Politics roundup: Are we in a constitutional crisis, or is Congress wrong?

Recent events have set the House of Representatives and the Executive Branch against one another. Does the constitution say who should come out on top?

Are we in a constitutional crisis or not?

Since last week, Congress has been keeping busy. Attorney General William Barr refused to appear again before the House Judiciary Committee. The House then voted to hold Barr in contempt. The President then appeared to retaliate. He exercised executive privilege in an attempt to keep the unredacted Mueller report out of Representatives’ hands, setting off yet another round of political outcry.

Does the President have a right to invoke executive privilege in this manner? Can Congress wield enough power to circumvent this move? It’s unclear. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said that the nation is now facing a “constitutional crisis” over the matter.

A constitutional crisis is, essentially, a conflict between or amongst governing bodies that a nation’s constitution can’t solve. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t present a clear roadmap for us here. It might as well grow arms and shrug, for all the solid good it can do in this situation.

Right now, it’s not clear which branch should take precedence over another. Should the Executive Branch be able to keep certain documents and testimonies from the Representative Branch? Or, should the Representative Branch be able to force the Executive to fess up, be it via Barr appearing before a committee or the manifestation of a non-censored Mueller report? All that’s clear is the fact that we have plenty of arguing ahead of us.

U.S. seizes North Korean ship

This Thursday, the U.S. seized a North Korean ship, citing its violation of trade sanctions. The vessel, known as Wise Honest, is now under United States control and is on its way to American Samoa.

The Justice Department and other agencies claimed that this seizure was arranged for since at least July 2018. However, the timing is fairly neat. Also on Thursday, North Korea fired two short-range missiles, the second test of its nature just this week.

The exercise appears to be a step backwards in peace talks between the nation and the U.S. In February, the White House denied North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s request for sanctions relief. Relations between the nations soured, though they still have not reached the heights of North Korea’s 2017 missile tests and subsequent U.S.-North Korea posturing.

The violations came from transactions involving not just the coal, but also transfers of U.S. money via unwitting American institutions. Ship-to-ship documents indicate that the coal was transferred to the Wise Hope from a Russian vessel. Russia has denied part in any sanctions violations.

Tariffs set to rise against China

Starting on Friday, the United States will raise tariffs on over $200 billion in Chinese goods. The move comes after some confusion, wherein the President seemed to go back and forth on his stance regarding trade talks with China. Were we friends, or not? Apparently, the U.S. is definitely on the outs with China. The tariffs are set to rise from 10 percent to a whopping 25 percent.

During the talks, China had presented a revised draft deal that weakened its commitments to U.S.-favored trade reforms. After the White House responded with heightened tariffs, China promised to retaliate with its own measures. Trade talks are still ongoing amongst U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, Chinese Vice Premier Liu He. With billions of dollars already lost on both sides, there still doesn’t seem to be an end in sight.

Shanahan poised to become Defense Secretary

Amongst all of this, you might be forgiven for thinking that the Department of Defense had a leader. How could one of the largest and biggest-spending agencies in the United States be motoring along without someone at the helm?

To be fair, it does have an acting Secretary, one Patrick Shanahan. He’s been filling in since February, when former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis’ resignation took effect.

Now, after four months, the White House is planning to make Shanahan the actual head of the Defense Department. Given ongoing conflicts with superpowers like Russia and China, Shanahan will have a lot on his plate. Even without outright war or trade shenanigans, the department is a massive, complex beast that demands a lot of attention. And that’s not even considering the perils of an inconstant boss, especially when the boss in question sits in the Oval Office.

Is Shanahan up to the job? Unlike his predecessors, he has no military background. Instead, Shanahan comes to the position from the business world. He also lacks any real experience in foreign policy. Supporters argue that the department needs a shake-up anyway. On the other side, critics contend that his lack of experience could be exceedingly harmful.

And, finally, your palate cleanser

By now, you may have heard the low-key news item concerning a baby who was born this week. We’re speaking of one Archie Harrison Mountbatten-Windsor, child of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. Sure, his parents may have declined a royal title for the latest member of the family, but something tells us he’ll be okay anyway.

While young Archie is getting used to his well-appointed life on the outside, let’s take a moment to consider the history of royal babies. Back when monarchs had actual power, a good slate of heirs was necessary for the adult royals to rest easy. A lack of direct heirs was enough to trigger outright war.

Now, changing laws and decreased political power for royals have dramatically lowered the stakes. Meghan Markle is also surely grateful for the advent of modern healthcare. Even royal women weren’t exempt from the horrors of historic childbirth. In fact, many woman made out wills as soon as they learned of their pregnancies.

On a more positive note, you can argue that Archie is already historic in his own right. If that’s more up your alley, then also check out this timeline featuring royal babies.