Trump's use of executive power

[TexasTiger 12,846]

The attorney that advised Bush on his broad use of executive power is troubled by Trump's approach to it. What are its limits? What should the congressional role be? Where do you draw the line?

I don't think Trump really understands the Constitutional division of powers. I think he sees the government as his business.

"As an official in the Justice Department, I followed in Hamilton’s footsteps, advising that President George W. Bush could take vigorous, perhaps extreme, measures to protect the nation after the Sept. 11 attacks, including invading Afghanistan, opening the Guantánamo detention center and conducting military trials and enhanced interrogation of terrorist leaders. Likewise, I supported President Barack Obama when he drew on this source of constitutional power for drone attacks and foreign electronic surveillance.

 

But even I have grave concerns about Mr. Trump’s uses of presidential power.

During the campaign, Mr. Trump gave little sign that he understood the constitutional roles of the three branches, as when he promised to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would investigate Hillary Clinton. (Judge Neil M. Gorsuch will not see this as part of his job description.) In his Inaugural Address, Mr. Trump did not acknowledge that his highest responsibility, as demanded by his oath of office, is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Instead, he declared his duty to represent the wishes of the people and end “American carnage,” seemingly without any constitutional restraint."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/opinion/executive-power-run-amok.html?_r=0&referer=

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

You may be correct but this is the same thing people on the right accused Obama of doing. Over time the Executive branch has usurped the powers of the legislative branch. The court should have ruled on some of the abuses but by letting it go they have indirectly approved it.  I complained when Obama tried to do the right thing with the children of illegal immigrants who came here when they were young. I believed that what Obama tried to do was correct but I said at the time he was wrong in trying to do it via executive order that contradicted what the legislative body had set.  In this case because a lower court ruled against Obama and it split 3-3 on Supreme Court this one instance was stopped.

It is funny that so many people who approved of Obama using executive orders now say it is wrong. Executive orders have a purpose but that purpose is not to legislate. So far whether you like Trump or not I don't believe any of his executive orders have actually tried to change what was written in Law. Please continue to criticize his poorly crafted orders that were poorly thought out and poorly implemented. I totally approve of bringing them to the courts for rulings as to whether they are legal.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

6 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

You may be correct but this is the same thing people on the right accused Obama of doing. Over time the Executive branch has usurped the powers of the legislative branch. The court should have ruled on some of the abuses but by letting it go they have indirectly approved it.  I complained when Obama tried to do the right thing with the children of illegal immigrants who came here when they were young. I believed that what Obama tried to do was correct but I said at the time he was wrong in trying to do it via executive order that contradicted what the legislative body had set.  In this case because a lower court ruled against Obama and it split 3-3 on Supreme Court this one instance was stopped.

It is funny that so many people who approved of Obama using executive orders now say it is wrong. Executive orders have a purpose but that purpose is not to legislate. So far whether you like Trump or not I don't believe any of his executive orders have actually tried to change what was written in Law. Please continue to criticize his poorly crafted orders that were poorly thought out and poorly implemented. I totally approve of bringing them to the courts for rulings as to whether they are legal.

What is the purpose of an executive order?

[TexasTiger 12,846]

8 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

You may be correct but this is the same thing people on the right accused Obama of doing. Over time the Executive branch has usurped the powers of the legislative branch. The court should have ruled on some of the abuses but by letting it go they have indirectly approved it.  I complained when Obama tried to do the right thing with the children of illegal immigrants who came here when they were young. I believed that what Obama tried to do was correct but I said at the time he was wrong in trying to do it via executive order that contradicted what the legislative body had set.  In this case because a lower court ruled against Obama and it split 3-3 on Supreme Court this one instance was stopped.

It is funny that so many people who approved of Obama using executive orders now say it is wrong. Executive orders have a purpose but that purpose is not to legislate. So far whether you like Trump or not I don't believe any of his executive orders have actually tried to change what was written in Law. Please continue to criticize his poorly crafted orders that were poorly thought out and poorly implemented. I totally approve of bringing them to the courts for rulings as to whether they are legal.

Trump has congress and should be able to pass most of what he wants. Obama was totally thwarted-- still, the Republican congress could have passed laws that overruled those orders. 

I don't have a problem with reforming immigration. I think Canada has done smart things to assure most immigrants contribute to the economy. We want talented folks to come. We need a logical policy, not a visceral one based on irrational fear. 

Trump's EOs are clearly rushed and very poorly vetted-- they reflect incompetence. 

[icanthearyou 4,462]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

The attorney that advised Bush on his broad use of executive power is troubled by Trump's approach to it. What are its limits? What should the congressional role be? Where do you draw the line?

I don't think Trump really understands the Constitutional division of powers. I think he sees the government as his business.

