Editorial: States’ Rights, or Trump’s “Total Authority,” Which Is It, Base?

States’ rights, or the president’s total authority over the states? Such a confusing choice for a Trump supporter. Traditionally, Republicans have loudly trumpeted “smaller government” and the rights of states to govern themselves in many matters, such as how they will legislate public assistance. But now, since Monday’s exceptionally unhinged Coronavirus Task Force briefing when Donald Trump stated that as president of the United States, he had full authority over the states, some Republicans will have to choose between their stance on states’ rights and their loyalty to Donald Trump.
Trump has talked about opening the country back up “very soon, maybe even before May 1.” Many governors, however, along with the country’s top public health experts, feel that May 1 is premature. Out of the desire to protect their constituents, these governors have taken it upon themselves to form regional coalitions to work around Trump and make their own decisions about how and when it’s safe to reopen the states.
When a reporter asked Trump to comment on this, Trump said, “When somebody’s president of the United States, the authority is total…That’s the way it’s got to to be. It’s total. It’s total. And the governors know that,” said Trump, further proclaiming that states “can’t do anything without the approval of the president.”
Vice President Mike Pence, when asked about the president’s claim, appeared to agree with it, saying he “support[s] the president’s leadership.”
In Ohio, Republican state Senate candidate Melissa Ackison said she agrees with Trump that as president, he has authority over the state governors regarding when to “open up the country” and lift restrictions on the economy.
As one of approximately 100 protesters against Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s handling of the coronavirus shutdown, Ackison said, “In a time where full-on unconstitutional tyranny is on display, the president is doing exactly what the patriots elected him to do, and I knew it was only a matter of time before he would flex his muscle and authority to save Ohio from unprecedented overreach.
“Patriots who love and respect our liberties and the Constitution are sick and tired of the fear-mongering while the governor and (state Health Director) Dr. (Amy) Acton continue to hide the numbers from the public.”
Governor DeWine has been nationally lauded for his early and aggressive response to the coronavirus pandemic. Not waiting on the federal government for direction, DeWine was the first governor to close down all state schools. He also took a number of other dramatic early measures, including closing bars, restaurants, and other non-essential businesses.
It’s ironic that Ackison should use the word “tyranny” to refer to DeWine’s protective actions, but not to Trump’s presumption of total authority over DeWine. It’s backwards that Ackison should evoke the Constitution in this context, since, as a number of constitutional scholars have been quick to point out, the Constitution does not give the president authority over the governors in this matter.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” says the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.
Incidentally, as they consider whether to vote for Melissa Ackison to represent them, Ohioans in District 26 would be wise to take note: It never turns out well to elect a politician who knows nothing about the Constitution.
On Tuesday, Trump was forced to walk back his declaration of total authority over the states, perhaps because someone pointed out that he had been wrong. He didn’t exactly retract his statement, though. Instead, he announced that he would give the states the authority to open up again. The following day, however, Trump had returned to his stance that he is indeed the one who “calls the shots” when it comes to the states.
Given that Trump thinks he does have this total authority, it should also be considered that as the Coronavirus pandemic ramped up in the U.S. and globally, state governors were pleading for help from the federal government for resources and equipment, including such items as personal protective equipment (PPE) and ventilators.
“Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — Try getting it yourselves. We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself, was Trumps response.
During another briefing, Trump said, “Federal government’s not supposed to be out there buying vast amounts of items and then shipping. We’re not a shipping clerk. Whatever the states can get, they should be getting…”
But as self-declared Supreme Leader, Trump wasn’t backing the states as they were forced to fend for themselves on the global market, the local markets, and even sometimes on eBay, bidding against each other for supplies and equipment.
The Trump administration not only downplayed many states’ dire shortages, but frequently outbid them in the marketplace and even reportedly seized some states’ shipments, keeping them for the national stockpile, which, according to the president’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner, “was supposed to be our stockpile, not the states’.
Though Trump likes to declare himself the all-powerful leader who is protected by the Constitution to do anything he wants, he only assumes the portion of the king’s role that has to do with absolute authority. With authority, however, comes responsibility. Though Trump likes to take credit (even when it’s not his due) for things that go well, he has consistently refused to take responsibility for his failures. He has also consistently refused to take responsibility for the protection and well-being of his constituents.
It seems perfectly fine to his unwavering base that Donald Trump should have the last word concerning state government. At the same time, it seems perfectly essential to them that the federal government should keep its hands off state government — except in matters that are important to Trump’s base.
Most Republicans are in fact appalled at Donald Trump’s recent declaration of total authority over the states, but they have remained silent. Those such as Ohio’s Ackison, however, will sooner or later have to choose between states’ rights—the smaller federal government they claim to be passionate about—and their willingness to be governed by a small man.

