - ft.lk

BBB Locksmith is an experienced Minnesota based company who are pleased to draw attention to their automotive locksmith services. Over the years they have dealt with a wide range of locksmithing situations including emergency lockouts, lock repairs, lock replacements and more and they have now expanded their services to become one of the best car locksmiths in the area.

BBB Locksmith was founded in Bloomington, but their service area covers a wide range of zip codes across Minnesota so that they can offer their high-quality services to as many people in need as possible. They endeavour to help any individuals who have made the all too common mistake of locking their keys in their car, or people who have lost or broken their car keys and remote fobs.

AUTOMOTIVE LOCKSMITH SERVICES THAT TAKE CARE OF CLIENTS 24/7

BBB Locksmith has an efficient team of skilled, knowledgeable staff on hand twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week to ensure that their clients never find themselves stuck in an emergency situation with a defective remote fob or broken car key for long. They aim to provide professional, efficient services to all their clients across a wide area.

These qualified and trustworthy locksmiths travel all over Minnesota in a fully-equipped service vehicle to assist their clients with all their automotive locksmithing needs on the spot. They work round the clock to ensure their clients are never left stranded or locked out, thanks to their expertise in replacing and duplicating car keys and fobs. So, if their clients find themselves with a snapped car key or faulty key fob, BBB Locksmith can come to the rescue in no time and lend a hand. This 24/7 availability is vital when it comes to taking care of their clients in a timely manner, as nobody likes being locked out of their car in an emergency situation.

EXPERIENCED, HIGH-QUALITY CAR LOCKSMITH SERVICES IN MINNESOTA

BBB Locksmith has years of professional experience in dealing with all aspects of locksmithing. They strive to provide quality service every time, and pride themselves on being able to cater to every individual client need. The Bloomington based car locksmith has the in-depth industry knowledge required to duplicate a variety of car keys and fobs, catering to a wide range of car and van models. Therefore, whatever their clients are driving, they can offer expert assistance with remote key fob replacement or car key duplication.

For emergency lockout situations BBB Locksmith aims to be with clients as soon as possible, often averaging a fifteen-minute response time. They understand that a lockout situation or a broken key situation is very stressful, and they aim to give their clients reassurance that the issue will be resolved with their professional help. Their clients can then get on with their daily routine, safe in the knowledge that their problem has been efficiently handled by the skilled locksmiths at BBB.

MORE INFORMATION

For more information on BBB Locksmiths services, please head over to their website today and browse their full range of affordable and professional services, from car key duplication and fob replacement to other locksmithing services.

Have any questions about BBB Locksmith and the services they offer? Then please go ahead and get in touch with them at your convenience by emailing [emailprotected] or telephoning them on 6122089977.

Source:https://thenewsfront.com/bloomington-based-company-bbb-locksmith-is-proud-to-offer-expert-car-key-duplication-and-remote-fob-replacement-all-over-minnesota/

Follow this link:
Bloomington based company BBB Locksmith is proud to offer expert car key duplication and remote fob replacement all over Minnesota - The News Front

The British Museum has taken down a prominent bust of its founder, Sir Hans Sloane, whose collection was built using money from his wifes sugar plantation in Jamaica.

The sculpture has been relocated in a special glass cabinet with signage that describes him as a slave owner whose work was enabled by the wealth and networks that grew out of European imperialism. Also included in the cabinet are artifacts from Sloanes personal collection, including some the museum has labeled as anatomical specimens relating to skin color and theories of racial difference.

We have pushed him off the pedestal. We must not hide anything. Healing is knowledge, the museums director, Hartwig Fischer, told The Daily Telegraph, which first reported the news.

Dedication to truthfulness when it comes to history is absolutely crucial, with the aim to rewrite our shared, complicated, and, at times, very painful history, the director added. The case dedicated to Hans Sloane and his relationship to slavery is a very important step in this.

The bust of Sir Hans Sloane. Courtesy of the British Museum.

A successful botanist and physician born in Ireland in 1660, Sloane amassed more than 70,000 books, drawings, coins, plant specimens, and other objects throughout his life. His collecting habit was born in 1685 on a trip to Jamaicathen owned by the Britishwhere he identified hundreds of news species of plants (and allegedly invented chocolate milk).

Sloane bequeathed his unique collection to Britain upon his death, in 1753, and it formed the foundation of the British Museum when it was established that same year.