"As an official in the Justice Department, I followed in Hamilton’s footsteps, advising that President George W. Bush could take vigorous, perhaps extreme, measures to protect the nation after the Sept. 11 attacks, including invading Afghanistan, opening the Guantánamo detention center and conducting military trials and enhanced interrogation of terrorist leaders. Likewise, I supported President Barack Obama when he drew on this source of constitutional power for drone attacks and foreign electronic surveillance.

 

But even I have grave concerns about Mr. Trump’s uses of presidential power.

During the campaign, Mr. Trump gave little sign that he understood the constitutional roles of the three branches, as when he promised to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would investigate Hillary Clinton. (Judge Neil M. Gorsuch will not see this as part of his job description.) In his Inaugural Address, Mr. Trump did not acknowledge that his highest responsibility, as demanded by his oath of office, is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” Instead, he declared his duty to represent the wishes of the people and end “American carnage,” seemingly without any constitutional restraint."

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/opinion/executive-power-run-amok.html?_r=0&referer=

IMO, that does not necessarily mean he is wrong.  We are, supposedly, a government "of the people".  

I think it does raise an interesting question about strict Constitutional interpretation.

[TexasTiger 12,846]

6 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

IMO, that does not necessarily mean he is wrong.  We are, supposedly, a government "of the people".  

I think it does raise an interesting question about strict Constitutional interpretation.

I think the point is that an autocrat can say my job is to defend the people and use that to justify a number of actions that aren't Constitutional. Trump has given the impression he doesn't respect the other branches of government.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Trump has congress and should be able to pass most of what he wants. Obama was totally thwarted-- still, the Republican congress could have passed laws that overruled those orders. 

I don't have a problem with reforming immigration. I think Canada has done smart things to assure most immigrants contribute to the economy. We want talented folks to come. We need a logical policy, not a visceral one based on irrational fear. 

Trump's EOs are clearly rushed and very poorly vetted-- they reflect incompetence. 

I agree with you that Trump needs to slow down talk with people who have knowledge of the impact of his orders and then use them wisely. I agree we need a complete revamping of our immigration policies but that has to be done by congress and then signed into law by the president. Politics on both sides of the aisle is why immigration policies are so bad today. I don't agree that Trumps orders reflect incompetence. Most of his orders whether you agree with them or not fit what he was trying to do,. The immigration order was the only one that I would say was done poorly but you could say the same when Obama tried to overturn existing Law for the children of illegal immigrants. The reality is the Supreme Court should have ruled 6-0 against Obama as the liberal judges didn't rule on the law but ruled because they agreed with what he was trying to do.  By the way I agreed with what he was trying to do. The problem is if the Supreme Court had allowed an executive order to overturn a law the precedent would be set and Trump could do just about anything he wants.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

40 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

What is the purpose of an executive order?

It can have multiple purposes it can be used to set limited Policies as long as it does not go against existing Law. It can be used unwisely as we saw with the Japanese Internment camps in the US during World War II. It can be used to clarify how existing laws are to be enforced  especially when the law was not clear. No Executive Order can go against the constitution or existing law the problem with that is depending on the Judge we have different views on what the constitution actually means and the same can be said about some laws. 

That is why when a President uses an Executive Order it can be challenged in court and should be if it is believed the President has overstepped his bounds.

[TexasTiger 12,846]

33 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

I agree with you that Trump needs to slow down talk with people who have knowledge of the impact of his orders and then use them wisely. I agree we need a complete revamping of our immigration policies but that has to be done by congress and then signed into law by the president. Politics on both sides of the aisle is why immigration policies are so bad today. I don't agree that Trumps orders reflect incompetence. Most of his orders whether you agree with them or not fit what he was trying to do,. The immigration order was the only one that I would say was done poorly but you could say the same when Obama tried to overturn existing Law for the children of illegal immigrants. The reality is the Supreme Court should have ruled 6-0 against Obama as the liberal judges didn't rule on the law but ruled because they agreed with what he was trying to do.  By the way I agreed with what he was trying to do. The problem is if the Supreme Court had allowed an executive order to overturn a law the precedent would be set and Trump could do just about anything he wants.

The two most covered EOs, immigration and NSC restructuring do reflect incompetence. His NSC restructure violates existing law as well as good judgment. His immigration EO was more about optics than security, but what he got instead were bad optics.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

12 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

It can have multiple purposes it can be used to set limited Policies as long as it does not go against existing Law. It can be used unwisely as we saw with the Japanese Internment camps in the US during World War II. It can be used to clarify how existing laws are to be enforced  especially when the law was not clear. No Executive Order can go against the constitution or existing law the problem with that is depending on the Judge we have different views on what the constitution actually means and the same can be said about some laws. 

That is why when a President uses an Executive Order it can be challenged in court and should be if it is believed the President has overstepped his bounds.

I'm not so sure.  Policy and law are too intertwined and, EO's do have the force of law.

[TexasTiger 12,846]

Disagree with the Prez and you've "gone rogue."  That's a dictatorial mindset.