Trump puts onus on states amid coronavirus pandemic |
Washington Post [2020-04-10]

Coronavirus: President Trump, Governors Clash Over Authority To Reopen U.S. | NBC Nightly News [2020-04-14]

Editorial: Hydroxychloroquine Is Now a Partisan Topic

The first time the word “hydroxychloroquine” stumbled its way out of Donald Trump’s mouth during a daily White House Coronavirus Task Force briefing, viewers knew it was destined to become a partisan topic. Donald Trump’s continued hyping of hydroxychloroquine as a possible “miracle cure” despite the fact that the FDA has not yet approved it for treatment of COVID-19 has led his supporters, as usual, to disregard science and concrete evidence in favor of whatever Donald Trump says.
Those who challenge Trump’s promotion of the drug, also known as Plaquenil, by pointing out that we don’t have enough evidence yet, that we should tread carefully—that hydroxychloroquine is still in the trial stages for use in combatting COVID-19—are now met with hostility, labeled as partisan, and accused of wanting Trump to fail more than they want to see an effective treatment. Apparently, support or non-support of using the untested drug on coronavirus patients has become a test of one’s fealty to Donald Trump.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, the country’s top infectious disease expert, has repeatedly warned that there is no wide or definitive data to support the drug’s efficacy in treating COVID-19, but according to an April 6 report in Politico, “Behind the scenes, career health officials have raised even stronger warnings about the risk to some Americans’ heart health and other complications, but been warned not to publicly speak out and potentially contradict Trump.”
“What do you have to lose?” Trump has said, as he encourages the drug’s use. “It’s been out there for a long time. What do you have to lose? I hope they use it.”
In his characteristic manner of setting up an untruth in such a way that he can easily backpedal it later, if necessary, he has also said, “What do I know? I’m not a doctor, but I have common sense. The FDA feels good about it, as you know, they approved it.”
Donald Trump’s carefully placed “As you know, they approved it” refers to the FDA having approved hydroxychloroqine years ago as a drug for malaria, as well as for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. Trump knows that anyone who chooses to will understand it to mean that the FDA has approved it for use against the coronavirus.
The FDA has now authorized limited emergency use of Plaquenil for trial on certain COVID-19 patients, only. Medical experts warn, however, that the reported benefits of the drug for treating COVID-19 are anecdotal, and that very little scientific evidence exists yet to confirm its effectiveness. Not only should the drug not be pushed to the general public without thorough testing, it could cost the lives of some patients.
Does it make Trump supporters at all uneasy that their president is promoting a drug against the advice of the leading medical experts and scientists? Does it frighten them, even a little, that these leading scientists and medical experts are now being cautioned against disagreeing with the president, who is not a scientist or medical expert?
Apparently, the answer is no. Trump supporters not only ignore the disturbing scene of a president who repeatedly overrides the experts, they borrow from Trump’s false narrative to speak with authority about the drug’s benefits, as well as how “safe” it is to use.
As they have done with the topic of the coronavirus itself, Donald Trump’s supporters take their cues from him regarding what they see as fact and fallacy. The virus quickly became a partisan issue, and even now, it is often possible to guess who supports Donald Trump and who doesn’t by how they’re responding socially and logistically to the virus and the prevention of its spread.
Trump supporters’ unquestioning loyalty to Donald Trump, combined perhaps with an irrational desire for a miracle, has added the hydroxychloroquine topic to the list of other now-partisan topics that, were rational thought involved, should never be partisan issues.
Right-wing pundits such as Fox News’ Laura Ingraham have begun using their pulpits to promote hydroxychloroquine to their audiences, contributing to the partisanship surrounding it. Ingraham even went so far as to mock Dr. William Haseltine, a former professor at Harvard Medical School who has done groundbreaking research on HIV/AIDS, calling him a “quack” when he doubted the drug’s efficacy.
If at some point in the future, hydroxychloroquine does prove to be a “game changer” for treating COVID-19, we all win.
If, however, hydroxychloroquine proves to be ineffective, will world-class medical experts still have to tread lightly around Donald Trump with the evidence? Will scientific proof still be viewed with hostility as nothing more than the desire to “see Trump fail”? If we become sick with COVID-19 and the ER doctor is a Trump supporter, will he or she choose hydroxychloroquine for us over other, possibly better choices?

Trump grilled over continued promotion of hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus | Guardian News [2020-04-06]

Trump Adviser Navarro Clashes With Fauci Over Coronavirus Treatment Endorsed By President Trump | NBC News [2020-04–6]