Donald Trump speaks during a campaign stop in Council Bluffs, Iowa, on Dec. 29, 2015. With a former president awaiting arraignment, the U.S. is undergoing a severe stress test.Nati Harnik
With a former president under indictment, awaiting arraignment and fighting off multiple legal challenges, the United States is undergoing perhaps its most severe stress test in more than a century and a half.
At stake at the opening of an unprecedented and deeply significant week – the expected surrender of former president Donald Trump to New York authorities and his new profile as a criminal defendant charged with at least one felony – are the stability of civil society in the United States, the foundations of the U.S. political system, and the support beams of the country’s judiciary. All are facing challenges that will define the character of the country and its public affairs for the remainder of the decade and almost certainly even beyond.
The spectacle of a former president being booked, fingerprinted and subjected to a mug shot – and then exploiting his troubles for financial and political gain – transports the country into a new, chaotic political landscape and across a new frontier in social and cultural disquiet. To add to the civic peril, this crossroads occurs at a fraught moment when the country is experiencing divisions more profound than any since the Civil War, when the country quite literally fell apart.
To be sure, the United States has faced similar crises of democratic rule in the past several decades. The Watergate scandal of 1972-74, which ended with the resignation of Richard Nixon, was portrayed at the time as a national trial, testing the country’s constitutional pinions and the limits of a president’s ability to stretch the legal system and to hide behind the power of his presumed privileges and immunities. The 1998-99 impeachment drama of Bill Clinton was characterized as a further test of presidential prerogatives and set in motion an agonizing national debate over whether private sexual conduct should have public consequences.
But the question lingers: What makes this political crisis different from all other American political crises?
The circumstances. “We are at a pivotal moment, with a former president who for the first time in our history tried to overturn the peaceful transition of power – and with that person being the leading presidential candidate of his party,” said Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Constitutional law professor and counsel for E. Jean Carroll, who claims in separate legal cases that Mr. Trump raped and then defamed her.
Mr. Trump’s circumstances. More than the leader of a party, he is the self-proclaimed leader of what he describes as a “movement.” In a fundraising appeal only days before his indictment, he told supporters, “The left thinks that if they bury me with enough witch hunts and intimidate my family and associates that I’ll eventually throw up my hands and give up on our America First movement.”
The establishment-oriented countermovement (the Never-Trump Movement). These two groups are at odds on stylistic issues involving Mr. Trump and on many of the elements of his movement, which he described in his fundraising appeal as battling “the Deep State, the Open Borders Lobby, global special interests, and the [George] Soros Money Machine.”
The use that Mr. Trump, as the world’s most famous defendant, makes of his predicament. It is telling that the rough schedule for Mr. Trump’s surrender was released by the Trump presidential campaign. His motorcade procession to Tuesday’s arraignment, and his courthouse movements surrounded by Secret Service personnel in “bubble formation,” almost surely will reappear in Trump campaign footage. Mr. Trump, who made the presidency a business opportunity and his indictment a fundraising platform, has been able to exploit his difficulties in the past; the FBI raid on his Florida home spawned a spike in contributions. (Even so, his poll ratings did not move.) When news of his indictment was circulating, Mr. Trump sent a fundraising e-mail urging supporters “to cement your place in history and accept YOUR membership as a FOUNDING DEFENDER OF PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP AGAINST THIS WITCH HUNT.” Within a day, the Trump campaign raised US$4-million, with a quarter of the contributors new donors.
The promiscuous use of the word “weaponized” today. While he was president, Mr. Trump’s critics criticized him for “weaponizing” the government. Now that he is about to face formal charges in New York and perhaps elsewhere, he is accusing the Biden administration of “weaponizing the Justice Department.” Indeed, at his last rally, he spoke of the “weaponization of our system of justice” and described it as being “straight out of the Stalinist Russia horror show.” The weaponization charges grew even more fierce after the indictment.
“The justice system isn’t weaponized if there are grounds for charges,” said Shannon Bow O’Brien, a political scientist at the University of Texas. “Whether as President Trump or as Citizen Trump, there’s a right to hold him accountable. Nobody’s above the law in this country. Presidents are just average people with really cool jobs.”
Neither Mr. Nixon, whose resignation ended his impeachment threat, nor Mr. Clinton, who was impeached in the House of Representatives but acquitted in the Senate, faced criminal charges.
Cabaret comedian Mark Russell, who died last week but had entertained Washingtonians for decades in the Marquee Lounge at the swanky Shoreham Hotel, produced guffaws in the late Nixon years with a ballad called Jail to the Chief. Mr. Nixon never faced the serious prospect of imprisonment though, with Gandhi and the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. in mind, he spoke of how there had been important writing done in jail. The 37th president was disgraced but, riding a second political wind, eventually rehabilitated himself as a foreign-policy savant. Mr. Clinton was disbarred but remained a high-spirited former president and campaigned vigorously for his wife, Hillary Clinton, in her presidential campaign.
“I have never in my lifetime felt that the moment was so precarious,” said Prof. Tribe. “But the country has been through a lot and we have survived.”
British Columbians could find out who wins the provincial election on Oct. 19 in about the same time it took to start counting ballots in previous votes.
Andrew Watson, a spokesman for Elections BC, says new electronic vote tabulators mean officials hope to have half of the preliminary results for election night reported within about 30 minutes, and to be substantially complete within an hour of polls closing.
