As we post today, we are
confronted with the 36th school shooting of this year at the public
charter STEM School Highland Park just seven miles from Columbine in Littleton,
Colorado. One young man was killed and 8
students injured, 3 of whom are still reported in intensive care. The young man who was killed, Kendrick
Castillo, 18 years old, a marine recruit just a few days from graduation, gave
his life to save others, as he lunged at the gunman attempting to stop his horrific
intent. Once again, we stand in awe of
the bravery of this young man (and of others who helped tackle the gunman),
while we grieve deeply for the loss of his life. Our hearts go out to Kendrick’s parents, and
to the parents of those children injured, as well as to all those threatened
and frightened by this tragic occurrence.
==============================================================================================
In an opinion shared by many, we are at a juncture where
the Congress must act decisively on matters that go to the heart of our form of
government. We have a person acting as
President of the United States (with little if any, understanding of that
Office) who is unwilling to confront a prime adversarial nation (Russia)
regarding interference in our national elections of 2016 (and potentially
again in 2020). Such wanton neglect could be termed a “dereliction of duty” and
a violation of his oath to “protect and defend” our Constitution.
Secondly, we are dealing with the so-called Executive of a whole
branch of our government who utilizes the “Big Lie” as a tool for governing and
for undoing the effect of laws, regulations, precedents and constitutional imperatives. This fake President talks about the “de-construction”
of the “deep state” (administrative bureaucracy) said to have a liberal bias,
presumably because of career bureaucrat liberals deep inside this government’s
structure. In that pursuit, Trump has,
more accurately, begun a thorough destruction of our form of government and of
democratic values, including the rule of law.
Betrayed by his own words and actions, he aspires to be an authoritarian
leader like his most admired dictators (like Putin (Russia), Jong un (N.Korea),
Xi, (China), al-Assad (Syria), Erdogan (Turkey), el-Sisi (Egypt), and the royal
family of Saudi Arabia -- all with their own unlimited powers.
As though to epitomize it all, and to put a legal stamp
upon de-construction, Attorney General William Barr appeared before Congress
and demonstrated how lying, disseminating, falsifying and diverting facts can be
used to undo the two-year investigation by a Special Counsel. What rankles the most is the AG’s destruction
of his role as the People’s Attorney within our Government. He has effectively made himself a personal counsel
(consiglieri?) of the president, answerable to him, covering for him,
obstructing justice for him, stone-walling for him, and interpreting the laws
and a credible investigation of him into something suspect as a ‘spying’
project by our leading investigative agencies.
The
House of Representatives is making every attempt to address these matters
within its current powers and structure.
Holding oversight committee hearings, issuing requests for documents and
other evidentiary materials, today voting to put before the full House a motion
of contempt. This represents a step
toward eventual impeachment proceedings, and looking at ways to balance the
refusals and obstructions coming from the Trump administration. That activity, along with legislating the
reforms of HR 1 and other legislative initiatives such as the Green New Deal,
is also necessary and imperative if Congress is to carry-out its two primary
responsibilities.
HOWEVER,
it is not enough to deal just with the details of the issues-at-hand. Yes, the
Mueller
Report and its treatment by the WH and the AG must be subject to
oversight. But
oversight
hearings must lead to substantive action.
And that action should be aimed at
fundamental
flaws, gaps and glitches in our system. In other words, the Congress must
dive
deeper into what may be contributing to our current constitutional crisis. I hereby
submit
the following illustrations and thoughts for your consideration.
In my estimation, we must pay immediate
attention to the qualifications, requirements,
duties
and responsibilities, vetting and on-going evaluation and guided growth
(training
perhaps)
needed for every major appointive (and elective) position in the federal
government
(the states need to follow suit).
Trump
appointments, in most cases, have underlined the flaws in our system. In too
many cases,
the only requirements used for vetting candidates for appointments were
Trump’s thoughts
and feelings, the willingness of his candidate to declare personal
loyalty to
him, and
the commitment of the candidate to undertake de-construction of
their departments to reflect
Trump’s views and prejudices.
