Mes: mayo 2017

A medida que aumenta el caos en la Casa Blanca, crece fuera de EE. UU. la esperanza de un impeachment contra el presidente Donald Trump. Pero esa idea no tiene asidero en la realidad, a juicio de Martina Buttler (WDR).

Imagen: http://www.dw.com/image/38832712_303.jpg

¡Basta de soñar! Quien todavía crea que Donald Trump se verá arrastrado ahora por este u otro escándalo o comentario a un proceso de destitución, haría bien en abrir los ojos a la realidad. La realidad es que las trabas para llevar a cabo un impeachment en Estados Unidos son muy grandes. No en vano en la historia del país ha habido muy pocos intentos de librarse de un presidente por esa vía. En los casos de Andrew Johnson y Bill Clinton no se llegó a una condena.

Mayoría republicana

Para iniciar un proceso de destitución se requiere la aprobación de la mayoría del Congreso. Pero la mayoría está en manos de los republicanos, y ellos están felices de encontrarse por fin de nuevo al timón, en el Congreso y en la Casa Blanca. Quieren gobernar, promulgar leyes, imprimirle su sello al país. Casi nadie quiere poner eso en juego. En consecuencia, aprietan los dientes y siguen adelante.

No obstante, en las últimas semanas los republicanos han bajado el tono en la defensa de su presidente. Demasiado drama los salpica desde la Casa Blanca. Pero todavía no se vislumbra un frente contra Donald Trump. Mientras eso no cambie, el presidente podría seguir como hasta ahora, aunque tenga rabietas, brille por su desconocimiento o cometa un desaguisado tras otro. De todos modos cuenta con el respaldo de sus electores, que no entienden todo el alboroto en torno al hombre que hace lo que les había prometido: desde la prohibición de entrada a musulmanes hasta la construcción del muro en la frontera mexicana.

Elecciones parlamentarias

Los detractores de Trump solo pueden soñar con el 6 de noviembre de 2018, fecha en que tendrán lugar elecciones parlamentarias en Estados Unidos. Si hasta entonces se acumula suficiente descontento con Donald Trump y los demócratas aprenden su lección, la correlación de fuerzas podría cambiar. Y entonces, si llega a existir algún motivo de peso, podría haber también una pequeña posibilidad de llevar a cabo un proceso de destitución.

En consecuencia, el mundo haría mejor en acostumbrarse a la idea de que Trump gobernará cuatro años. Y ya ha mandado a patentar su eslogan para la campaña electoral 2020: “Keep America great!”

Autor: Martina Buttler (ERS/DZC)

En: DW 

The greenback has been on track to record its worst week against a basket of major currencies since July. The slump was caused by political uncertainties surrounding US President Donald Trump.

Image: http://www.dw.com/image/18829061_303.jpg

After a series of gains following the inauguration of Donald Trump as US president, the dollar slumped to its lowest index in 10 months on Friday, as a result of the ongoing worries at the White House.

Trump’s political future has led to unease in the markets and strained the greenback, while a resurgent euro has gained more than 2 percent – its best performance since June.

The US president fired FBI director James Comey last week, while allegations have since surfaced that he pressed Comey to halt the investigation into ties between Trump’s camp and Russia.

Reports that he revealed classified information to Russian officials prolonged the unrest among investors, who were hoping Trump would follow through on promises of economic stimulus.

Economic reforms stalling?

Trump had planned to channel investments into infrastructure and cut taxes. Analysts say the falling dollar is unlikely to prevent the Federal Reserve from hiking interest rates next month.

US stocks had dropped rapidly earlier this week as Trump’s pro-economy stance was in doubt with eight of the 11 major S&P 500 sectors suffering losses.

“Everything has turned upside down – European political risks have faded, the economy is looking strong, while in the US everybody is worried,” revealed DZ Bank strategist Daniel Lenz.

The euro rose 0.7 percent – a six month high – following business-minded Emmanuel Macron’s victory in the French presidential elections and the tightening controls at the European Central Bank.

rd/hg (Reuters, AFP)

In: DW

The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki R. Haley, told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week” yesterday that “the president is the CEO of the country,” and thus “he can hire and fire whoever he wants. That’s his right.” Leaving aside the question of whether the president can fire everyone in the federal government, she is wrong on her main point. The president is not the CEO of the country. He can reasonably be described as the CEO of the federal government. The Constitution provides that in the new government it establishes, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.”

Meanwhile, too many people keep calling the president—this president and previous presidents—”my commander in chief” or something similar. Again it’s important for our understanding of a constitutional republic to be clear on these points. The president is the chief executive of the federal government. He is the commander in chief of the armed forces, not of the entire government and definitely not of 320 million U.S. citizens. Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution provides:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

Too many people who should know better keep getting this wrong. The highly experienced former first lady, senator, secretary of state, and presidential nominee Hillary Clinton for instance, who declared last year on the campaign trail, “Donald Trump simply doesn’t have the temperament to be president and commander in chief of the United States.” (She had also used the term a year earlier, and in her previous campaign she expressed a determination to be the “commander in chief of our economy,” so this wasn’t just a slip of the tongue.)

And also third-generation Navy man, senator, and presidential nominee John McCain who declared his support for President George W. Bush in 2007, saying, the Washington Post reported: “There’s only one commander in chief of the United States, and that’s George W. Bush.”

Now Donald Trump is getting the same treatment. Perhaps it’s no surprise that the Daily Mail, a popular newspaper in a country still headed by a monarch, would write

President Donald Trump sent a message to ex-FBI director James Comey and his detractors as he told Liberty University graduates that ‘nothing is more pathetic than being a critic’ during his first commencement address as the commander-in-chief of the United States.

But how about Democratic strategist Maria Cardona, writing in a Capitol Hill newspaper to mock President Trump’s historical ignorance:

How apropos that this famous and very fitting quote was likely used by the Abraham Lincoln, the president who actually was the commander-in-chief of the United States when the Civil War happened.

Oops.

And here also Tim Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter and author of “Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA”: “Our commander-in-chief has made a serious miscalculation.”

The Military Times should know better than to write, “Business mogul Donald Trump was sworn as the nation’s 45th commander in chief on Friday, promising to return government to the people and return American might to the international stage.”

Even Joy-Ann Reid, who hates Trump, gives him a title he doesn’t possess, declaring that Trump’s “greed and neediness and vaingloriousness have made our commander in chief a national security threat.”

In this time when we worry about threats to the Constitution and our liberal republican order, we need to remember the basics.

This is a constitutional republic, and we don’t have a commander in chief.

That’s an important distinction, and it’s disturbing that even candidates for the presidency miss it. Hillary Clinton may well have wanted to be commander in chief of the whole country, of you and me, and to direct us and our economic activities the way the president directs the officers and soldiers of the armed forces. But if so, she would have needed to propose an amendment to the Constitution—an amendment that would effectively make the rest of the Constitution irrelevant, since it was designed as a Constitution for a limited government of a free people.

Donald Trump is not my commander in chief. Neither was Barack Obama. Each was elected president, charged with leading the executive branch of the federal government.

In: catoinstitute