Category: Constitutionalism

Looking critically at Trump’s flurry of Executive Orders: why we should watch what is done, and not to be distracted by what is said

21st January 2025

Around Westminster, the most useful guides to the nature of modern politics may not be the journalists and commentators, still less the ‘think tanks’ with their portentous names and solemn but flimsy ‘reports’.

They are perhaps instead the con-artist conjurers on Westminster Bridge – whose activities are detailed in this fine piece.

For it is these lowly tricksters that remind us that we should watch what is done, and not to be distracted by anything else.

*

The Conjurer, painted by Hieronymus Bosch

*

In the United States and the United Kingdom there is currently a lot of noise and a lot of misdirection.

As a famous chess player once observed:

“The point of modern propaganda isn’t only to misinform or push an agenda. It is to exhaust your critical thinking, to annihilate truth.”

*

The constant noise and endless misdirections are indeed exhausting.

By the time any of the noise and misdirections are translated into action (or inaction), you are tired to notice and others will be too tired to care.

We will be onto the next outrage, and then the next, and the next.

The hard thing is to separate out what is done (and not done) from what is said.

*

In the United States there has been a flurry of Executive Orders from the newly inaugurated President Donald Trump.

This sounds very impressive, and it sounds very scary.

But, an Executive Order is not a precise thing – it is a generic term to describe a range of documents that can come from the President.

As this US academic explains:

Some of these Executive Orders will be instruments provided for and envisaged by pre-exisiting enacted legislation: and these will usually have direct legal effect.

Others will have no legal framework and have no legal basis for having any effect.

Many will range between these two extremes.

All will be ‘Executive Orders’ put forward and signed by the President – but pretty much that is all they will have in common.

And according to another US observer, many of these Executive orders are not even of serviceable quality:

This is not surprising: competent legal drafting is not easy, and many of these “Executive Orders” are from pressure groups and professional antagonisers.

Like the Truss legal letter recently examined on this blog, what you have here are media-political devices disguised in the form of legal documents.

But it is a mask, and what we are seeing is essentially a masquerade.

*

This is not to say that some – maybe many – of these Executive Orders are not going to have adverse effects for somebody – especially in the short term.

Indeed, given the many partisan conservative judges now on the federal bench, there will be energetic judicial exertions to give effect to otherwise shoddy Executive Orders.

But what it does mean is that we should be careful not to accept everything at face value.

For a flurry of Executive Orders may be little different from a flurry of Press Releases.

And we should be mindful that we are dealing with con-artist conjurers.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Some of President Carter’s judges can still judge, 44 years later – and so we can see how long Trump’s new nominees will be on the bench

New year’s eve, 2024

The former US President Jimmy Carter, who has just died, left office in January 1981 – just under 44 years ago.

Yet one of his many bench nominees was still actively serving as a federal judge as recently as 2021:

And that list also indicates that about 29 of those judges – while not on active service – have the semi-retired “senior status” and so can still serve as judges if required.

This shows the significant lingering power of every US President on the shape of the judiciary.

A 100 year-old president former president has died who left office over 40 years ago, and yet his appointments can still decide cases.

Bringing this around to today: the newly re-elected Donald Trump and the Republican Senate will be appointing a raft of young conservative judges to the judicial benches, in addition to those which were appointed during his first term.

And some of these will still be judging (or able to judge) in 40 or 50 years – long after many of you reading this post may be here.

The lingering effect of the two Trumpite moments will last for political generations. Some appointed judges may see out ten or more presidential terms and still be judging.

And judicial time limits are now more unlikely than ever: Trump and the Republican senators have no interest whatsoever in limiting the enduring power of their nominees. And presumably as and when (or if) the Democrats ever regain power, they will have no interest in limiting the terms of their appointees.

This is a practical effect of how what some say (or hope) may only be short-term political surges can have consequences that will last decades.

(See also: Brexit.)

We are not dealing only with the politics of the here and now, but about the law and government of the hereafter.

Perhaps things will one day get better for liberals and progressives.

Perhaps.

But it is going to be a long haul.

*

Happy new year to the readers of this blog.

Thank you for your ongoing support.

There is going to be a lot to write about in the new year – and I am also going to explore the law and policy of AI, following my Candlemas story.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Supporting Donald Trump is too much for Richard Cheney

7th September 2024

This week’s skirmish between the European Commission and X

17th August 2024
Law and politics are ultimately about how power is allocated and exercised within a given complex society. In particular, law and politics are about how such power is legitimised and about how it is checked and balanced.

