Mark Weaver's Latest Op-Ed on The Role Of The President. Spoiler Alert: Government Power is Like a Cube of Energy
Here's Mark Weaver's latest op-ed, as published in the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Spoiler alert: government power is like a cube of energy.
Read below or click here.
Both sides misunderstand the role of the president
By Mark R. Weaver
A year ago, roughly half the country was celebrating the inauguration of a new president and the other half was lamenting the years to come. And nine years ago, those respective sides were in near turnabout. Barack Obama took the oath of office cheered by supporters giddy with victory, while the opposition grumbled with despair.
This discord isn’t new, but it’s growing deeper. And it yields a bumper crop of challenges. The problem is complex, yet many proposed responses are equal parts reflexive and reductive.
Much of this American anger focuses on who resides in the White House. Too often, when the candidate we opposed wins the presidency, we become gloomy about the fate of the nation.
This melancholy of the vanquished can be traced to at least one core misconception – the illusion that most of the government’s power resides in the president. Those who view the president as the daddy of the country or the person “running the country” need remedial study in American government.
Power in the United States is peacefully given through the consent of the governed and then divided and separated among many leaders. The president is simply one of many holding that power.
Imagine all the power to run a nation condensed into a cube of energy. Throughout the sweep of time, monarchs, chieftains, and despots have jealously monopolized that powerful cube. The fates and fortunes of those governed rose or fell based on the whim of the cube-holder. Corrupt leaders grasping the full complement of power could rob their countrymen of everything, including their lives.
Our founding fathers were avid students of history and, having just escaped the snare of a jealous king, were keen to frame a system of governance that would confound the ability of any one person to bring down a nation.
Common bedside reading for the likes of James Madison and Alexander Hamilton was the work of French philosopher Baron de Montesquieu. Building on the division of powers in ancient Rome, Montesquieu noted that spreading power over many people limited the likelihood of wide-spread corruption or incompetence.
Thus, the Constitution, through the principles of separation of powers and federalism, takes that cube of energy and divides it at least nine different ways. The first three cuts occur left to right – the branches of government. These executive, legislative, and judicial slices split authority that, in most nations, had been housed in a single ruler.
The next division is top to bottom, three more slices of Neapolitan ice cream-inspired division. These federal, state and local layers distribute government power among officeholders in Washington, state capitols, and city halls.
After the slicing and dicing, power is divided among literally thousands of different people. No single person in that array – not even the president – can widely affect the power held by others.
Because executive branch leaders hold sway individually, presidents, governors, and mayors are more noticeable than legislators and judges. That’s why people tend to focus more on them and it leads many to conclude that the character, competence, or credibility of a president matters more than for other leaders. It doesn’t.
If you hated the last president and blame most of our nation’s problems on him, you’re wrong. And if you detest the current president and attribute most of our difficulties to him, you’re equally wrong.
I know this perspective will clash in the minds of many. Our brain is much like our musical ear, which prefers Pachelbel’s “Canon in D” to an overtired toddler’s piano rendition of “Chopsticks.” When we hold a strong belief, information from those who challenge that belief seems incorrect. Which is why cognitive dissonance is more than just choice “B” on your psych mid-term.
So don’t take my word for this. Read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Federalist Papers. These are the owner’s manuals for our republic.
The occupant of the White House might lead the news every night and be the easiest person to argue about, but that doesn’t make him the center of government power. Many presidents expected to run things only to discover that other officeholders also had their hands on the tiller of our ship of state.
President Truman groused, “I sit here all day trying to persuade people to do the things they ought to have sense enough to do without my persuading them. That’s all the powers of the President amount to.”
From township trustee to the commander in chief – every government role is consequential. By design, the power to govern America is less like a single guide star and more like the bright constellations glowing in a clear night sky. And understanding that will help you fully appreciate our galaxy of government.
