By Michael Tanner
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Barrels of ink and countless hours of news time have been
devoted to President Trump’s casual embrace of unilateralism and
authoritarianism — with good cause. This is, after all, someone who says,
“Presidents can do whatever they want.” As president, he has now issued more
executive orders than Barack Obama, of the infamous “phone and a pen,” did over
the same period. He has asserted the power to redirect congressionally
appropriated funds, wage war, and ignore subpoenas.
Rhetorically, Democrats have loudly criticized this
latest iteration of the imperial presidency. Yet, out on the campaign trail,
the Democratic presidential aspirants have been quick to embrace a view of
almost unlimited presidential power.
We now shrug off the grandiose promises of candidates to
remake the economy, establish universal health care, and so on, as if Congress
had no say in the matter. But when the need to build a legislative consensus
does come up, the candidates simply promise to do it themselves.
Former vice president Joe Biden has criticized the use of
executive orders. However, his website clearly states, “On day one, Biden will
sign a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well
beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track.”
Elizabeth Warren has already promised more than a dozen
specific executive orders on issues ranging from immigration to worker
non-compete clauses, from banning fracking to “requir[ing] every federal agency
to incorporate diversity as part of their core strategic plan and create
support networks through a government-wide mentorship program that centers
Black and Brown employees.” And that doesn’t count all the executive orders she
plans to undo Trump’s executive orders, which were designed to undo Obama’s
executive orders, which were . . . you get the idea.
The other candidates are equally enamored of going it
alone. Bernie Sanders would ban cuts to pension benefits through executive
order, and Kamala Harris would impose a variety of gun-control measures. Julian
Castro would unilaterally impose a carbon tax. And on and on.
Some of these ideas might be good ones and could form the
basis for important legislative debates. But the American system of government
rejects the idea that the president is some sort of elected king. As James
Madison warned in Federalist No. 48, “An elective despotism was not the
government we fought for; but one in which the powers of government should be
so divided and balanced among the several bodies of magistracy as that no one
could transcend their legal limits without being effectually checked and
restrained by others.”
Article I of the Constitution says, “All legislative
powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States.” If
Congress has repeatedly abdicated that authority, it doesn’t change the fact
that, as Chief Justice Jackson wrote in the 1952 case of Youngstown Sheet
& Tube Company v. Sawyer, “In the framework of our Constitution, the
President’s power to see the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that
he is to be a lawmaker. . . . The Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal
about who shall make laws which the President is to execute.”
Even when candidates turn to Congress, their
authoritarian tendencies show through. Warren wants to eliminate the Senate
filibuster and, along with Harris and Buttigieg, is considering packing the
Supreme Court.
Nor do the candidate’s authoritarian impulses stop with
usurping the powers of Congress. They apparently also want to be the courts as
well. President Trump was rightly
criticized for leading chants of “Lock her [or him] up” about his political
rivals. But Democrats seem to have no end of people they want to lock up:
President Trump and members of his cabinet, of course, but also pharmaceutical
executives, insurance-company heads, gun manufacturers, and others that
Democrats disapprove of. Obviously, if crimes have been committed, the
perpetrators should be vigorously prosecuted. But there is something deeply
unsettling about presidential candidates opining on guilt or innocence.
Nothing seems too small a matter for presidential
oversight. Kamala Harris wants to censor Trump’s Twitter feed.
Presidential power has been increasing for decades. We’ve
reached the point where presidents can go to war, appropriate funds, impose
revenue measures, and far more, all without congressional approval. President
Trump is pushing the boundaries of presidential authority even further. Sadly,
though, Democratic complaints seem to boil down to Trump using that power for
policies that the Democrats disagree with. They are all too happy to grab that
power for their own purposes.
Unfortunately, this “might makes right” approach to
governing is unlikely to end well.
No comments:
Post a Comment