Dem
47
GOP
53
Several readers wrote in to suggest, under the circumstances, that we take another weekend off. Considered it, but distractions are very welcome right now.
K.E. in Newport, RI, asks: The Iran War began over a month ago and there has still been no congressional debate and vote for it. When are the American public and its elected representatives actually going to get to have a debate over this war? We couldn't question things before the war because it was launched without notifying Congress or the public. And now we can't question things because we are told that's supportive of Iran and hurting the morale of the armed forces.
Is it unrealistic to expect a debate to happen before this war is over?(Z) answers: I don't know that I would say it is "unreasonable," but I also would not hold my breath if I were you.
There are two issues here. The first is that everything that happens in Congress right now is controlled by the Republicans. A Republican leads each chamber, a Republican chairs every committee. By and large, they are not eager to displease Donald Trump by appearing to question his authority or his decisions.
The second is that the members of Congress, in both parties, learned long ago that wars are generally political poison. The legislature has not actually exercised its constitutional right and duty to declare war since 1942. In every conflict since then, the buck has been passed to the president, usually through an authorization to use force, or by just looking the other way. Trump is taking 100% ownership of Iran right now, and given how toxic the war is, the members of Congress are happy for it to remain that way. If they were to start debating, or doing anything else, it might suggest to voters that Congress shares part of the responsibility. This is not a line of thinking that the members want to encourage.
A.K. in Chicago, IL, asks: My question is simple: If the U.S. is energy and oil self-sufficient, but oil prices are rising globally, why wouldn't the president effectively nationalize U.S.-based oil, or declare some sort of price emergency, and cap the amount that U.S.-owned oil companies can charge to U.S. consumers? Or we could flip the script and ask why don't the Democrats propose just this and make a big public push? Why is this not on the table from anyone in the government, right or left?
(Z) answers: If Trump wasn't bought and paid for by Big Oil, this is the kind of "simple" solution he might well pursue. But it's not actually simple at all.
The fundamental issue is that oil is difficult to transport over long distances. Pipelines are expensive, eco-unfriendly, and politically unpopular. Trucks are inefficient. Boats work in some contexts, but not for interior states, and are also limited in their viability by the provisions of the Merchant Marine Act of 1920.
One implication of all of this is that it is more efficient and profitable to import and export oil to places that are reasonably close by. It makes much more sense for Alaska to send its oil to Asia than to New York. It makes much more sense for New York to get its oil from Canada than from Alaska.
This leads to a second problem. The refineries in various regions are set up to process different kinds of crude oil. Broadly speaking, northerly refineries are set up for light sweet crude, which is what Canada and the mountain states tend to produce. Southerly refineries are set up for heavy sour crude, which is what the Gulf States and Mexico tend to produce. It is not easy to convert a refinery from one type to another, and would take a very long time and a lot of money to accomplish.
So, if a Congress and a president were to decide that American oil needs to remain in America, and the U.S. needs to be independent of other nations on the oil front, then it would be doable, but over something like a decade-long timeframe. It would also infuriate Big Oil, would be bad for the environment, would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and would permanently increase gas and oil prices. It is not a solution to the current pressures created by the Iran War.
R.S. in Cupertino, CA, asks: Donald Trump apparently is saying he may withdraw from NATO. Since NATO has the word "treaty" in its name, that would indicate that it was a treaty approved by the Senate. Can the president unilaterally withdraw from a treaty without approval from the Senate? Is there some provision that gives withdrawal authority to the president?
(Z) answers: The Constitution is very clear on who has the power to approve a treaty (the Senate). It is silent on who has the power to withdraw from a treaty.
Foreseeing that Trump (or some Trump-like president) might again achieve power, and that such a development might put NATO at risk, the Democrats (with some Republican support) put a passage into the 2024 National Defense Authorization Act that prevents any president from withdrawing from NATO, except with the vote of a two-thirds majority in the Senate, or an act of Congress.
Should Trump decide he wants to withdraw from NATO, he would therefore have two options. The first is to file a lawsuit and try to get the Supreme Court to declare that limitation unconstitutional.
The second is to persuade Congress to exercise the authority it granted itself. The two-thirds scenario would require at least 14 Democratic and/or independent votes, and probably more than that, since some Republican members of the Senate—Mitch McConnell (KY), Lisa Murkowski (AK)—are big fans of NATO. The act of Congress scenario would require that a bill get through the House (possible, maybe) and then would require at least 7 Democratic and/or independent votes in the Senate, and probably more than that, since such a bill would be filibusterable.
