Home Builder Developer - Interior Renovation and Design

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Oct. 8 that shes preparing an announcement about the 25th Amendment exciting Democrats who consider the measure a way to depose President Trump.

The less than 400-word constitutional amendment was ratified in 1967 after numerous concealed White House health issues, especially the heart ailments suffered by President Dwight Eisenhower.

The amendment says a president can be involuntarily stripped of his powers if hes unable to fulfill his duties.

Trump is back at the White House after three nights of hospitalization over the weekend for COVID-19 treatment.

The president said Oct. 6 and Oct. 7 that he has no symptoms, but Pelosi on Oct. 7 said on The View that Trumps use of the steroid dexamethasone to combat the virus may impede his judgment.

She raised the specter again the next day over Trumps comment to Fox Business, Im back because I am a perfect physical specimen and Im extremely young.

There are four sections to the 25th Amendment, each dealing with a different aspect of presidential or vice presidential succession.

Section 1 says the president is replaced by the vice president if he dies or resigns. Section 2 says replacement vice presidents must be confirmed by a majority of both chambers of Congress. Section 3 allows the president to voluntarily and temporarily transfer duties to the vice president.

And Section 4 allows the vice president and cabinet or another entity chosen by Congress to take power from the president without the chief executives consent.

There are two ways a president can be forcibly and temporarily stripped of power under Section 4 of the amendment.

The amendment says 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 must make a written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office.

Spokespeople for Vice President Mike Pence did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but its unlikely that Pence and a majority of Trumps cabinet would strip him of power as they campaign together ahead of the Nov. 3 election.

Congress has not passed a law describing an alternate entity authorized to make that decision, though the amendment allows lawmakers to do so.

Michigan State University law professor Brian Kalt wrote in a Lawfare blog analysis in 2019 that Section 4 does empower Congress to replace the Cabinet by designating an alternative group through legislation, but Congress has never done so and the president would presumably veto any such attempt in the middle of an actual struggle.

Its unclear if Pelosi intends to push for a new legislative procedure to oust a president. But even if such a bill passed the House, it would fail in the Republican-held Senate.

Impeachment provides Congress a process to remove a president for undefined high crimes and misdemeanors, whereas Section 4 of the 25th Amendment allows only temporary removal of a president if they are unable to perform their duties.

Under Section 4, a vice president would become Acting President if theres a declaration that the president cannot serve. Congress must review the finding of presidential incapacitation within 25 days and vote by two-thirds in each chamber that the president is indeed temporarily unable to serve.

Theres legal debate about whether the amendment covers mental illness of a president.

Saint Louis University law professor Joel K. Goldstein writes in a recent analysis, however, that [t]he legislative history confirms that mental incapacity was a primary concern of the Amendment, citing debate in Congress from the 1960s.

House Democrats already impeached Trump in December, but the Republican-held Senate acquitted him of charges that he abused his power and obstructed Congress.

Democrats impeached Trump on the non-criminal charges for encouraging Ukraine to investigate Democrats, including presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who earned a reported $83,000 a month on the board of energy company Burisma while his father led the Obama administrations Ukraine policy.

Section 3 of the 25th Amendment was invoked several times, including in 2002 and 2007 when President George W. Bush underwent general anesthesia for colonoscopies. In 1985, President Ronald Reagan transferred his powers to Vice President George H.W. Bush for about eight hours when he had a precancerous lesion removed from his colon.

In 1974, Gerald Ford became president pursuant to Section 1 when President Richard Nixon, facing impeachment, resigned. Four months later, Congress voted to approve, pursuant to Section 2, Fords nomination of former New York Gov. Nelson Rockefeller to be vice president.

Visit link:
How the 25th Amendment to the Constitution works: A simplified look - New York Post

If you struggle with chronic health issues like type 2 diabetes, you know how challenging it can be to just live a normal day-to-day life. Meds can help in a big way, and untold millions rely on medications to help them manage their conditions. However, drugs are only helpful if theyre both effective and safe, and a newly-expanded recall of a popular diabetes medication shows that the safe part can be somewhat hit-or-miss.

In a new company announcement posted by the FDA, a company called Marksans Pharma Limited announces the expanded recall of its metformin hydrochloride extended-release tablets. The drugs are prescribed for the management of diabetes, but these tablets may be tainted with unacceptably high levels of NDMA, or N-Nitrosodimethylamine, a likely human carcinogen.