“The United States Attorney General (A.G.) is the chief
lawyer of the Federal Government of the United States, head of the United
States Department of Justice per 28 U.S.C. § 503 and oversees all governmental
legal affairs.
Under the Appointments Clause of the United States
Constitution, the officeholder is nominated by the President of the United
States and appointed with the advice and consent of the United States Senate.
The U.S. Constitution provides that civil officers of the United States, which
would include the U.S. Attorney General, may be impeached by Congress for
treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors. The United States Attorney
General may be removed at will by the President of the United States under the
Supreme Court decision Myers v. United States, which found that executive
branch officials may be removed without the consent of any entity.”
“Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789
which, among other things, established the Office of the Attorney General. The
original duties of this officer were "to prosecute and conduct all suits
in the Supreme Court in
which the United States shall be concerned, and to give his advice and opinion
upon questions of law when
required by the President of the United States, or when requested by the heads
of any of the departments".[6] The Department of Justice was
established in 1870 to support the Attorneys General in the discharge of their
responsibilities.
The Attorney General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, and
the Secretary of Defense are
generally regarded as the four most important Cabinet officials in the
United States because of the significance and age of their respective
departments.[7]”
The only real qualification for becoming a
Cabinet member is having the president make the appointment, followed by the approval of the Senate.
The mission of the Office of the Attorney General is to
supervise and direct the administration and operation of the Department of
Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Drug Enforcement
Administration, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Bureau of
Prisons, Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals
Service, which are all within the Department of Justice.
The principal duties of the Attorney General are to:
- Represent the United States in legal matters.
- Supervise and direct the administration and operation of the offices, boards, divisions, and bureaus that comprise the Department.
- Furnish advice and opinions, formal and informal, on legal matters to the President and the Cabinet and to the heads of the executive departments and agencies of the government, as provided by law.
- Make recommendations to the President concerning appointments to federal judicial positions and to positions within the Department, including U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Marshals.
- Represent or supervise the representation of the United States Government in the Supreme Court of the United States and all other courts, foreign and domestic, in which the United States is a party or has an interest as may be deemed appropriate.
- Perform or supervise the performance of other duties required by statute or Executive Order”
Despite all this, in order to be considered for appointment
to the office of U.S. Attorney General, candidates need not:
· be of
a certain age
· possess
a law degree
· have
experience in court room procedures
· have
administrative or government experience
· be
possessed of a strong character or
· have
demonstrated an independence of mind and resolve
· be
familiar with the laws of the land”
He or she just needs to:
· aspire
to the office
· be
chosen by the President for appointment
· be
approved by the Senate
· take
an oath of office to “protect and defend the Constitution”
In stark contrast, YOU can’t even get a driver’s license
without meeting the following requirements, i.e., you must:
· be of
a certain age
· provide
basic biographical information on an application
· confirm
your identity
· pass a
written examination about driving and rules governing same so that you can
qualify to
· take
an actual driving test behind the wheel of a car with an examiner present to
judge your competence with every step of the test, and, if all matters are
judged affirmatively, a license to drive is issued
· renew
that license every few years according to state law
· at a
certain age, or under circumstances defined by state law and regulations, one
could be asked to retake a driver test in order to continue being licensed
· follow
certain rules and laws that exist to protect the driver and other drivers, pedestrians
and property; breaking those rules and laws (states impose their own limits to
these infractions – some accumulate points) can lead to suspension or
termination of one’s license.
The only protection provided for the people in terms of
harmful or hurtful behavior and actions by the Attorney General is an
impeachment process that is complicated and cumbersome, such that it prevents
timely action on suspension, censure or actual dismissal.
In other words, it may be more difficult for you to meet
the requirements for obtaining and maintaining a driver’s license than it is
for judging the competence and qualifications of a candidate for the office of
U.S. Attorney General.
One more thought:
Appointment of county Animal Control Officers (some formerly known as “dogcatchers”)
may be more circumscribed with requirements and qualifications than for the position of USAG.