Mark R. Weaver is a crisis communications consultant and a partner at the Columbus law firm Isaac Wiles. His new book is “A Wordsmith’s Work.” Twitter: @MarkRWeaver.
Mark Weaver's Op-Ed On Lessons For The Media From the Alabama Special Election
Click here or read below:
Jones victory in Alabama holds lesson for journalism
By Mark R. Weaver
Millions of Americans are breathing a sigh of relief after worrying that Roy Moore, who was credibly accused of unwelcome sexual activity with underage teenagers, might somehow be elected to represent Alabama in the U.S. Senate. Doug Jones defeated Moore by a slender margin, but as a veteran political observer and election law attorney, I believe the race should never have been so close.
Before this oddball special election grows too small in our rearview mirror, we’d be smart to see what we can learn about why things like this happen. There’s an explanation to be had.
Some pundits assert that the fact Moore nearly won is because Alabama is a ruby red state and, in politics, the best predictor of future voter behavior is past voter behavior. There’s some truth in that.
But Moore's achievement of 49 percent of the vote can be explained by more than just theories from the political science textbooks. There’s another causative factor here, and it ought to be covered in the next editions of the journalism textbooks.
The tales of Moore’s purported past with high schoolers broke in the Washington Post, which is respected by millions of readers. Yet many, if not most, Alabamans view the Post differently. Its editorial voice is stridently liberal, as are the vast majority of its opinion writers, and many of its news writers. Indeed, even before the Moore story went to print, this District of Columbia newspaper went out of its way to endorse against Moore. The paper doesn’t endorse in every U.S. Senate race. Why it chose to offer its voting booth advice to voters who are an 18-plus hour drive away is a question every thoughtful journalism professor ought to discuss in class.
The Post’s unnecessary endorsement, combined with its editorial tone of condescension toward Southerners who are all too aware of what folks up north think of them, weakened its credibility as a news source. The Moore campaign predictably exploited this sentiment from the moment the teenage impropriety story broke. No wonder a pre-election CBS poll found that just 21 percent of all Alabama voters believe the allegations against Moore are “definitely true.” A majority – 54 percent – either believed the charges to be false or said there wasn’t enough evidence to make a determination. The findings clearly reflect a distrust of the Post’s reporting.
The Post isn’t the only paper where an overzealous editorial page has undermined solid news reporting. Why does this happen?
When it comes to politics, reporters like to imagine themselves as a referee. They seek to call fouls and assign penalties in the competitive match between two campaigns working hard to win. But editorial endorsements – particularly ones by out-of-state newspapers laced with adjectives better suited to a campaign ad – remind voters that many news outlets wear the jersey of one team hidden beneath the black-and-white stripes of the referee shirt and within the black-and-white text of the editorial page.
As a result, the default position of most voters today is that too many news outlets are biased. And research shows that once humans believe something, it’s hard to change their mind. Sadly, journalists who abandon the objectivity of the sidelines for the body checks and bleacher cheers of the playing field have sacked their own credibility.
There are countless reporters whom I call friend. I know them to be decent people who accept little pay and work long hours because they believe, as Thomas Jefferson did, that robust journalism is “one of the great bulwarks of liberty.” Jefferson was right. But a bulwark – a community’s best protection against danger – can be weakened by poor maintenance and neglect. Newspapers who too easily root for one team to defeat the other team degrade the crucial role a free press plays in a free country. And their actions, as in Alabama, can make games that should have resulted in a lopsided victory turn into a buzzer-beating tiebreaker.
Mark R. Weaver is a crisis communications consultant and a partner at the Columbus law firm Isaac Wiles. His new book is “A Wordsmith’s Work.” Twitter: @MarkRWeaver.
Mark Weaver's Op-Ed On Judges Who Abuse the System
The Columbus Dispatch recently published Mark Weaver’s op-ed on judge who abuse the system. Click here or read below:
Judges who abuse system need quick rebuke
By Mark R. Weaver
Judges try hard not to be politicians. They wear robes meant to diminish preening. They write judicial opinions in the third person to project a greater sense of independence. And they cultivate an image that floats above the sharp elbows of the sometimes-shabby political process.