The two Congress options are not too likely. So, it would have to be the courts. And even there, the courts are not terribly likely to find that the founders intended to give the Senate absolute control over approving treaties, but no control over breaking them.
B.S. in Phoenix, AZ, asks: Was I the only one who noticed Donald Trump breathing heavily during his speech? Has there been any talk of what might be going on with him?
(Z) answers: We noticed, and others did too. However, the Trump health stories have reached a sort of stasis. He's clearly got significant health problems, and they appear to be far beyond the normal health issues faced by someone who is pushing 80. He's also got no intention of sharing information about his health (unless it's false information), and there is zero chance that anyone in this administration is going to try to invoke the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. So, Trump's health will not really be a story again until there is some major crisis (he has a heart attack on live TV or something like that) or he dies.
F.D. in St Paul, MN, asks: What are the chances that there are 218 moderate Democrats and swing-district Republicans (plus Thomas Massie) to put together a reconciliation bill to pass the Senate DHS without ICE/CPB funding bill?
(Z) answers: I think you probably mean a discharge petition that would bring the already-Senate-passed DHS bill to the floor of the House for a vote. There is a non-zero chance of this happening, though nobody's talking about it. Usually, if the votes are there, or are close to being there, someone like Massie will threaten a discharge petition to warn Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) he better bring the legislation to the floor or else end up with egg on his face.
If you did mean a reconciliation bill, it is very improbable that a measure primarily backed by House Democrats would make it through the Senate or would get Donald Trump's signature.
D.B. from New York City, NY, asks: Let's assume the Republicans attempt a Reconciliation Bill that includes the SAVE Act (and possibly other non-budget related items). Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough then, as expected, strips the bill of these items. What is to stop Republicans from just ignoring her ruling and forging ahead anyway and including these items in the bill? Who enforces the rulings of the Parliamentarian?
(Z) answers: The Parliamentarian is a check on the power of the majority, very much like the filibuster. The majority can overrule the Parliamentarian if they wish, just as they can kill the filibuster, if they wish. However, they do not do so, because the majority knows that one day they will be in the minority, and will want those checks to be available to them.
If Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) and his colleagues decide to overrule MacDonough, they might just as well kill the filibuster, too. Either decision would give the Democrats an engraved invitation to enact a long list of priorities as soon as they have the trifecta again.
K.H. in Scotch Plains, NJ, asks: What did you think of CPAC this year? It seems to me there was a damper on the spirits of the attendees due to what has happened over the past year, and that a lot fewer had the same levels of enthusiasm that categorizes the conference, and that it was basically a greatest hits of fawning to the Dear Leader. I actually saw a clip on "The Daily Show" where someone asked who was in favor of impeachment, more than a few people cheered, and the original inquirer thundered "wrong answer!"
M.G. in Boulder, CO, asks: According to Aaron Parnas on Substack, Matt Schlapp tried to energize the CPAC crowd by asking, "How many of you would like to see impeachment hearings?" and was met with cheers. He quickly responded, "That was the wrong answer," revealing a disconnect between expectations and the audience's reaction.
If this was the reception at CPAC, that means that the current administration is unpopular with...almost everyone in the world, which means that the next administration will have some major bridge-building to do. The chances that the US may commemorate the beginning of our 251st year by impeaching and convicting a would-be king grow greater by the day. Since a Trump-enabler is not likely to be welcomed in Trump's place, the next president may be an appointed caretaker. In this situation, what are the qualifications the appointers should be looking for?(Z) answers: CPAC is basically a pep rally for right-wingers. There are some pretty serious fractures on the right at the moment, thanks to the Iran War. And anyone who follows politics enough to attend CPAC also follows politics enough to know that the midterm omens are not good for the GOP. The attendees definitely seemed more restrained, and I am not surprised by that.
I don't think the "impeachment" thing was particularly meaningful. Schlapp made a stupid error; when you do a call-and-response with a crowd, they are primed to give a response, not a non-response. He could have said almost anything and there would have been cheers. It's also possible that some of them are weak enough on their civics that they thought he was talking about impeaching Democrats. I suppose there may be a few CPAC attendees who would like to see Donald Trump impeached, but they would be very unusual people. That would be like going to a Greenpeace conference and cheering for more fracking.
