Limitation of Governmental Powers
Name
Political Science 4312
University of Texas Rio Grande Valley
February 14, 2020
Limitation of Governmental Powers
Citing Garcetti v. Ceballos to Determine Appropriate Actions against Trump’s Whistleblower
The law provides that a public official is only protected by the first amendment when they are making a statement concerning their private life and nothing connected to official duties. This issue was in contention during Garcetti v. Ceballos, where the court held that a public official did not enjoy the freedom of speech as a public official and in the course of serving public duties. A public official’s freedom of speech is constrained by the interest of the employer. Richard Ceballos had sued the government for actions taken against him after making statements that undermined government interests.
A similar case was that of a whistleblower who was troubled by Donald Trump’s pressuring Of the Ukrainian President to interfere with elections in the United States to a point where they made this information public. The most disturbing thing the whistleblower identifies is President Trump’s promises to the said leader. The complaint was very credible that even, Michael Atkinson the inspector general of the intelligence community, termed it a matter of “urgent concern.” Trump’s lawyer Rudy Giuliani at one time confirmed the allegation that he had made contact with Ukraine to dig dirt on Joe Bidden after an apparent interference by the former vice president in an investigation on his son. The whistleblower also presented evidence of several other encounters between Trump and Ukraine beyond the phone call that was initially reported.
There was legit concern in the actions of the whistleblower, and the step he took makes him noble and patriotic. He had every reason to do so. However, in cases like this, people usually releases statements and resign from their posts because they understand that loyalty is intrinsically a requirement from an employee to their employer. Although the identity of the whistleblower remains anonymous, there has been some information that suggests whomever they may be, work for the CIA. This means they are a public figure and an employee of President Trump. In addition, by being so, they are tied to supporting the interests of their employer or the government to be certain.
Although the intentions of the whistleblower were commendable for an individual, a public employee, and a member of the intelligence, they conflicted with the interest of President Trump and the government of the United States. Therefore, the government has every right to punish the individual as they deem fit, especially relieving them of their duties. According to Garcetti v. Ceballos, if President Trump so chooses to identify the individual and relieve them of their duties, then it is justifiable. Although, the dissent in the ruling of Garcetti v. Ceballos suggests that there should be some exceptions when the information released is about a perceived threat to the interests of the public. The case with Donald Trump is a perceived threat to the interests of America. However, citing Garcetti v. Ceballos, the government is justified to should take action against the whistleblower. Since the employee works for the CIA, then they are not protected by the Office of Special Counsel and therefore exempted from protection under the Whistleblower Protection Act.
Did the Whistleblower Commit Espionage?
Espionage is the act of employing spies by governments to obtain military and political information from their rival nations. With this definition alone, the debate on whether the whistleblower committed espionage is laid to rest; there is no espionage. President Trump suggested that the unmasked whistleblower that released a memo detailing his conversation with President Volodymyr Zalensky of Ukraine over the phone was a spy and a traitor that was subject to possible execution. He made accusations of possible espionage by American intelligence personnel. The death penalty has not been exercised for decades in this nation, and the idea of espionage for someone that is clearly not a spy is misled. Espionage happened when classified information is issued to a foreign state. This is basically the definition of spying. This does not happen in this case. Again, classified information given to authorities authorized to view this information such as the intelligence community inspector as it is in this case, and then passed to congressional committees with authority to view this information does not amount to spying, especially when it happens according to the laws governing whistleblowers in the intelligence community. When the government(President) receives the information and decides to make it public because he does not understand the magnitude of this information politically, then there is no case for espionage.
President Trump’s Impeachment
Impeachment is the action of removing a president from office if found guilty of treason, misdemeanor, and bribery as well as other high crimes. A member of the House votes on whether to initiate an investigation into the grounds presented for the impeachment introduce the impeachment resolution to the House of Representatives. The investigations are then carried on by a special committee or the House Judiciary Committee, who later vote on whether to bring the vote to the floor of the House. A simple majority then decides the impeachment.
The House was right to impeach the President, and the senate let Americans down by clearing the President of the charges that were brought against him. Among the high offenses that could amount to grounds for impeachment, is his contact with the Ukrainian President asking for interference in the elections while using the favors as leverage. The evidence provided concerning this accusation is overwhelming and is enough to warrant removal from office. Even if this accusation does not hold, the President is also accused of several other crimes that amount to a ground for impeachments. Trump abused his power by threatening a strategic partner in Ukraine in the fight against Russian aggression.
Because of how the President has conducted himself for years and continues to, there is little doubt that he is culpable of the crimes he is accused of. Those that are against the impeachment (Republicans) are so solely because of the oath they have taken for their party. They have not come out with facts that contradict the accusations filed against the President. The information they are relying on is that Joe Biden was not found connected to any misuse of power or evidence that indicates he influenced the firing of a district attorney. Also, the lack of any evidence of wrongdoing or an allegation against Biden’s son Hunter Biden is not a counter-argument to that of Trump asking the Ukrainian government to make a public announcement on an investigation against the activities of a rival.
Trump has also created a divided America with pronouncements that undermine the core meaning of being an American. He, as a president, has been acting as if he is above the law and ultimately undermines the checks and balances invested in Congress. Trump is determined to generate wielding sweeping and uncontrolled power. Even if he survives the Senate ruling, it will just be an indication of his firm grip on his party and not his political strength.