And from time to time you will have visible contests between those with different types of power. The job of law and politics is then to regulate such contests so as to ensure that tensions do not harden into the contradictions that undermine the health of a polity.

*

These contests of power, when they happen, are fascinating.

Over at Prospect I have written a post about one such contest: the European Commission v X.

The latter has considerable media power: so much so that the content of its platform can often have a considerable real-world impact.

But the former also has considerable power – in the formulation of the laws that apply to the platform in the European Union and in the application of those laws in particular circumstances.

It is quite the stand-off.

*

When the European Commissioner responsible for the Single Market tweeted a letter last week, it reminded me of an earlier stand-off.

It evoked the stand-off in 1930-31 between the then government of the United Kingdom and the then popular press over tariff reform and imperial preference (the Brexit issue of its day).

That was a stand-off which, at least in the short-term, the government won.

(Tariffs were introduced later in the 1930s, though not directly because of media pressure.)

*

Often these tensions are hidden and managed out of public view, and so it is always interesting – and instructive – when they are done in public.

Something is up.

**

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Seven changes for a better constitution? Some interesting proposals from some good people.

24th June 2024

In the Times today there is a letter published from various good sorts putting forward seven practical and easy-to-make steps for a better constitution.

One of the signatories, David Anderson, helpfully posted the letter on Twitter:

*

Of course, changes to form and structure can only take us so far. The biggest problem of recent years has been an underlying lack of constitutionalism from government ministers (cheered and clapped by their political supporters). And until attitudes change, then rules will always be gamed or ignored and discretions abused.

But, there has to be a start somewhere to repair the damage, and these are interesting proposals.

The suggestions appear to be:

  • independent enforcement of a new ministerial code;

  • establishing new systems for managing conflicts of interest;
  • ditto, for lobbying;
  • improving regulation of post-government employment;
  • ensuring appointments to the Lords are only made on merit;
  • ensuring other public appointments are rigorous and transparent; and

  • strengthening the independence of the honours system, including by ending prime ministerial patronage.

The worthies aver that legislation is not necessary for most of these changes but a short bill would create the necessary powers and embed the independence of the ethics and integrity system.

*

Some may say that these proposals are a little “apple pie” – but they would be a move in the right direction, the least that can be done.

Words like “ensuring” and “strengthening” are easy to type – and they are almost as easy to put at the start of a sterling bullet point.

But what is the actual check on misuse? Who in practice will have the power and authority to say “No” to a trespass by a minister of the crown (or by a former minister of the crown)?

The robustness of any regulatory system is not so much in the rules being themselves commendable, but in the rigorous enforcement of those rules and in the ready and realistic availability of sanctions for breach.

In a word: there needs to be tension.

And in our constitutional arrangements, as they stand, only parliament and the courts – rather than third party agencies – have the strength and the legitimacy to check the executive on an ongoing basis, and so for each of these seven laudable aims, one question is how they can be enforced against the government’s will by other strong and permanent elements of the state.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Of majorities and “super-majorities”

21st June 2024

The greatest prize that the constitution of the United Kingdom can bestow is a substantial parliamentary majority at a general election.

With such a majority you can be confident to pass major legislation, not worry too much about backbench opposition, and even face down the House of Lords.

And so one of the most remarkable things about the current government – which brought about its own emphatic general election victory in December 2019 by (among other things) “Getting Brexit Done” is how little use it has made of this great prize.

Some people are suggesting that after this next general election (in less than two weeks now) the Conservative may now be out of government for a very long time. Who knows? But if so, that will be a lengthy period for the politically-right-of-centre to kick themselves for not having used their chance to drive through fundamental reforms when they had it.

Many people would find it difficult to name – other than Brexit – one fundamental reform which current government has driven through with primary legislation. The last few Queen’s and now King’s speeches have been limp affairs.

All that political and legislative power – as close to absolute power that our constitutional arrangements can admit – and nothing, or close to nothing.

Given that part of the reason for the Brexit referendum and for then “getting Brexit done” was for the political advantage of the Conservatives, it seems odd. What was the (party political) point? All that chaos and dislocation, for this?

*

In the early 1990s the Conservatives lost their overall majority under John Major and then were out of office from 1997 – and in a long haul, and via a coalition, they eventually gained an overall majority only in 2015.

They promptly threw that away in 2017.

They then exploited an exceptional political situation in December 2019 and got that majority back, and then did nothing much with it.

