Connect with us

Published

on

Donald Trump has not even returned to office, and already a constitutional crisis may be in the making. Trump has started announcing the people he intends to nominate for positions in his new administration. That is his prerogative. Several senators have criticized some of Trumps choices. That is their prerogative (and two Trump nominees have already withdrawn under pressure). But rumors have been circulating of a plan to have Trump dismiss the Senate altogether, in a desperate effort to jam his nominees into office. There is simply no way to do this consistent with the text, history, and structure of the Constitution.

The Constitution and laws require the Senates approval to fill many of the governments most important officessuch as attorney general or secretary of stateall of which wield extraordinary powers on behalf of the public. The Senates involvement helps to ensure that the people in these jobs have the necessary competence and integrity. In Alexander Hamiltons apt words, the Senate can prevent the appointment of unfit characters who would be no more than obsequious instruments of the presidents pleasure.

The Senates check on the president can of course lead to friction and frustration at the start of an administration, while a new presidents nominees are considered and sometimes even rejected by the Senate. Advice and consent takes time. But as Justice Louis Brandeis famously observed, checks and balances exist not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose of the Constitution is not to avoid friction but to save the people from autocracy.

Read: The Senate exists for a reason

That is why any effort to cut the Senate out of the appointments process would be troubling; it is disdainful of self-government under a Constitution altogether. Trumps supporters have suggested two ways to get around the Senates advice-and-consent process. In the first, the Senate would vote to go into recess soon after Trumps inauguration, allowing him to unilaterally make a series of recess appointments. That plan may formally be legal, but it is plainly improper. The president is authorized to make recess appointments to ensure the continued functioning of the Federal Government when the Senate is away, as Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the Supreme Court in 2014. That mechanism was vital in an age when the Senate was frequently absent from the capital for months at a time and could not quickly and easily reconvene. But, as Breyer also noted, the Constitution does not give the President the authority routinely to avoid the need for Senate confirmation. For the Senate to go into recess at the beginning of a new administration for the sole purpose of allowing the president to fill up the government with whomever he pleasesall while the Senate is controlled by the presidents party and perfectly capable of considering his nomineeswould be a clear misuse of the recess-appointment power. Happily, the new Senate seems to agree, balking at Trumps request that it surrender its prerogative so meekly.

As a result, some House Republicans have begun to discuss a more extreme scheme, one Trump considered during his first term: Trump could instead send the Senate home against its will and fill the government during the resulting recess. This is flagrantly unlawful.

How, one might ask, would such a plan even work? After all, the president, unlike an absolute monarch, does not have the power to dismiss Congress whenever he wants. Three of the first six abuses and usurpations charged in the Declaration of Independence related to King George IIIs treatment of legislatures: He had dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, he had refused to hold elections after these dissolutions, and he had called together legislative bodies at distant and uncomfortable places. The Framers were careful not to entrust the new office of president with such potent tools of tyranny. Instead, the president was given the power to adjourn the houses of Congress in only one narrow circumstance: in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment. This power is so limited that it has never been used in all of American history.

Read: How Trump could make Congress go away for a while

The House Republicans idea seems to be to manufacture a disagreement to trigger this adjournment power. First, the House of Representatives would pass a resolution calling for a recess. The Senate would then (in all likelihood) refuse to pass the resolution. Trump would then declare the houses to be in disagreement and adjourn both houses for as long as he likes. From there, he would start his recess-appointments spree. There is just one glaring problem: The disagreement in this scenario is illusory.

Under the Constitution, each house can generally decide for itself how long it will sit. As Thomas Jefferson, an expert on legislative procedure, wrote in 1790: Each house of Congress possesses [the] natural right of governing itself, and consequently of fixing its [sic] own times and places of meeting.