M.M. in Potomac, MD, asks: What does a politician have to do to "endorse" a candidate? Does he or she formally use the words "I endorse" and issue a press release? Or can it be more vague, like answering a reporter's question saying "I support [X]'s candidacy" or "I really like what [Y] has to offer"? And how does Electoral-Vote.com or any of the media actually track who's endorsed or hasn't (yet) endorsed whom? There's probably enough reporting around the President to trawl through media reports, but after that it must get tricky.
(Z) answers: It's usually very clear, with no guesswork involved, and the word "endorse" or "endorsement" is almost always utilized.
There are two primary ways in which endorsements are made known to the world. First, a candidate may go and collect endorsements, which they will then post to their webpage, incorporate into their ads, mention in interviews, etc. Second, if a person or organization is trying to flex their political muscle, they will make a point of announcing their endorsements. Donald Trump, for example, always announces his on his poorly trafficked social media platform (and he, or someone working for him, usually posts several dozen endorsements in a row). Here's an example from a couple of weeks ago; it was included in 20 other endorsements posted that day:
Similarly, organizations like labor unions tend to send out mailers with their endorsements.
To check a candidate's endorsements, it is easiest to go to their webpage; there is pretty much always an "endorsements" tab. Wikipedia, VoteHub and Ballotpedia also track endorsements, but the lower on the ladder you go, the more likely their lists will be incomplete.
I.S. in Cap Ferret, France, asks: Both of you wrote several times since the pandemic that much of the anti-vaccination movement from politicians in the United States is not genuine. People like Donald Trump and Robert Kennedy Jr. have pushed anti-vaccination sentiments publicly, but it doesn't reflect their true positions. In fact, the Kennedy Family says Kennedy's kids are all vaccinated, but he doesn't discuss this publicly. This is political posturing designed to incite anti-medical paranoia in the United States and benefit from that paranoia.
Do you think the current anti-trans movement from politicians in the United States is genuine or is it mostly posturing?(Z) answers: As with abortion, I think there are some politicians who are very anti-trans, others who are vaguely anti-trans, and still others who don't care but pretend to be anti-trans.
With vaccinations, there are risks to "living up" to one's anti-vaxx position, and so we're left with proof that the person is full of hot air when they or their kids get vaccines. Being anti-trans doesn't work like that, unless the person happens to have a kid who is trans. So it's far harder to be sure which politicians really mean it, and which politicians are just faking it.
S.S.L. in Battle Creek, MI, asks: I had no idea Trump had a spiritual advisor (or a spirit). Does every American president have such a person? How long has this individual known Trump? Do they appear to recognize that he finds religion absurd?
(Z) answers: It is wise for a president to build bridges to as many "interest" communities as is possible. And there are some people who simply will not vote for a president who is irreligious, which is why they've all pretended to be Christians of some sort, whether or not that was really true. Add it up, and for a long time, presidents have made a point of having one or more "spiritual advisors."
The most famous of these was Billy Graham, who had a lot of influence among evangelicals, and so basically appointed himself as spiritual advisor to every president from Franklin D. Roosevelt through Barack Obama. Some presidents welcomed his counsel, while others did not. Harry S. Truman, in particular, loathed Graham.
Among recent presidents, George W. Bush favored Kirbyjon Caldwell, who was a liaison to both the faith community and the Black community. Bush also talked regularly to other Christian leaders, including Graham. Barack Obama's most important spiritual advisor appears to have been Joshua DuBois, who was in contact with Obama daily during his presidency. Joe Biden, who was obviously Catholic and had less need to "prove" himself, put his faith in Melissa Rogers, who is a lawyer and a scholar with a focus on religious liberty, and who does not lead a congregation.
Trump's spiritual advisor, Paula White-Cain, has pretty much the exact biography you would expect. She has no degree in divinity or ministry, did not go to seminary, and is not ordained. She and her ex-husband simply proclaimed they were starting a church, and built it into a large and profitable concern, thanks to televangelism. She is an adherent of both charismatic Christianity and of prosperity gospel, two movements that many Christians view with suspicion or disdain. Trump first saw White-Cain on TV, and liked her presence, as well as her argument that having wealth is a sign that God loves you.