"And it's somewhat sad to see a judge go rogue like this," Spicer said. "It's a shame that we're not focused more on making sure that we are applauding the decision by the President to make a renewed focus on keeping this country safe."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sean-spicer-judge-who-blocked-immigration-order-went-rogue

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

4 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

I'm not so sure.  Policy and law are too intertwined and, EO's do have the force of law.

You are correct if there is no law explicitly saying something an Executive Order has the force of Law. That is how the Japanese internment camps were created. However if a Law is in place and Executive Order cannot override the Law.  If there is no case Law for something EO would be legal.  That said we came very close to having the Supreme Court allow an EO to overturn an existing immigration law with the EO of Obama's concerning immigrant children. If that had been allowed to happen it would have pretty much given the executive branch the power to do anything.

[homersapien 11,368]

7 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

I think the point is that an autocrat can say my job is to defend the people and use that to justify a number of actions that aren't Constitutional. Trump has given the impression he doesn't respect the other branches of government.

He doesn't respect the majority of the electorate that didn't vote for him either.

[autigeremt 6,602]

I believe EOs should only be used in a time of national defense or imminent national security. Not a fan of them.

[autigeremt 6,602]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

He doesn't respect the majority of the electorate that didn't vote for him either.

Doesn't matter. We are a constitutional republic and not a majority democracy. He won the right people in the right places. 

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

3 hours ago, homersapien said:

He doesn't respect the majority of the electorate that didn't vote for him either.

And Democrats respect the electorate that didn't vote for them? 

 

[homersapien 11,368]

5 minutes ago, Auburnfan91 said:

And Democrats respect the electorate that didn't vote for them? 

 

The Democrats aren't in power.  Even though they hold the majority of electoral support. Even so, if they had won, there would be more focus on the interests of Trumps voters than he is giving them.

Trump doesn't respect the actual interests of his own voters.  He is just pandering to their fears and prejudices.

Look at his cabinent.  Are those people who are dedicated to the interests of Trump supporters?

Is abolishing the ACA helping the interests of Trump supporters?

What about eliminating regulations designed to protect people from fraud - not to mention poisoning their environment.  Is that in the interest of his supporters?

It may take a year or two, but most of Trump's supporters are going to finally figure it out.

 

[homersapien 11,368]

50 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Doesn't matter. We are a constitutional republic and not a majority democracy. He won the right people in the right places. 

Wrong. It does matter.

The point is taking the entire country in consideration when you make decisions, not just your base.

That obviously becomes even more important when your base is in the minority.

He has no interest in trying to unite the country. He is more interested in feeding his ego and pandering to his base does that.

[Auburnfan91 1,407]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

The Democrats aren't in power.  Even though they hold the majority of electoral support. Even so, if they had won, there would be more focus on the interests of Trumps voters than he is giving them.

Trump doesn't respect the actual interests of his own voters.  He is just pandering to their fears and prejudices.

Look at his cabinent.  Are those people who are dedicated to the interests of Trump supporters?

Is abolishing the ACA helping the interests of Trump supporters?

What about eliminating regulations designed to protect people from fraud - not to mention poisoning their environment.  Is that in the interest of his supporters?

It may take a year or two, but most of Trump's supporters are going to finally figure it out.

 

That's not what I asked. Give me specific examples of how Democrats would respect the views of Trump voters. 

I'll give you one example, immigration. Do you think Democrats give one iota about Trump voter's views on immigration?

[homersapien 11,368]

1 minute ago, Auburnfan91 said:

That's not what I asked. Give me specific examples of how Democrats would respect the views of Trump voters. 

I'll give you one example, immigration. Do you think Democrats give one iota about Trump voter's views on immigration?

Well, you may have a point.  They probably don't respect views from Trump supporters that are based on racism, xenophobia and ignorance.

No one should.

[RunInRed 16,407]

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

5 hours ago, RunInRed said:

 

I guess he is so different than most politicians whose comments today are different from the past. Pelosi said some time ago she was for building the wall. And as we well know Obama said if the Syrians crossed his redline it would change his calculus. Only problem he obviously never took calculus. I could go on but I think these make my point.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

A lot of Trumps executive orders are to countermand Obama's executive orders. I think all of our recent Presidents have abused executive orders by trying to legislate with the stroke of a pen. Over the last 50 years the courts and the executive branch have both appropriated the power to write law that should be in the realm of the Legislative branch. By allowing this we are hurting the checks and balances that were put in the Constitution for a reason.

[PUB78 1,358]

On 2/6/2017 at 10:58 PM, homersapien said:

Well, you may have a point.  They probably don't respect views from Trump supporters that are based on racism, xenophobia and ignorance.

No one should.

Their views are based more on common sense and law.

[homersapien 11,368]

5 hours ago, PUB78 said:

Their views are based more on common sense and law.

Yeah, you betcha.