The Constitution limits this autonomy in one key way: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. In other words, if one house of Congress wants to leave in the middle of a session, it has to get the permission of the other house. The House of Representatives cant just skip town if the Senate thinks important legislative business remains. But note that this provision limits each houses power to adjourn, and not each houses power to remain sitting. Neither house needs the agreement of the other to stay in session. If the Senate wants to let the House of Representatives leave while it considers appointments or treaties, that is perfectly fine. Indeed, there are plenty of examples of one house giving the other permission to go home. Under Article I, then, each house requires consent of the other to quit, but not to sit.

Read: The flaw in the presidents newest constitutional argument

Hence the trouble for the House Republicans plan: If the House of Representatives wants to recess, the Senate can simply let it. And if the Senate agrees to let the House go, the House can leave and there is no relevant disagreement for the president to resolve by adjourning Congress. The Senate would still be in session as normal.

The presidents adjournment power is not a backdoor way for one house of Congress to force the other into recess against its will. If both the Senate and the House want to leave, but cannot agree on a time of adjournment, then the president can step in. In the words of a 19th-century treatise by Justice Joseph Story, an intervention from the president in that kind of situation is the only peaceable way of terminating a controversy, which can lead to nothing but distraction in the public councils. Perhaps if one house of Congress wants to leave, but the other house wont let iteffectively holding it hostage in the capitalthe president could also step in to resolve that disagreement by releasing the house that wants to leave. During the ratification debates in Virginia, James Monroe questioned whether it was proper that the members of the lower house should be dependent on the senate, given that they are prevented from returning home without the senates consent. James Madison responded by pointing to the presidents adjournment power.

What some House Republicans seem to be suggesting is worlds away from those scenariosit is closer to the prorogation or dissolution power claimed by the British Crown and reviled by the Founders. Simply put, the House of Representatives cannot collude with the president to deprive the Senate of its constitutional power to advise and consent on appointments. That would make a mockery of the Constitutions text and structure. If the House attempts this maneuver, the Senate should resist it by continuing to meet, and the courts should refuse t recognize any resulting appointments. The threat to adjourn the Senate should be seen and called out for what it is: an autocratic move that is not just unlawful but contemptuous of constitutionalism.

Continue Reading

Politics

Caerphilly by-election: Will Plaid or Reform have last laugh in Tommy Cooper’s birthplace?

Published

on

By

Caerphilly by-election: Will Plaid or Reform have last laugh in Tommy Cooper's birthplace?

Caerphilly is famous for three Cs: coal, cheese and its mighty castle. It’s also the birthplace of the legendary comedian Tommy Cooper.

And after Thursday’s Senedd by-election, in what was once a Labour stronghold as impregnable as the castle, it’s Plaid Cymru or Reform UK that will have the last laugh.

It may not be a Westminster by-election, but this clash will have an impact on UK politics way beyond the Welsh valleys if Nigel Farage’s party triumphs.

iStock file pic
Image:
iStock file pic

A Reform UK victory would strengthen claims that Mr Farage and his insurgents are poised to inflict massive damage on Labour and the Conservatives in elections next year and beyond.

Victory in the valleys would intensify fears among the other parties that Reform UK’s boasts about winning the next general election are not the fantasy that its opponents claim.

On a campaign visit to Caerphilly, Mr Farage – inevitably – posed for photographs in front of a 9ft tall bronze statue of Tommy Cooper, who died in 1984.

But the by-election is no laughing matter for Labour, which has seen its support in this by-election crumble like Caerphilly cheese.

More on Nigel Farage

Mr Farage announcing Llyr Powell as the Reform candidate earlier this year
Image:
Mr Farage announcing Llyr Powell as the Reform candidate earlier this year

Labour has held the Westminster seat of Caerphilly since 1918 and the Senedd seat since devolution in 1999. Ron Davies, said to be the architect of Welsh devolution, was MP from 1983 to 2001.

He was Welsh secretary under Tony Blair from 1997 until he quit over what he called a “moment of madness” in 1998 when he was mugged at knifepoint on London’s Clapham Common.

For the front-runner Reform UK, not even the conviction of its former leader in Wales, Nathan Gill, for taking pro-Russian bribes seems to have halted the march of Mr Farage’s party towards the brink of a stunning victory.