I don't know what Paula White-Cain truly believes in her heart of hearts, but she is clearly someone who thinks religious doctrine is a "pick and choose" kind of thing, where you adopt or alter the tenets you like, and ignore the ones that you don't like. So, she presumably has no concerns about Trump, who takes the same approach. He doesn't want to read the Bible, say, or go to services, or abide by the Ten Commandments, but he loves the idea that the success of $TRUMP bitcoin is a sign of God's approval.
R.C. in Des Moines, IA, asks: Now that Trump has cashiered Kristi Noem and Pam Bondi for disappointing their Dear Leader in various ways, and with Pete Hegseth seemingly on the clock, what do you think Stephen Miller would have to do to be cast aside?
(Z) answers: I don't think that has any reasonable chance of happening. Having navigated at least 10 years as a Trump insider, he clearly knows how to dodge landmines much better than Noem or Bondi did. And he's not generally a public-facing person, so he's not likely to embarrass Trump in front of the press, or Congress.
S.P. in Harrisburg, PA, asks: Suppose the Democrats take the Senate this November. What is the likelihood that if a Supreme Court justice (specifically Samuel Alito or Clarence Thomas) retires on November 4, and is replaced in the lame duck session, while the Republicans still have the majority? Perhaps a shady move by Trump and the Republicans, but would this be possible?
(Z) answers: It is certainly possible. Until fairly recently, it was common for justices to be nominated by the president and approved by the Senate on the same day.
There is even a recent precedent for ramming a justice through under these basic circumstances. Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020. Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett as her replacement on September 26. Barrett was confirmed on October 26. That's 30 days after the nomination was made and 38 days after the seat came open. And while the 2020 elections weren't over by that time, they had most certainly started, in the form of early voting and mail-in ballots.
If Alito or Thomas were to retire on November 4 of this year, you can bet good money that Senate Republicans will find a way to get a replacement approved by sometime in December, if not sooner.
J.L. in Baltimore, MD, asks: While browsing through the Constitution (thinking about birthright citizenship) I came upon the Ninth Amendment, which I don't think I've ever heard discussed. Has there ever been a court case based on that amendment? It's so broad it seems to cover many issues.
(Z) answers: The Ninth Amendment involved a politician and lawyer, namely James Madison, trying to anticipate the kinds of tricks that other politicians and lawyers might try to pull. What it says, in brief, is that the list of rights conveyed by the Bill of Rights is not exhaustive, and the absence of a right does not imply that people do not have it.
This raises something of a legal question, namely: "If a right is not explicitly forbidden, does that mean that people have that right?" There was some very early jurisprudence on this point, in which the Supreme Court said "No, it does not mean that." In the twentieth century, there were some attempts to change this interpretation. Most famously, in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurrence that argued that the Ninth Amendment implies a right to privacy. Earl Warren and William Brennan joined in that concurrence, which makes it interesting reading for law students, but not binding.
The majority of states have their own version of the Ninth Amendment, and in some of those cases, the state courts have interpreted the state-level version of the Amendment as conveying rights not otherwise expressed in state law. But at the federal level, the impact of the Ninth is fairly muted.
J.W. in Ummendorf, Germany, asks: In this interview on Twitter, Steve Bannon says that there are five or six "alternatives" to enable a constitutional third term for Donald Trump, and he suggests that he expects nearly all of them to succeed.
What "alternatives" could he be referring to, and how court-proof would you assess them to be?(Z) answers: Here's a list that surely overlaps quite a bit with Steve Bannon's:
- Pass a constitutional amendment canceling term limits for presidents.
- Get the courts to declare that the two-term limit only applies to consecutive terms.
- Get elected as VP (which the courts would have to sign off on), then cause the elected president to resign.
- Get elected as Speaker of the House, then cause the elected president and VP to resign.
- Get a figurehead elected as president, then tell him what to do, kind of like Pa and Ma Ferguson in Texas in the 1920s and 1930s.
- Find an excuse, like a war, to try to postpone the presidential election.
I think that Bannon is delusional, and that few of these would pass muster with the courts or with the American people. The only one that is very likely legal is the the speaker's route. A Republican-controlled House could elect Donald Trump speaker on Jan. 3, 2029, but getting the president and vice president to resign would not be easy, especially if J.D. holds either position. If the Republicans nominate a ticket of Don Jr. and Ivanka, then watch out.
K.H. in Albuquerque, NM, asks: A recent news item states that Texas is considering annexing two southeast counties of New Mexico. Is this even possible, legal, or constitutional?
