President Trump and Obstruction

I applaud Prof. Alan Dershowitz's decrying the criminalization of political differences (NYT, Nov. 29,2017,P. A23) but strongly disagree with his conclusion that President Trump's attempt to stifle the Flynn investigation was, somehow, lawful. It is a federal crime to attempt to obstruct justice by corrupt persuasion which courts have defined as persuasion motivated by an inappropriate or improper purpose to convince another to engage in a course of behavior that impedes an ongoing investigation. By telling FBI Director Comey to discontinue his investigation of Michael Flynn, President Trump was attempting to impede that investigation for an improper purpose, namely to prevent exposure  of his own misdeeds or those of his campaign.

Yes, a president has vast executive powers but, unless one accepts Nixon's infamous pronouncement, that an act cannot be a crime if done by the president, Trump can be guilty of obstruction of justice and, thus, be subject to impeachment.

VOTE YES FOR A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

The justification offered by the editorial board of the New York Times, for its recommendation that New Yorkers vote no to the holding of a constitutional convention, is mealy-mouthed, even shameful. Listing all of the problems that impede effective governance and erode public trust, problems embedded in our archaic and lugubrious constitution that cry out for remedy, the Times, nevertheless, opts to forgo a once in a generation opportunity for change.

The reason? Given the current political climate it is likely that a constitutional convention will be dominated by unsavory hacks who will make no change or just make the document even worse, all at great expense to the taxpayer. Besides, the editorialists say, all the needed changes can more easily be enacted by legislators (provided they are pushed to do the right thing by an aroused electorate).

These arguments do not withstand scrutiny. Would it make sense to urge the citizenry not to vote in an election because the polls suggest that charlatans are likely to win? That because the road to realization of a just cause is burdensome and freighted with risk, the journey should not be undertaken?

I suggest that the right approach would be to fight to change the process by which constitutional delegates are chosen and organize to promote progressive and much needed changes to our outdated and hopelessly wordy foundational document. Trying to work around, by legislative action, the existing constitutional roadblocks is not doable. Constitutional prohibitions and prescriptions are not susceptible to statutory override. For example, the constitution requires that judges step down when they become 70, just when their experience and sagacity are at their peak and legislators cannot alter that hoary deadline.

As the editorial acknowledges, voters are already apathetic to change and have consistently rejected convening a constitutional convention. It will hardly awaken their civic conscience to urge yet another negative vote, especially since the opportunity to effect change will not come again for twenty years.