Mr Gill, who led Reform UK in Wales in 2021, admitted taking bribes to make statements in favour of Vladimir Putin’s Russia while he was a member of the European Parliament.

Questioned during a visit to Caerphilly, Mr Farage said: “Any political party can find in their midst all sorts of terrible people. Gill is particularly shocking because I knew him as a devout Christian, very clean-living, honest person. So I’m deeply shocked.”

Despite this bribery scandal, the latest opinion poll in the constituency suggested a narrow Reform UK victory, with Mr Farage’s party on 42%, Plaid Cymru on 38% and Labour languishing on a dismal 12%.

But with Labour, the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Green Party out of contention in a two-horse race, Reform UK’s candidate Llŷr Powell could be vulnerable to tactical voting for Plaid Cymru’s Lindsay Whittle.

Ron Davies, the 'architect of Welsh devolution', was MP for Caerphilly. File pic: Reuters
Image:
Ron Davies, the ‘architect of Welsh devolution’, was MP for Caerphilly. File pic: Reuters

Turnout could be crucial. A low turnout is likely to help Plaid Cymru win. A high turnout could mean Reform’s opinion poll leads, both nationally and locally, are reliable and could hand victory to Mr Farage.

But Plaid has come second in every Senedd election in Caerphilly and Mr Whittle can’t be faulted for perseverance and dogged determination. Until now, he’s had a miserable record as a candidate, both for Westminster and the Senedd.

Aged 72, he has stood in Caerphilly in every general election since 1983, no fewer than 10 times, and in every Welsh Assembly election since it was formed in 1999 – seven times.

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈

Dubbed “Mr Caerphilly” by his party, he was council leader and assembly member for South Wales East between 2011 and 2016.

Interviewed by Sky News back in 2003, the year of Tony Blair’s Iraq war, he said: “People are obviously very unhappy with the health service. They’re unhappy with the way the Labour Party are drifting to the right.

“They’re unhappy with the treatment of the ex-miners and their compensation claims. They’re unhappy with the treatment of the firemen. They’re unhappy that we’ve just gone to war.”

The by-election could indicate how Labour will fare in future elections. Pic: Reuters
Image:
The by-election could indicate how Labour will fare in future elections. Pic: Reuters

Reform UK’s Mr Powell, on the other hand, is just 30 and is relatively inexperienced as a candidate. He was a Tory candidate in local elections in Cardiff in 2022.

But he was also active in Mr Farage’s UKIP and Brexit Party and worked for the now disgraced Gill as a constituency caseworker while Gill was an MEP. He now says Mr Gill’s actions were “abhorrent” and “a betrayal”.

For Labour, despite its long dominance in Caerphilly, this campaign couldn’t have gone any worse. As well as battling against the unpopularity of both Sir Keir Starmer and the Welsh government, the council’s Labour leader, Sean Morgan, defected to Plaid Cymru during the campaign.

So, like many two-horse races, this political dash to the finishing line could be neck and neck.

Pic: PA
Image:
Pic: PA

Of Caerphilly’s three Cs, coal is long gone. The last mine, Penallta collier, closed in 1991, though there’s a proud history of coal mining.

Back in 1913, tragedy struck when the Universal Colliery in Senghenydd was the site of the UK’s worst mining accident, when 439 miners and a rescuer were killed in an explosion.

But Caerphilly could be about to make history once more, with either a massive stride forward on the road to Downing Street for Mr Farage or Labour surrendering power to the Welsh nationalists in Cardiff after more than a quarter of a century.

And, as Caerphilly’s most famous son would have said, the by-election result on Thursday night will be a pointer to politics in Wales and the whole of the UK… just like that!