But there’s something judges don’t want you to know. Many were political animals before taking the bench and they continue those instincts as they prowl the judicial branch. And unlike peanut butter and jelly, politics and judging are a bad combination.
As an attorney, I’ve advised numerous Ohio judges on questions of ethics and what’s legal for them to do in and around the political maelstrom. While I don’t reveal what clients tell me in confidence, I can say that nearly all of them are sensitive to how their decisions might affect their ability to achieve higher office. Most jurists are able to tune this political radar to its lowest setting and make decisions strictly based on the constitution and the law. But a few take the opposite approach and game the justice system for their own personal and political advantage.
Consider exhibits A and B: Supreme Court Justice William O’Neill and Franklin County Appeals Court Judge Tim Horton. Both are currently drowning in the deep water of judicial misdeeds but still collecting their full salary from taxpayers.
Justice O’Neill has announced that he’s running for governor. That’s his right, but judicial ethics rules require candidates for non-judicial office to immediately step down from the bench. This ethical safeguard helps remove overt politics from court decisions. Nonetheless, O’Neill refuses to resign and yet claims he will stop hearing new cases. Why not leave now? He knows that the judicial discipline process grinds slowly and, by the time it ensnares him, he hopes to be the likely Democratic nominee and can simply resign then. Delay allows him to have his taxpayer-funded cake and eat it, too.
Judge Horton is running out the discipline clock in a different fashion. He’s already been convicted and served a jail sentence for mishandling campaign funds. A sitting judge sitting in jail is as rare as a Buckeye fan sleeping through game day. Judge Horton avoided more serious criminal liability by agreeing not to appeal his sentence. But then he appealed it anyway.
Horton knows disciplinary authorities won’t begin to consider removing him from the bench until his underlying case — including all appeals — is over. By filing an appeal where the law didn’t allow it and after he had agreed not to, he bought himself several more months of pay at a job that doesn’t even require daily attendance at the courthouse. Even then, the removal process will likely take many more months.
The Horton scandal first came to light in 2014, when he was scrutinized by fellow judges for serious allegations of sexual harassment. State investigators eventually recommended felony charges but the judge avoided them by admitting to some criminal behavior and accepting a misdemeanor conviction.
There’s something else these two unethical judges have in common — each defeated more-qualified opponents because of the well-known nature of their last names. O’Neill is unrelated to former Ohio governor and Supreme Court Chief Justice William O’Neill but has enjoyed electoral success due to Ohioans’ familiarity with the moniker. Horton doesn’t own any doughnut and coffee shops, but his initial campaign success was attributed by most observers to the fact that Tim Horton is a household name, and a yummy one at that.
Neither ought to remain on the bench. Each is abusing the system to stay put. They use the slow process of the judicial ethics system to stiff-arm the interests of justice.
Court rules need to be updated with an eye toward taking swifter action when there’s good evidence that a judge is abusing the extended due process of the system for little more than partisan or personal gain. When judicial officers act in clear defiance of ethical dictates, the power of suspension and removal should allow authorities to take action in weeks, not months or years.
Ohio voters historically have defended the system that allows judges to be elected rather than selected. But voters expect the rules that govern those judges to be equipped to take prompt action when a due-process safety net for judges becomes a hammock for politicians in robes.
Mark R. Weaver is a Columbus attorney and communications adviser. He was formerly deputy attorney general of Ohio. He is the author of the recently released book “A Wordsmith’s Work.”
Ohio Lawyer Magazine Review's Mark Weaver's Book, "A Wordsmith's Work"
Ohio Lawyer Magazine Reviewed A Wordsmith’s Work by Mark R. Weaver. Read Below:
Mark R. Weaver's Op-Ed on Immigration Published in Both the Cincinnati Enquirer and The Columbus Dispatch
Mark Weaver from our firm wrote a thought-provoking op-ed on who ought to make immigration policy. The piece was published by both the Columbus Dispatch and the Cincinnati Enquirer. Read below or click here.