Here are a few of those requirements (they vary by state)
as enumerated by www.careertrend.com
“Animal
control officers need a highly specialized skill set. According to the National
Animal Control Association (NACA), ‘Animal control officers make four times the
public contact of other law enforcement officers; ...’four times the contact
equals four times the liability.’ Because of this liability, certified animal
control officers have training in everything from animal care to public
speaking to defensive driving.”
· need
to be at least 21 years old to be hired
· although
certification does not require a college degree, many animal control officers
begin their careers by studying criminal justice, criminology or veterinary
technology
· many future Animal
Control officers begin working in fields closely related to Animal Control:
some become law enforcement officers, others work in veterinary clinics, animal
shelters or other animal care facilities. The more experience, the more likely to
be hired once certified
· Attend the
National Animal Control Association (NACA) level one training and certification
-- classes require 5 days of study, 8 hours each-- focusing on a broad range of
animal care, investigation and communication skills; also teaches basic skills
like report writing, identifying animals, first aid, interview techniques and
courtroom procedures.
· attend the
National Animal Control Association level two training and certification; level
two builds upon the skill set acquired in level one, including trainings in
capturing and restraining large animals, defensive driving and crime scene
documentation
· after completion
of levels one and two, candidate receives training certificate
· must still attend
an advanced training held by the NACA
Granted, an animal control officer doesn’t have to meet strict
education guidelines but look at the extra training that is often
expected. No similar concern for the
USAG. Some training provided ACOs includes
responses to the public and courtroom procedures which would seem more
appropriate for the current AG.
Let me stop right here to make a few necessary and sizeable
points:
1.
We cannot expect top-notch people to be nominated for top
positions in the federal government if we continue to allow such positions to
be treated as of less importance than that of a county animal control officer;
2.
Nor can we expect independent thinking or resolve from those who
are appointed by the President and it is him to whom they report
3.
Without clearly stated restrictions and responsibilities, and
without strongly worded criteria against which a federal office-holder can be
evaluated and held to account, we cannot expect responsible and effective
actions and operations to be top priority
4. Congress has oversight of the Executive branch, but that oversight means little or nothing if the Congress holds hearings but then does not act to correct underlying causes of incompetence or neglect, or take action against criminality when such is discovered
Here’s the deal, congressional Democrats: keep rolling ahead with those Committee
hearings; keep following the guidance of the Mueller Report; keep going after
those like William Barr who refuse to comply or to do the job they are supposed
to perform.
BUT, don’t stop there! Your
job is not just oversight. Your primary
job is to legislate! There ought not to
be one week go by without meaningful legislation that is aimed at resolving
problems, addressing issues or reforming processes in order to deliver to the
people the benefits, insurances, opportunities and justices they deserve under
our form of government.
First Step: review the positions of President and Vice
President to make sure there is no question as to the requirements and responsibilities
of each Office
Second Step: every Department Director’s position should
be examined and amended to make clear:
*qualifications for
the position
*job description
and job requirements
*criteria against which the director will be evaluated at least
once-a-year
Third Step: every
supervisory or administrative position in each Department should undergo the
same scrutiny, under aegis of the Director, but undertaken by citizen
commissions. Congress should oversee
each step by a date-sure for each.
If we are going to make this government work as it should, we must
begin with deep dives beneath all the talk to deal with job qualifications,
restrictions and responsibilities that make sense and that assure responsible
behavior. We can’t continue to allow
neglect and misunderstanding, as well as obstruction, define the relations
between the Legislative and Executive branches.
Just in case you believe that this is not a wide-spread problem
(i.e. government jobs ill-defined and candidates poorly vetted), let me quickly
bring before you the qualifications and experience required of candidates for another
major position, that of Justice on the Supreme Court (Supreme Court Justice:
Written by J. Herby and Fact
Checked by The Law Dictionary Staff)
“While the Constitution stipulates qualifications for being
President of the United States, it is silent as to qualifications for Supreme
Court justices. There are no explicit requirements for a person to be
nominated to become a Supreme Court justice. No age, education, job experience,
or citizenship rules exist. In fact, according to the Constitution, a Supreme Court justice does not even need to have a law degree.”