The full list of candidates standing at the Caerphilly by-election

  • Labour – Richard Tunnicliffe
  • Plaid Cymru – Lindsay Whittle
  • Reform UK – Llŷr Powell
  • Conservative – Gareth Potter
  • Green Party – Gareth Hughes
  • Gwlad – Anthony Cook
  • UKIP – Roger Quilliam
  • Liberal Democrats – Steve Aicheler

Continue Reading

Politics

Inflation static at 3.8% as easing food prices help tame peak

Published

on

By

Inflation static at 3.8% as easing food prices help tame peak

The rate of inflation remained static in September, according to official figures, which could raise prospects for interest rate cuts ahead.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) had been expected by economists to reveal a figure of 4.1% – a level not seen since October 2023.

But the main consumer prices index (CPI) measure over the rolling 12-month period was held down by the first decline in food and non-alcoholic drinks prices since May last year, easing from 5.1% to 4.5%, and slowing costs for live events.

At 3.8%, however, the UK’s inflation rate remains the highest in the G7 – which is made up of the UK, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the US.

Money latest: What inflation hike means for state pension and rail fare increases

September’s inflation figures don’t just lay bare rising cost pressures on households and businesses currently.

They are also used to determine the uplift for the state pension in April.

More on Inflation

Under the triple-lock mechanism, the pension payments are set to rise in line with earnings at 4.8% as the figure is running higher than the 3.8% rate of inflation and 2.5% minimum threshold.

ONS chief economist Grant Fitzner said of the big picture: “A variety of price movements meant inflation was unchanged overall in September.

“The largest upward drivers came from petrol prices and airfares, where the fall in prices eased in comparison to last year.

“These were offset by lower prices for a range of recreational and cultural purchases including live events.”

He added that the outlook for food was uncertain as factory gate price data showed rising costs.

While lower than expected, the CPI rate still remains almost double the Bank of England’s target rate of 2%.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Reeves: UK is ‘envy of the world’

The most recent language out of the Bank’s interest rate-setters had centred on the potential for elevated inflation to postpone prospects for more interest rate cuts.

Bank rate currently stands at 4%.

But the Bank and most economists expect inflation to have peaked, barring further economic shocks.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

The big issues facing the UK economy

The contribution from energy is likely to fall sharply next month, despite a 2% rise in bills.

As such, LSEG data showed continued caution over the prospects for a November rate cut but a flurry of activity around December. Waiting will allow the Bank to see a further set of both employment and inflation figures.

Much will also depend on core and services inflation measures, also lower than expected today, continuing that trend.

These, along with pay growth rates, are crucial bits of information for the Bank to determine whether inflation is ingrained in the economy.

Private business surveys would suggest that its efforts to get inflation down may also be helped by subdued confidence in the economy ahead of the budget next month.

There are widespread fears of big tax rises ahead to fill a void, estimated at up to £30bn, in the public finances.

Read more:
Chancellor looks at cutting energy bills in budget
Why the bull market for beef?

Borrowing figures released on Tuesday showed government borrowing in the financial year to date £7.2bn above the level forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

At the same time, tax receipts were up almost 10% in September compared to the same month in 2024.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves is being urged to act in a way that does not risk fanning the flames of inflation after businesses passed on higher employment costs imposed months after her first budget.

She said of the inflation data: “I am not satisfied with these numbers. For too long, our economy has felt stuck, with people feeling like they are putting in more and getting less out.

“That needs to change. All of us in government are responsible for supporting the Bank of England in bringing inflation down. I am determined to ensure we support people struggling with higher bills and the cost of living challenges, deliver economic growth and build an economy that works for, and rewards, working people.”

Continue Reading

Politics

Why Keir Starmer has a people problem

Published

on

By

Why Keir Starmer has a people problem

👉Listen to Politics at Sam and Anne’s on your podcast app👈

With growing signs that Britain’s top civil servant will leave Number 10 in the coming weeks – some ask, does Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer have a problem with people?

Sam and Anne discuss the potential impact of Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald’s departure from the government machine and whether there could be more exits on the horizon.

Plus, Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood warns the national inquiry into grooming gangs will leave “no hiding place” after several survivors quit the panel.

Continue Reading

Trending