The replacement of Sloanes bust is part of a larger effort at the institution to address the history of imperialism baked into its DNA.

The British Museum has done a lot of workaccelerated and enlarged its work on its own history, the history of empire, the history of colonialism, and also of slavery, said Fischer. These are subjects which need to be addressed, and to be addressed properly. We need to understand our own history.The British Museum Has Added a Label to a Bust of Its Founder Identifying Him as a Slave Owner as Part of an Effort to Understand Our Own History

Part of the Elgin Marbles, which were originally part of the Parthenon in Athens. Photo: by VCG Wilson/Corbis via Getty Images.

Other artifacts of dubious origin in the museum will be accompanied by labels denoting that they were acquired through colonial conquest and military looting. The institution will also develop a trail for gallery goers to explore the history of its collection through 16 such objects taken by the British Empire.

Notably, the Elgin Marbles, which were taken from Greece in the 19th century and have since been the focus of numerous repatriation efforts, are not featured on the tour.

Eventually were going to be redisplaying the whole British Museum, Neal Spencer, a curator who organized the Sloane cabinet, told theTelegraph. We want to tell more of these stories. We want to talk more about the context of how the museum was founded.

Read the original here:
The British Museum Has Added a Label to a Bust of Its Founder to a Special Cabinet Where Hes Identified as a Slave Owner - artnet News

After two emergency sittings completed in record time, N.W.T. MLAs will finally debate a motion to remove Katrina Nokleby from cabinet.

Until last Wednesday, Nokleby was minister of infrastructure and industry, tourism and investment. That's when, in a surprise move, Premier Caroline Cochrane stripped her of her portfolios, saying she didn't have confidence in Nokleby's ability to "fulfil her responsibilities."

But while the premier decides ministers' portfolios, only a vote of 10 of 19MLAs can remove them from cabinet.

On Wednesday, MLAs will vote on a motion tabled by the premier and delayed by Nokleby herself to do just that.

Here's what to expect:

As the motion goes to the floor, the premier and MLAs will each get a chance to speak to the motion and outline where they stand on Nokleby's removal from cabinet.

It could be the first time MLAs speak directly to the reasons for her removal.

Cochrane will need the support of nine other MLAs to eject Nokleby from cabinet. It's not clear yet if the six cabinet ministers besides Nokleby will be voting in solidarity on this motion, as they normally do.

If the motion succeeds, Nokleby will become a regular MLA, and work will begin to select her replacement.

The assembly will likely adjourn at this point until Thursday, when all 19 MLAs can meet as the "territorial leadership committee" and select a new cabinet minister in a secret ballot.

Candidates will nominate themselves, give a speech, and take questions before the vote.

Once the new minister is chosen, they'll need to be sworn in before the legislature can adjourn until Oct. 15 as planned.

By convention, cabinet is composed of two ministers from northern ridings, two from the south, and two from Yellowknife.

As Nokleby represents the Yellowknife riding of Great Slave, she is most likely to be replaced by another Yellowknife MLA. But it's not immediately clear which of them may want it.

Frame Lake MLA Kevin O'Reilly, Yellowknife North MLA Rylund Johnson, Kam Lake MLA Caitlin Cleveland and Yellowknife Centre MLA Julie Green could all replace her.

Of the four, only Johnson has ruled out a bid for cabinet.

Both Johnson and Cleveland have both publicly criticized the premier's decision to remove Nokleby, while O'Reilly has praised her for her "decisive action."

If Cochrane's motion were to fail, Nokleby would remain in cabinet as a minister without a portfolio and put the premier in a very difficult spot.

The bar to defeat the motion is actually lower than it is to pass. Because the Speaker is obligated to vote for the status quo in the event of a tie, Nokleby must secure only eight votes from her colleagues to remain in place.

If that were to happen, MLAs could then table a motion of non-confidence in the premier, or give her time to patch things up and find a new role for Nokleby in cabinet.

The premier and other MLAs have repeatedly refused to speak publicly about the reasons behind Nokleby's dismissal. But her short time as a minister has not been without controversy.

Nokleby's departments have been the subject of intense criticism from Indigenous governments who say the territory's procurement process is broken, and from tourism operators who accuse her department of unreasonable delays.