The initial recall of the drug was announced way back in early June of this year, but after additional investigation, it became clear that more lots of the drug may have been contaminated with high levels of NDMA. The companys statement reads in part as follows:

Marksans Pharma Limited, India is voluntarily expanding its earlier initiated recall on June 05, 2020 to include an additional 76 unexpired lots of Metformin Hydrochloride Extended-Release Tablets, USP 500mg, & 750mg to the consumer level. Marksans performed N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) testing of unexpired identified marketed lots and observed that NDMA content in some lots is exceeding the acceptable Daily Intake Limit (ADI) of 96ng/day, therefore, out of an abundance of caution, an additional 76 lots are being recalled.

NDMA is a contaminant that is found in many foods and even water. Its considered a probably human carcinogen, which means it likely promotes the odds of cancer development. However, its considered to be relatively safe in light concentrations. The issue for Marksans Pharma Limited is that its pills were shown to have an elevated level of the carcinogen, which is unacceptable for sale based on U.S. regulations.

The FDAs official bulletin includes a full list of the products and lot numbers, ranging from 1,000-count packs of 500 mg tablets to 100-count packs of 750mg tablets. The lot numbers and product codes are also included. The pills were sold under the brand name Time-Cap Labs Inc., so if that sounds familiar and you have some of these pills sitting in your medicine cabinet, you should contact your doctor immediately to see how to proceed.

Its unsafe to simply stop taking this medication without having an alternative lined up, so make sure you speak to your doctor and get another prescription before tossing these potentially tainted pills in the trash.

Mike Wehner has reported on technology and video games for the past decade, covering breaking news and trends in VR, wearables, smartphones, and future tech. Most recently, Mike served as Tech Editor at The Daily Dot, and has been featured in USA Today, Time.com, and countless other web and print outlets. His love ofreporting is second only to his gaming addiction.

Originally posted here:
If you take this common medication, call your doctor and throw it out - BGR

GRAYSON

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet will temporarily close KY 773 near Grayson on Monday for road work at the Little Sandy River bridges.

Beginning at 7 a.m. Monday, and continuing until about 7 p.m., crews will close Ky. 773 at Bucksaw Junction south of the bridges while contractors work to connect the new road on the bridge replacement project. From the Ky. 7 intersection, Ky. 773 will be open to local traffic access up to Bucksaw Junction. Motorists traveling to or from locations on Ky. 773 south of Bucksaw should detour using Ky. 1.

Following the one-day closure, Ky. 773 will reopen with one-lane traffic controlled by temporary signal lights south of the bridges. Work in that area will continue over the next couple of weeks to complete the south tie in and the intersection with Bucksaw Junction. Traffic should expect delays and watch for changing traffic patterns.

Road work schedules are subject to change depending on weather conditions. Motorists are asked to heed all warning signs, slow down in work zones and remain aware of workers and construction equipment when traveling.

BCC bridge winners named

ASHLAND

Bellefonte Country Club bridge winners for Oct. 7 are: first Betty Cooper; second Norma Meek; third Juanita Ditty; fourth Clara Marcum.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

Follow this link:
Local News In Brief: One-day closure of Ky. 773 - The Independent

ISLAMABAD:

The government has decided to remove the federal member of the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) after an inquiry held all the members responsible for sabotaging the telemetry system, aimed at fair distribution of water among provinces, with collaboration of other members.

The report of the inquiry committee, headed by Planning Commission Deputy Chairman Dr Muhammad Jehanzeb Khan, has been submitted to the cabinet. It has pointed out that Irsa had not been able to put in place a system for monitoring the process of river flows.

Following the report, the government decided to conduct forensic audit of Irsa through independent management consultancy firm. It also decided to introduce reforms through restructuring of Irsa and allow necessary amendments to the Irsa Act, 1992, in consultation with the provinces.

The inquiry report pointed out that the PC-1 prepared by Irsa for installation of telemetry system was deficient in defining various hydraulic conditions experienced at the barrages. It further said that IRSA did not build its capacity for observations and measurements (O&M) of the telemetry system and despite experts warnings of short comings of the system installed in 2002, it did not take any action.

International experts appointed by the World Bank for the assessment of the telemetry system had concluded that despite its faults, the telemetry system was capable of solving the problems if rectification was carried out.