Even if it is feasible, if it requires the concurrence of both states, it ain't gonna happen. New Mexico gets much of its revenue from oil and gas leases on state land in that part of the Permian Basin.(Z) answers: It is legal if both state governments, and Congress, sign off on it.
What that means, as you point out, is that it's not going to happen. There have been hundreds and hundreds of efforts like this in American history, and they never go anywhere. Texas might want those counties, but New Mexico does not want to give them up, and Congress does not want to imply that county-swapping is an accepted practice. That means that only one of three necessary "yes" votes are there.
N.G. in Clarkston, MI, asks: I recently visited a local museum and there was an exhibit based on Leonardo Da Vinci and his inventions, paintings, ideas, etc. There was a video about the "Golden Ratio" and how it is applied in nature, math and his paintings. It was a short video and didn't go into very much detail. Can you please explain what the "Golden Ratio" is and how it applies to nature, math, and his paintings?
(Z) answers: The Golden Ratio, which acquired that name in Da Vinci's time, but was known almost 2,000 years before that, describes a relationship between lines or shapes that is ostensibly pleasing to the eye. The actual calculation is a little complicated, but it works out to a ratio of 1:1.618. So, if you have a rectangle that is 1" on the short sides, and 1.618" on the long sides, then it is consistent with the Golden Ratio. This is also true if you place a small square (or other shape) next to a larger square (or other shape) that is 1.618 times larger.
People in Da Vinci's time interpreted the existence of the Golden Ratio as a sign that God had designed the universe. So, they not only sought out exemplars, they often attempted to incorporate it into their work. For example, in the Mona Lisa, the head and the torso are in a 1:1.618 ratio. In Vitruvian Man, the head and torso are the 1, and the rest of the body is the 1.618.
The notion that the Golden Ratio is especially meaningful to the human eye and the human mind is hotly disputed by modern scientists.
S.R.J. in Nevada City, CA, asks: In 1960, President John F. Kennedy nominated his brother, Robert F. Kennedy, to serve as Attorney General. The Senate confirmed the nomination nearly unanimously in January 1961. Was the nomination of the President's brother controversial at the time? How did the level of controversy in 1961 compare to the level of controversy associated with Trump's appointments of Jeff Sessions, Pam Bondi or Bill Barr?
(Z) answers: It was very controversial at the time, for two reasons. First, Bobby had virtually no experience as a lawyer, and was definitely under-qualified for the job. Second, nepotism. The New York Times, to take one example among many, editorialized: "It is simply not good enough to name a bright young political manager, no matter how bright or how young or how personally loyal, to a major post in government." The pick was also widely disdained by Washington insiders, particularly Lyndon B. Johnson, who hated nepotism in general and who hated RFK in particular.
I don't think it's possible to compare RFK directly to the Trump sycophants, because the issues were different. Nobody doubted that Sessions, Bondi and Barr had legitimate experience as lawyers and as administrators. And obviously, none of them are related to Trump. The issue with them was the (correct) suspicion that they would not maintain the independence of the Department of Justice, and would be willing to tote Trump's water. An additional problem with Sessions is that he was and is a racist.
J.C. in Fez, Morocco, asks: You wrote that Joe Biden was almost certainly the most humane President in the last half century. More than Jimmy Carter?
(Z) answers: Carter is the other contender, but I was thinking about foreign policy, in particular. Biden stopped a war, Carter did not. Carter engaged in a fair bit of black-ops-type stuff, like arming rebels in Afghanistan, and trying to reclaim the Iran hostages by force. Biden largely did not indulge in such things, as far as we know. For these reasons, I gave the nod to Biden. Though I did consider writing it as "the last 45 years," so as to exclude Carter.
J.L. in Chapel Hill, NC, asks: Regarding your (long) list of players who could be considered for Major League Baseball's top 10 players all-time, I was intrigued that you didn't include Yogi Berra. There was a documentary on him on Netflix that I saw a while ago. It made an argument that he should be considered one of the greatest of all time. As a person who knows little about baseball, I found it largely persuasive. (One claim I was a little leery of was that he should be given equal credit for a no hitter at the World Series, because he called all the pitches.) Did you see the documentary? What is your take on Berra? His list of accomplishments and stats seems pretty impressive. Why is he not worth listing among the "contenders for those [last 3] spots"?
(Z) answers: "One of the greatest of all time" is pretty fuzzy, and generally includes a far greater number of players than something like "Top 10, all-time." I can agree he is "one of the greatest," but he's not Top 10, and he's not terribly close.