Stop looking to the White House for new immigration policy
By Mark R. Weaver
We teach our children that cheating in school is dishonest. We tell them it’s wrong and self-defeating to seek the outcome – a better grade – without achieving the very purpose of the enterprise: learning.
I thought about that concept this week as the left and the right engaged in social media slap fights over President Trump’s decision to end what President Obama called a “temporary, stop-gap measure” of allowing certain children of illegal immigrants to remain in America. My own opinion about the fate of so-called DACA “dreamers” takes a back seat to my larger concern – who determines the policy?
Our founding fathers thought deeply about the kind of nation they wanted to build, given that they’d just parachuted out of what many believed was the greatest nation on earth. They knew future generations would scuffle and scrap about how government should operate, so they gave us the Constitution. That document acts as the guardrails along the path of managing the worst impulses of tyrants and tyrants in training.
A president might want to make treaties without interference, but the Constitution requires Senate ratification. Congress could try to make budget decisions alone, but the Constitution gives the president veto power. And federal judges may wish to gavel their whims into law but the Constitution allows Congress to impeach them if they fall short of “good behavior.”
Article I of the Constitution gives “all legislative powers” to Congress. Unlike so many constitutional questions, that are as clear as the vista from a midnight sandstorm, who gets to decide federal policy is straightforward: 435 representatives and 100 senators.
That’s why the policy question of whether bank robbery should be a federal crime belongs to Congress. What should the federal tax rate be? Ask Congress. And, most pertinently now, whether citizens of other countries can come to America and permanently live here is a question unequivocally left to Congress.
These are policy choices, and the founders wanted them to be made by just one part of government – the legislative branch. It makes sense. That’s the branch most immediately accountable to voters with elections for all of the House and one-third of the Senate every two years.
Alexander Hamilton was a prolific booster of this approach. In fact, if you loved him on Broadway, you’ll love him even more in the Federalist Papers, the pro-Constitution tracts he co-authored in 1788. Hamilton said (sorry, this was before he learned to rap): “It is essential to liberty that the government, in general, should have a common interest … and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured.”
Federal law currently makes it illegal for a foreign national to remain here without permission. Indeed, the law that every elected official swore to uphold says that people here illegally “shall upon the order of the Attorney General be removed.” That’s the law currently in force, enacted by Congress who, we must presume, acted with the legitimate mandate of those who elected them.
There’s only one valid way to undo that law – pressure Congress to pass a different law. If this sounds a bit like eighth-grade civics, that’s because it is. But far too many of those shouting and shrieking over desired policy outcomes are ignoring these civic truths. They want what they want and to heck with the process. Yet even when Congress fails to enact the laws we want, our sole legal remedy is to change the Congress.
Which brings us back to the student who wants the good grade but doesn’t want to get it the way the system was designed to give it – by studying and learning. The substantive process matters – often as much as the result.
There may be good policy reasons to allow “dreamers” to stay here. If that’s your viewpoint, go instruct your member of Congress. If Congress doesn’t fulfill your request, go elect a congressional majority that will.
Good ideas that have broad support tend to get passed into law, if only because legislators want to avoid the ire of angry constituents demanding action. When Congress doesn’t act, it’s fair to assume that not enough people have pressured them to do so.
President Obama’s executive order was an end-around run of the policy-making structure given to us by Hamilton and his supporting cast. Bypassing that system by seeking a desired policy result from someone other than the designated policy maker is anti-democratic, unconstitutional, and – it’s cheating.
Mark R. Weaver is a Columbus attorney and former deputy attorney general of Ohio. He teaches at The Ohio State University College of Law and his new book is “A Wordsmith’s Work.” Twitter: @MarkRWeaver.