As the National Engineering Services Pakistan (Nespak) also concluded that the system had outlived its utility due to lack of maintenance, the World Bank arranged $2.5 million for seven pilot sites through the Water Sector Capacity Building and Advisory Services Project (WCAP) to equip Irsa with a modern telemetry system.

The report raised serious questions about evaluation methodology. It said that the consultant selection committee, comprising four Irsa members and the WCAP team leader, did not exercise due diligence. It pointed out that an international firm was top-ranked at the expression of interest (EOI) stage but was disqualified at the bid evaluation stage.

The report said that Irsa, as an organisation, lacked expertise in the fields of hydraulics, electronics, software engineering, procurement and monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacities. Its management structure needs to be realigned to ensure efficient performance of the obligatory functions.

The report stressed the need for performance audit of Irsa through a reputed management consultancy firm and called for review of the criteria for appointment of the Irsa members. Maximum age limit for the members also needed to be revisited, in terms of their credentials, competence, it recommended.

The committee held flawed approach of the Irsa members, Sher Zaman Khan of Balochistan, Raqib Khan of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Rao Irshad All Khan of Punjab and Mazhar Ali Shah of Sindh, responsible for aborting the project because of their incompetence, lack of knowledge and shyness from technology. However, the committee could not find any evidence that it was done through any systematic scheme.

Suitability of current nominees to Irsa may be reassessed by the provincial and federal governments and, if found necessary, make appropriate replacements. It must be ensured that they have the leadership and competence to not only install the telemetry system but steer Irsa through much-needed reforms and restructuring, the report recommended.

The Water Resources Division had sought approval of committees recommendations from the cabinet. On May 19, 2020, the Cabinet had accorded the approval, in principle, to initiate the process of removal of Irsa members in accordance with Section 6 of Irsa, Act 1992.

Though, Irsa members from Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan and Sindh have since retired after completing their terms, the competence of the incumbent member from Punjab needed to be reassessed for which the government of Punjab might be requested.

The water resources division is of the view that the federal member of Irsa collaborated with other members in the cancellation of the procurement process. He lacked necessary technical knowledge to undertake the assignment and failed in discharging his duties in terms of Section 6(a) of Irsa Act 1992.

Therefore, the water resources division said that federal government might serve a notice to the federal member in order to take further action for his replacement with a suitably-qualified and experienced engineer.

The cabinet considered the water resources divisions summary titled Inquiry into Sabotaging the Installation of Telemetry System by IRSA dated 17th September,2020, and approved the proposal. Accordingly, the performance audit of the Irsa might be allowed through an independent management consultancy firm.

During discussions, it was pointed out that the role of the federal Irsa member in sabotaging the activity was not clearly mentioned in the inquiry report, whereas the proposal suggested action against him. The water resources minister explained that he was also indirectly involved in slowing down the entire process.

Read the original:
Govt to go for restructure, reform in IRSA - The Express Tribune

Examination Yuan can be abolished during current legislative session. Examination Yuan can be abolished during current legislative session. (CNA photo)

TAIPEI (Taiwan News) As Taiwanese lawmakers explore replacement options for the Examination Yuan, which will likely be abolished during the current legislative session, the Cabinet said Monday (Oct. 5) that it can take over its responsibility and oversee all examination-related matters in the country.

In September, the Legislative Yuan's Constitutional Amendment Committee was established to push for legal changes, including lowering the voting age from 20 to 18 and abolishing both the Control Yuan and Examination Yuan. The committee is bipartisan and consists of 22 lawmakers from the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), 14 from the Kuomintang (KMT), two from the Taiwan People's Party (TPP), and one from the New Power Party (NPP).

The lawmakers have pointed out that abolishing the two agencies could save more than NT$1.3 billion (US$44.6 million) annually. They have also stated that the responsibilities of the two Yuans would remain but be transferred to existing or new government organs.

During a question-and-answer session at the Legislative Yuan on Monday, the Cabinet's personnel office head, Jay Shih (), emphasized that the decision to abolish the Examination Yuan should not be considered solely from an economic viewpoint. He said the discussions should focus on how the constitutional separation of powers can better apply to Taiwan.

Shih said he will respect any decisions made by the Constitutional Amendment Committee, promising that the Cabinet will have no trouble handling examination-related matters if the proposed abolition passes a public referendum. He added that the Cabinet can set up a special unit to take over previous tasks controlled by the Examination Yuan and that he is confident there will be a smooth transition, reported CNA.

Link:
Taiwan explores options in case of Examination Yuan abolition - Taiwan News

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