And now that second chance at an overall majority is about to end.

*

Over at Prospect – please click here to read – I have done a post on the fears of a Labour “super majority”.

But what Tories should fear is not the use of a “super majority” but just the effective use of a sustainable and substantial parliamentary majority.

And that can be quite the forceful thing, not that the outgoing government ever really cared to use it.

***

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

The coming constitutional excitements in the United States

2024 will be a test for the very notion of legitimacy at the basis of the United States constitution

On yesterday’s Supreme Court judgment on the Rwanda policy

16th November 2023

Yesterday the Supreme Court handed down its appeal judgment in the Rwanda policy case.

For an informed view on the case, it is worth taking the time to watch Lord Reed, the President of the court, giving the summary of the judgment:

A court-approved summary can also be read here – and the full judgment is here.

*

I wrote a couple of quick posts on the case yesterday for the mainstream media.

At the Financial Times, I did an “instant insight” (and it certainly had one of those two qualities) which emphasised two things which were immediately evident about the case.

First, it was remarkable – and, to me, a surprise – that the current Supreme Court under Lord Reed, which is generally regarded as deferent to the executive and legislature on “policy” matters, went unanimously against the government.

In essence, and to echo John Kander and Fred Ebb’s New York, New York: if a government cannot win on a “policy” matter before a Lord Reed Supreme Court, it cannot win that case anywhere.

Second, the court – perhaps showing more political sense than the entire cabinet – deftly avoided resting the case on the European Convention of Human Rights or the Human Rights Act.

Both instruments were, of course, mentioned in passing – but the effect of the judgment would have been just the same had neither instrument applied to the facts.

The court instead had regard to a range of other legal instruments and sources of law, including what is called customary international law.

*

Over at Prospect, I approached the judgment from a different perspective, and I averred that the government could have won the case had they wanted to do so – by which I meant that the government could have negotiated a treaty with Rwanda that would have addressed the concerns ultimately expressed by the Supreme Court, instead of relying on a flimsy Memorandum of Understanding.

And this was not just a commentator-with-hindsight, it was what the government had been explicitly warned about a year ago by a House of Lords committee:

Some other commentators are not with me on this point – and they say that even a substantial treaty with Rwanda, which ensured there was no risk of asylum seekers being wrongly returned to their country of origin, may not have been enough to save the policy in this appeal.

Perhaps they are right and more would have been needed, but on any view such a treaty would have been necessary, if not sufficient: a non-enforceable MoU was inherently inadequate.  It would not have been relied upon had the government been actually serious about this policy.

*

I am now thinking about writing a detailed post on the case from a constitutionalist perspective; but in the meantime, let me know below what you think about the decision and what you reckon to be its significance.

****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Constitutionalism vs constitutionalism – how liberal constitutionalists sometimes misunderstand illiberal constitutionalism

24th August 2023

One conceit of many liberal constitutionalists is that they have a monopoly on constitutionalism: that is the notion that constitutional rights and structures are fundamental to political thought and action.

An indication of this conceit is the immediate – indeed automatic – response of British liberals to certain political mishaps and transgressions: this shows the need for a written constitution.

This is said, with force and sincerity, regardless of the brute fact that written (that is, codified) constitutions can be very illiberal things indeed.

A codified constitution can entrench rather than limit executive power, and it can limit rather than entrench the ability of other organs of the state to check and balance executive power.

From a liberal perspective, the true test of a written constitution for the United Kingdom is whether it would be more liberal than our current uncodified constitutional arrangements.

There is no reason to believe it would be, especially if the government of the day – with its army of ambitious officials and clever legal advisers – has anything to do with its drafting and implementation.

Our current constitutional arrangements have obliged the executive to use legislation for the Article 50 notification and prohibited the government from using a prorogation for wrongful purposes; and our current constitutional arrangements also have led to two prime ministers losing power, notwithstanding the large majority of the incoming government in 2019.

Against these highlights, however, is the steady push of the executive to gain more and more discretionary power, especially in respect of interfering with the rights of individuals. So the current arrangements should not an excuse of complacency, for our constitution has many illiberal features too.

But the way forward to making our constitution more liberal is not to assume that illiberals do not care about constitutions; it is to realise and accept that they too care about constitutional powers, but not in the same way as liberals.

*

In a more vivid form, this can be seen in the United States where the Trumpites and others frame their objections to their government in terms of their constitutional rights, especially to bear arms and free expression, and states’ rights.

