Global   US   France   Germany   Spain   Brazil   Poland   Rusia   Netherlands   Australia   Canada   China   UK   Taiwan   Hongkong   Austria   Mexico   Turkey   Italy   Portugal   Sweden   Japan   Switzerland   Argentina   Korea   Indonesia   Philipine   Norway   India   Israel   Grrek   Thai  

politics - News Reader PRO

Netanyahu can’t form a government. Here’s what’s next for Israeli politics

If he wants to become Israel’s next prime minister, Gantz must now enter negotiations with some very unlikely coalition partners or persuade the ruling Likud party to drop its longtime leader. 

Little appetite for compromise

President Reuven Rivlin, who in the coming days will hand the mandate for forming the next government to Gantz, has called on Netanyahu’s Likud and Gantz’s Blue and White parties to put aside their differences and join in a unity government. He even sketched out a plan for them to alternate being prime minister.

But the sides have remained steadfast in their terms. Netanyahu insists on including a bloc of right-wing and ultra-Orthodox parties in any future government. Gantz, who has refused to negotiate with a preestablished political alliance, has called on Likud to move forward alone.

Gantz has also made clear his reluctance to join a government led by a prime minister facing legal prosecution — a situation Netanyahu could find himself in next month, as Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit decides whether to indict him in three criminal cases centered on fraud, bribery and breach of trust. 

While the barriers seem insurmountable, Gantz is determined, and in such an unprecedented political situation some surprising and unlikely scenarios could arise. 

Possible — if unlikely — scenarios

Blue and White could try to establish a minority government, bolstered by two very small left-wing parties and backed by factions who remain outside the coalition.

Such support would need to come from the Joint List of Arab parties, who in a historic decision last month decided to recommend Gantz as prime minister.

The party led by hard-line former defense minister Avigdor Liberman would also need to be on board. A former political ally of Netanyahu, Liberman has refrained from aligning himself with either Likud or Blue and White, stating his preference is for the two largest parties to unite. 

Other possibilities could include a move inside Likud to remove Netanyahu as the leader. Although there have been some hints at a leadership race, the technicalities of such a change appear inconceivable at this stage. 

Of course, Gantz could, for some unforeseen reason, decide to join with Netanyahu despite the possible indictments and allow him to remain prime minister. Or some of Netanyahu’s right-wing, religious bloc could decide to join with Gantz. It’s also possible Liberman might even decide to throw his support behind Netanyahu. 

With none of those scenarios likely, there is increasing speculation among political pundits that Israelis will be sent back to the polling booths for a third election in less than a year.

Key days over the next six months

Oct. 23-24 — At some point on Wednesday or Thursday, Rivlin will invite Gantz to his official residence in Jerusalem and bestow upon him the mandate to try forming the next government. For many Israelis the imagery will be jarring as for the first time in nearly 11 years a candidate other than Netanyahu will, at least, have the opportunity to become the country’s next prime minister. 

Nov. 20-21 — Gantz will have a maximum of 28 days to persuade at least 61 Knesset members to back his bid for prime minister and join a coalition with his Blue and White party at the helm. Though it appears unlikely he can draw such support, any one of the scenarios outlined above could play out. If he is unsuccessful, however, he too must return the mandate to the president. 

Dec. 10-11 — The president will then turn to the Knesset, giving its members 21 days to find an alternative candidate for prime minister. Both Netanyahu or Gantz could try their luck again, or a third parliamentarian could try, but any contender would again need the backing of at least 61 Knesset members. 

March — If no single candidate is successful in forming a government, parliament will automatically be dissolved and a third election will take place within 90 days. 

Source: Netanyahu can’t form a government. Here’s what’s next for Israeli politics

Separation of powers requires impeachment's separation from politics

House Democrats are taking a politically obvious, but constitutionally oblivious, approach to impeachment. Make no mistake, they are perfectly within their rights to proceed; however, how they proceed is crucial to preserving the importance of this monumental undertaking. As the framers knew, impeachment uniquely violates the separation of powers upon which the Constitution rests. An act of such magnitude demands full admission to the people and explicit imprimatur from their representatives, the House of Representatives, to proceed. 

Despite having begun de facto impeachment inquiries in several committees several months ago, Democrats have yet to take the formal step of a House vote to begin the official process. House Democrats recently reaffirmed that decision. The reason is clear: It would be bad politics for vulnerable Democrats – especially those in Trump districts – and leaders know this. 

Currently, Democrats can generate headlines without political headaches. Their approach as selective detectives – partial revelation without full responsibility – offers reward without risk. The problem is that while it makes for good politics, it is bad for the Constitution. 


How divergent this political approach is from the constitutional one taken by the framers is clear from a review of the 1787 Convention. The framers went to great lengths to circumscribe our government’s reach. Their framework, our Constitution, is remarkably brief because the government was not intended to be expansive. 

Even when power is allocated to the government, it is further checked by a separation. Descriptions of the Convention’s debates over the of separation of legislative, executive and judicial functions demonstrates the seriousness and length the framers went to achieve this. 

Amidst this circumscription and separation of power stands the anomaly of impeachment. Matching its overall brevity, the Constitution is similarly laconic on impeachment. 

What makes impeachment stand out is its unique contradiction of the separation of power. During the Convention, James Madison recorded Virginia’s elder statesman George Mason’s seriousness: “No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued.” The legislative branch alone has the power to remove members of the other two branches. 

The process of this removal is equally telling of the framers’ intent to incorporate the powers into this abridgment of their separation. The process begins with the people’s direct representatives, the House, which passes articles of impeachment. It moves to the states’ representatives, the Senate (which was originally elected by the state legislatures and still retains equal state representation). The Senate serves as jury, with the Supreme Court’s chief justice presiding over the trial, and cannot convict the president without two-thirds voting for it. 


Despite this meticulous incorporation of all powers, impeachment cannot alter its contradiction. It remains a removal of the executive by the legislative presided over by the judicial. Impeachment is nothing short of an awesome, contradictory and ultimate power under our Constitution. 

Putting impeachment in its true constitutional context illustrates why the House must formally vote to begin it. The House votes on everything. It cannot so much as name a post office without a vote. If the House cannot transact the most trivial of business without a vote, how is it to be presumed it could undertake the most portentous business the Constitution permits? 

Without a vote, the question arises by what authority the House acts on this the most authoritative of business. The framers knew well when they included this ultimate lever that the carefully crafted separation of powers could also yield an impasse, whereby the powers could reach crisis and an inability to function. An ability to override this separation was included and given to the legislative branch to resolve this. 

This most monumental of powers was given to the legislature for a reason. It’s a power that could as easily have been placed at the disposal of the other two branches. But the idea was that the people were to hold that power through their representatives in Congress. They were to initiate it and determine its outcome. Such a careful procedure for so momentous a step demands deliberate action concurred in by the full will of the House to begin.

House Democratic leaders’ desire not to hold a vote to initiate impeachment proceedings is politically understandable. The problem is that it makes it no less constitutionally untenable. The Constitution’s separation of powers demands impeachment’s separation from politics.

J.T. Young served under President George W. Bush as the director of communications in the Office of Management and Budget and as deputy assistant secretary in legislative affairs for tax and budget at the Treasury Department. He served as a congressional staffer from 1987-2000. 

Source: Separation of powers requires impeachment's separation from politics

Netanyahu loses grip on Israeli politics after a decade


Duration: 01:11 23 hrs ago






For the second time this year, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has failed to form a government, opening the door for his main rival Benny Gantz to do so.

More From CNN

Source: Netanyahu loses grip on Israeli politics after a decade

News Reader Pro Powered by. Full RSS | Disclaimer | Contact Us