The biggest, brightest, shiniest item on Berra's resume is that he was on 10 World Series-winning teams, which is more than any other player in baseball history. He also has 3 MVP awards, which puts him in a club with 10 other 3-time MVPs, and means he only trails Shohei Ohtani (4) and Barry Bonds (7).
However, both of these things are substantially due to the fact that Berra had the good fortune to play for the New York Yankees, and in a dynastic period for that team. Certainly he did contribute substantially to those titles, though giving him credit for calling pitches during a no hitter (or a World Series victory of any sort) is a pretty obvious attempt to give him undue credit. It is at least 90% on the pitcher, especially since the pitcher shakes off any pitch they don't agree with. Put another way, I could call the pitches for a Major League game, and could do a pretty good job. AI could do it, too. But neither I, nor AI, can actually throw those pitches. Only the pitcher can.
If we imagine a world in which Berra spends his entire career with, say, the Detroit Tigers, then he probably ends up with one WS or none, and maybe one MVP or none. Meanwhile, the Yankees probably win most or all of the 10 WS they actually did win. One player just can't make that much of a difference, unless they happen to be a star pitcher who pitches 2-3 dominant games in the same Series.
Considering only Berra's production, and not his accolades, he had 2,150 hits, 358 home runs, a career batting average of .285 and 59.5 career WAR. That is very good, but it's not as good as Johnny Bench (75.2 career WAR), who was also a key cog in a baseball dynasty and was himself a 2-time MVP. Berra also does not outrank Josh Gibson of the Negro Leagues. The Yog is certainly a Top 10 catcher of all time, probably Top 5, and maybe even as high as #3. But while that's enough to be "one of the greatest of all time" it's not enough to be Top 10 all-time.
D.S. in Cleveland Heights, OH, asks: Two names not mentioned on your list of greatest baseball players that I'm a bit curious why not included in the discussion: Frank Robinson and Roberto Clemente.
(Z) answers: That answer was already VERY long, and at some point I had to cut it off. We did get some letters about Robinson from readers, though.
In any event, it's pretty simple. Robinson and Clemente were primarily outfielders. There are eight outfielders, namely Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds, Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Ty Cobb, Stan Musial, Tris Speaker and Ted Williams, who clearly outrank them. So, unless the Top 10 in baseball history were ALL outfielders, then Robinson and Clemente don't make the list. And that's before considering that there are a bunch more outfielders who are at about their level—Mickey Mantle, Rickey Henderson and Mel Ott.
Robinson gets extra credit for breaking the color line for managers, and Clemente gets extra credit for easing the path for Latin players. But not enough extra credit to make up for the gap in production, in my view. Both players are Top 50, and maybe Top 25, but not Top 10.
M.W.O. in Syracuse, NY, asks: A question for the baseball maven. This is really just a fantasy question... but what's the greatest all-time line up, does Willie Mays fit in, and would your first pick be Shohei Ohtani?
(Z) answers: Here is my all-time line-up:
C — Johnny Bench
1B — Lou Gehrig
2B — Joe Morgan
SS — Honus Wagner
3B — Mike Schmidt
RF — Babe Ruth
CF — Willie Mays
LF — Barry Bonds
DH — Henry Aaron
SP — Roger Clemens
SP — Walter Johnson
SP — Randy Johnson
SP — Pedro Martinez
SP — Warren Spahn
RP — Mariano Rivera
I am using the DH slot to squeeze one more all-time great in there; Aaron was only a DH for a small portion of his career.
Shohei Ohtani does not make the list, because he's nowhere near the greatest right-fielder of all time, and he's nowhere near a Top 5 pitcher of all-time. Your question somewhat mixes metaphors, since you don't really "draft" an all-time team, and since there largely aren't bonus points for "bonus skills." If the question was, "Imagine you are drafting a team, and you have every player who ever played available to you, when would you draft Ohtani?" then he would move up the list a fair bit, because in that circumstance his dual skills would be valuable. Still, he would not go #1 overall. It is important to appreciate how incredibly valuable Babe Ruth, Barry Bonds and a few other all-time greats really were. For example, at the moment, Ruth's career production was equal to more than three Ohtanis.
Note that we were going to address the greatest NHL players of all time this week, but there's still a lot of baseball talk. So, we'll do hockey next week.