Watson says in previous general elections — where votes have been counted manually — they didn’t start the tallies until about 45 minutes after polls closed.
This will B.C.’s first general election using electronic tabulators after the system was tested in byelections in 2022 and 2023, and Watson says the changes will make the process both faster and more accessible.
Voters still mark their candidate on a paper ballot that will then be fed into the electronic counter, while networked laptops will be used to look up peoples’ names and cross them off the voters list.
One voting location in each riding will also offer various accessible voting methods for the first time, where residents will be able to listen to an audio recording of the candidates and make their selection using either large paddles or by blowing into or sucking on a straw.
The province’s three main party leaders are campaigning across B.C. today with NDP Leader David Eby in Chilliwack promising to double apprenticeships for skilled trades, Conservative Leader John Rustad in Prince George talking power generation, and Greens Leader Sonia Furstenau holding an announcement Thursday about mental health.
It comes as a health-care advocacy group wants to know where British Columbia politicians stand on six key issues ahead of an election it says will decide the future of public health in the province.
The BC Health Coalition wants improved care for seniors, universal access to essential medicine, better access to primary care, reduced surgery wait times, and sustainable working conditions for health-care workers.
It also wants pledges to protect funding for public health care, asking candidates to phase out contracts to profit-driven corporate providers that it says are draining funds from public services.
Ayendri Riddell, the coalition’s director of policy and campaigns, said in a statement that British Columbians need to know if parties will commit to solutions “beyond the political slogans” in campaigning for the Oct. 19 election.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 26, 2024.
In Canadian parliamentary democracy, a vote of no confidence (also known as a confidence motion) is a crucial mechanism that can force a sitting government to resign or call an election. It is typically initiated when the opposition, or even members of the ruling party, believe that the government has lost the support of the majority in the House of Commons.
What Is a Vote of No Confidence?
A vote of no confidence is essentially a test of whether the government, led by the prime minister, still commands the support of the majority of Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons. If the government loses such a vote, it is either required to resign or request the dissolution of Parliament, leading to a general election.
This process upholds one of the fundamental principles of Canadian democracy: the government must maintain the confidence of the elected House of Commons to govern. This rule ensures accountability and provides a check on the government’s power.
How Many Votes Are Needed for a No Confidence Motion?
In the Canadian House of Commons, there are 338 seats. To pass a vote of no confidence, a simple majority of MPs must vote in favor of the motion. This means that at least 170 MPs must vote in support of the motion to cause the government to lose confidence.
If the government holds a minority of seats, it is more vulnerable to such a vote. In this case, the opposition parties could band together to reach the 170 votes required for the no-confidence motion to succeed. In a majority government, the ruling party has more than half the seats, making it more difficult for a vote of no confidence to pass, unless there is significant dissent within the ruling party itself.
Types of Confidence Votes
Explicit Confidence Motions: These are motions specifically introduced to test whether the government still holds the confidence of the House. For example, the opposition might move a motion stating, “That this House has no confidence in the government.”
Implicit Confidence Motions: Some votes are automatically considered confidence motions, even if they are not explicitly labeled as such. The most common example is the approval of the federal budget. If a government loses a vote on its budget, it is seen as losing the confidence of the House.
Key Legislation: Occasionally, the government may declare certain pieces of legislation as confidence matters. This could be done to ensure the support of the ruling party and its allies, as a loss on such a bill would mean the collapse of the government.
What Happens If the Government Loses a Confidence Vote?
If a government loses a confidence vote in the House of Commons, two outcomes are possible:
Resignation and New Government Formation: The prime minister may resign, and the governor general can invite another leader, typically the leader of the opposition, to try to form a new government that can command the confidence of the House.
Dissolution of Parliament and General Election: The prime minister can request that the governor general dissolve Parliament, triggering a general election. This gives voters the opportunity to elect a new Parliament and government.
Historical Context of Confidence Votes in Canada
Canada has seen several instances of votes of no confidence, particularly during minority government situations. For example, in 2011, the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper lost a vote of confidence over contempt of Parliament, which led to the dissolution of Parliament and the federal election.
Historically, most no-confidence votes are associated with budgetary issues or key pieces of legislation. They can be rare, especially in majority governments, as the ruling party usually has enough support to avoid defeat in the House of Commons.
To pass a vote of no confidence in Canada, at least 170 MPs out of 338 must vote in favor of the motion. This vote can lead to the government’s resignation or a general election, making it a powerful tool in ensuring that the government remains accountable to the elected representatives of the people. In the context of Canadian democracy, the vote of no confidence is a key safeguard of parliamentary oversight and political responsibility.
OTTAWA – A senior federal official says the government is mulling new ways to inform the public about possible foreign interference developments during an election campaign.
Under the current system, a panel of five top bureaucrats would issue a public warning if they believed an incident — or an accumulation of incidents — threatened Canada’s ability to have a free and fair election.
There was no such announcement concerning the 2019 or 2021 general elections.
Allen Sutherland, an assistant secretary to the federal cabinet, told a commission of inquiry today that officials are looking at how citizens might be told about developments that don’t quite reach the current threshold.
He said that would help inform people of things they ought to know more about, even if the incidents don’t rise to the level of threatening the overall integrity of an election.
Allegations of foreign interference in the last two general elections prompted calls for the public inquiry that is now underway.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 26, 2024.