She has also been accused of taking a combative tone in discussions with fellow MLAs, according to Northern News Services Limited.

But in the wake of her dismissal last week, industry leaders have lined up to voice their surprise at the premier's move, telling Cabin Radio they had few issues with Nokleby's performance.

Nokleby has already survived a confidence motion advanced and then withdrawn without explanation by regular MLAs in May. At that time, Cochrane said she had "complete confidence" in the minister.

Cochrane, Nokleby and all regular MLAs have refused repeated requests for interviews from CBC.

Instead, on Friday, Cochrane posted a five-minute video to a Facebook page with 600 followers in which she said she was "reluctant" to offer her reasoning out of "respect for conversations held in confidence."

Read more:
Here's how today's vote on an N.W.T. minister's future will go down - CBC.ca

Montpelier, South Burlington, and Rutland offices will re-open for visits by appointment only

Governor Phil Scott and the Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) announced the reopening of the Montpelier, South Burlington, and Rutland offices to the public by appointment only using a new online scheduling system on Aug. 25.

Throughout the COVID-19 State of Emergency and temporary closure of our offices, we have been fully aware of the services that Vermonters need and we have been pursuing solutions to better serve them, said DMV Commissioner Wanda Minoli. While DMV employees have continued to work daily covering mail, on-line, and email requests, our goal always has been to re-open as quickly as possible with health and safety protocols in place.

Customers can schedule appointments online beginning Thursday, Aug. 27. The first appointment times available will be for Monday, Aug. 31. The hours of operation for appointments at all three locations for appointments will be 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Customers with appointments are asked to arrive ten minutes before their appointment so DMV staff can review and verify all required paperwork prior to the appointment.

Many services are available online or by mail, and the DMV urges customers to take advantage of the efficiency and ease of utilizing those options. Online services include license renewals, replacement licenses, registration renewals, replacement registrations, address changes, learner permit exams, paying reinstatement fees, and many commercial vehicle transactions. Please go to dmv.vermont.gov/mydmv for these and other online services, and for information about which transactions can be completed by mail.

The DMV is alsoworking on an online solution to offer Vermonters a more efficient way to get a temporary vehicle registration and temporary plate for private sales. Details of this new online service will be announced soon.

With the new scheduling system now live, the DMV will look to expand in-person appointments at the remaining branch offices.

See the article here:
Governor Scott and DMV announce new online scheduling system for in-person appointments and transactions - Mountaintimes

COVID-19 and the subsequent stay-at-home order coincided with my baby being able to sit up, then crawl. While I have always been someone who likes her surfaces cleanfrom counters to walls to floorshaving a global pandemic and a human dust buster under foot made me even more aware of the grime New York (and then, a few months later, Vermont) brings into my home.I always appreciated the ease of Swiffer-like products and as a new mother working from home, without childcare available and with two dogs, it seemed like the go-to for keeping my floors clean and baby safe. However, my environmentally-conscious self gave upon all disposable cleaning methods in 2018. This led to a long rabbit hole search for an easy way to clean my home, but doing so with a green mindset.

This is how I found the O Cedar line of mops. I started with the Pro Mist, as it served the purpose of disposable mops but it had two key aspects that I loved. First, the cleaning micro fiber pads are washable and secondly, it allows you to choose (or make) your own cleaning solution with a refillable compartment.

The Pro Mist has been a life saver and mind relaxer over the last four months. It cleans exceedingly well. It gets into tight spaces, picks up dog hair, and my homemade cleaning solution gives me peace of mind with my baby periodically eating off the floor. The reusable cleaning pads are super durable, staying put with Velcro. The fact that they are two sided is another plus for the eco-conscious, as I get twice as much use. When one is dirty, I toss it in with my other cleaning rags or even my whites.

It is hard enough to keep your house clean, regardless of a pandemic or a baby, and even hard to clean your home in an eco-friendly manner. Possibly the only thing that got easier for me during this time has been keeping my floors clean and doing so in a way that is better for the planet.

Scouted selects products independently and prices reflect what was available at the time of publish. Sign up for our newsletter for even more recommendations. Dont forget to check out our coupon site to find deals from Macy's, Walmart, Nordstrom Rack, and more. If you buy something from our posts, we may earn a small commission.

Read more here:
This O-Cedar Mop Is My Reusable Replacement for a Swiffer - The Daily Beast