However, most Justices:
·
tend to begin their tenure while in their 40s or 50s and may
remain with the court as long as they wish or until they are impeached for
improper behavior
·
are personal acquaintances of the sitting President
·
worked as a lawyer or served as a judge prior to their nomination
·
most of the Justices held public office before being confirmed
·
both past and present, attended either Harvard or Yale Law School.
Many of the others were educated at Columbia, Northwestern, or another top tier
law school.”
While these considerations about Candidates have emerged over the
long history of the Court, they do not speak clearly to qualifications or
requirements for doing this job. Nor, do
they spell out any criteria that should characterize and be met by all
candidates for appointment. A job
description does not exist for this extremely important position. And that may explain, probably more than
anything else, why the appointment process of Brett Cavanaugh was such a disastrous process – the guidelines, the
process, the qualifications were all ill-defined, so that no one had any objective
criteria or restrictions by which to fairly judge his ability to uphold the dignity
and unbiased justice of the Court. And
so, this man of doubtful integrity is now an Associate Justice of the SCOTUS.
“Several political scientists and others have attempted to assemble
a list of criteria that might define a good federal judge, more as an exercise
of looking at the history of the court. American scholar Sheldon Goldman's list
of eight criteria includes:
1.
Neutrality as to parties in litigation
2.
Fair-mindedness
3.
Being well-versed in the law
4.
The ability to think and write logically and lucidly
5.
Personal integrity
6.
Good physical and mental health
7.
Judicial temperament
8.
Able to handle judicial power sensibly”
What is inexcusable is that there is an appalling lack of requirements,
qualifications and adequate descriptions for many of the important positions in
our government, including the directors of cabinet departments. The truth is, way too much discretion for
choosing appointees is left in the hands of the President of the United States,
with an approval process, such as it is, conducted by the U.S. Senate.
In my opinion -- in our complicated, technologically demanding and
diverse societal circumstances -- this is a flawed process that is producing
poorly qualified, inexperienced and too often corrupt office-holders at the
most crucial levels of our government (in fact, many in this administration
have been charged with crimes related to their appointed offices).
It is time to put in place comprehensive guidelines, qualifications,
and perhaps high behavioral standards that must be met for major government
offices, both elective and appointive.
Our guardrails have crumbled, our protections against incompetence,
corruption and injustice in our government officials are outmoded and
inadequate. Along with the reforms of HR
1, fervent and immediate attention must be applied to qualifications and
requirements of our officials. Equally important, we must attend to the process
of thoroughly vetting candidates for both elective and appointive positions.
We cannot continue subjective decision-making by a President (or
any other Executive) to decide appointment to federal office, often of people
who are not fit, qualified, ethical or independent from the corruption of power
brokers, power-seekers and power abusers. We cannot afford, nor expect to
survive the tyranny of incompetence and corruption that presently pervades our
governmental officers and representatives.
In other words: we must make sure that the standards for
candidates for governmental offices are strong, comprehensive and specific so
that unqualified, unprepared, untrained, uneducated and unethical candidates are
screened out at the beginning of the process.
By doing so, we can rightly hope that there would be fewer incidents of having
to rid ourselves of unqualified and unprincipled office-holders after they are appointed or
elected.
Yes, I recognize that there could be major problems with this
approach: it could become a process
tainted by elitism, allowing only those of certain characteristics and
backgrounds to be considered for these offices. It is necessary to address this
in laws that make it illegal to set up criteria for offices that would on their
face preclude women, minorities, certain nationalities, etc.
This reform could also result in a process where a small group of
plutocrats seize the process of writing criteria and qualifications, but that
possibility can be nipped-in-the bud with Citizen Commissions trained in the
process of preparing just and fair and appropriate criteria and qualifications
for office-holders. We can make it work,
and we must. Trump and his
administrators, along with too many outrageous, obnoxious and unqualified (radical
Right) Representatives in Congress, have demonstrated why we must take this
deep dive to change the way we qualify and vet all potential candidates for
governmental offices.