Even the events of 6 January were based on an elaborate ruse of gaming the constitutional role of Vice President (as president of the senate) and exploiting that role’s responsibilities in respect of electoral college votes.

This may not be constitutionalism which is to your liberal tastes – and indeed many conservative constitutionalists were opposed to this ploy.

But it is still a form of constitutionalism – in that certain constitutional provisions were being (mis)used to legitimise and achieve certain political ends.

What Trump and his conspirators wanted to do was to keep power by (mis)using constitutional provisions.

And, of course, he would not have been the first authoritarian populist to seize and retain power through constitutional arrangements, rather than in spite of them.

*

It is prudent in public matters to try to understand political opponents on their own terms, rather than to caricature them and their motives.

Liberal constitutionalists need to realise that their opponents also care about constitutional arrangements and constitutional legitimacy, but do so in a very different way and within a very different narrative.

The battle is not about constitutionalism against anti-constitutionalism.

It is between two contrasting and irreconcilable views of constitutions and what can be done with them.

****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.

Of impeachments and indictments – how many of the criminal indictments against Trump are a function of the failure of the impeachment process

15th August 2023

 

There is an old Hebrew proverb which can be roughly translated as:

What is the difference between a wise person and a clever person?

A clever person can get themselves out of situations a wise person would not have got into.

*

There are many points of similarity (as well as of contrast) between Boris Johnson and Donald Trump.

One common feature is their manoeuvrability.

They can perhaps be seen to get themselves out of situations which more prudent politicians would not have got into.

The impression conveyed is a constant short-term living-on-ones-wits, with a deft dodge here and will-to-power there, which would exhaust most other mortals.

But.

Each improvisation comes with a potential cost, for what deals well with one situation may not be helpful in another situation.

And this is the difference between tactics and strategy.

*

To put this in more concrete terms: Johnson and his lawyers appear to have hit on a good defence to possible criminal liability over the Downing Street parties.

A previous blogpost sets out how useful this line – about the need to show leadership in a work situation – was in dealing with the police and any potential fines or prosecution.

But that defence came with costs.

One cost was that it provided no defence to his own birthday party: and so that was the one for which he was fined.

And another cost was that it offered no relief in respect of the House of Commons investigation: what was a good defence in one context had no traction in another.

Johnson’s attempts to “lawyer-up” for the committee fell flat, his legalistic and supposedly “devastating” submissions got him nowhere – nowhere, that is, other than outside of the House of Commons.

His tactics worked regarding the potential criminal liability, but his strategic approach to holding power was so inept that he went from being an incoming Prime Minister with a sizeable majority to not even being a member of parliament in less than a single parliamentary term.

*

A similar thing can perhaps be seen now in the United States.

Trump somehow headed off not one but two impeachment exercises: he may have been impeached twice, but he was not convicted for either.

The latter impeachment was, of course, for the events of 6 January.

And so he avoided the punishment set out in the constitution for political misconduct.

But where the impeachments have failed, it appears that indictments have taken up the political slack.

It is maybe difficult to imagine that any of the current indictments against Trump – even the document retention ones – would now exist had Trump been convicted on impeachment.

(Logically, of course, the events of 6 January would have been different had the earlier impeachment ended with a conviction.)

Had Trump been convicted on impeachment – even if he had then received a Ford-Nixon type pardon – and thereby formally dismissed from office and unable to return, then it is possible that it would have seen that he had been punished enough.

An exercise of political misconduct – his role in the events of 6 January – would have then been dealt through the constitutional mechanism of impeachment – and so would have had a political solution.

Instead that political misconduct has been converted into criminal charges.

This is not to say that the criminal charges are not sound and evidenced – some of the cases look very strong and Trump’s position looks correspondingly very weak. Trump is in serious legal jeopardy.

The point is that these indictments (with the possible exception of the document retention charges) are really doing the job that should have been with the second impeachment, had Trump and his Senate allies not manoeuvred for an acquittal.

That tactical success, however, offers no defence to the criminal charges he now faces.

And instead of disgrace and permanent removal from office, he now faces criminal liability and even prison time.

The Georgia charges look especially bad for him, as there seems no pardon would be available – either from a president or the governor of the state.

In essence: it would seem that the impeachment process failed in the very circumstances such a political and constitutional remedy should have succeeded.

And, if you will pardon the pun, that is quite an indictment of the US constitution.

****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome, or if they risk derailing the discussion.

More on the comments policy is here.