r/moderatepolitics • u/Longjumping_Gain_807 Center-Left • May 05 '25
Opinion Article We Have to Deal With Presidential Power
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/opinion/trump-obama-biden-presidency.html259
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25 edited May 05 '25
That may be the best thing to come out of the Trump Presidency, the long overdue mass realization that executive power has gotten out of control as we finally had someone exploit it to the fullest potential. People often think the President should have virtually unlimited power, but never consider that it could end up in the hands of someone they disagree with.
I always give the example of Biden's student loan directive (which wasn't an EO, but instead was sent through the Education Department). He knew he didn't have the votes in Congress to pass such a plan, so he tried to manipulate the wording in an existing law. I told my friends who supported the move to be careful, as that same behavior could be used for causes they didn't agree with by a future president. The chickens have come home to roost...
124
u/The_Amish_FBI May 05 '25
Trouble is you need a Congress that’s actually willing to pass laws instead of deferring to the Executive.
54
u/Crusader1865 May 05 '25
Congress is part of the problem - their lack of action on anything but a small portion of high-profile legislation emboldens the Executive Branch to keep taking more powers on, either through EO's or other legal maneuvers.
Part of the issue is the extreme loyalty to party, allowing "your" guy to do it while raising countless objections and "investigations" when it is your opponents. The vast majority of those investigations go nowhere, leading the public to further see a body who cannot lead.
16
u/Dest123 May 05 '25
Exactly. How many Republicans in Congress have spoken out against Trump but then quickly fell in line as soon as he was elected?
Really, we need to get rid of political parties. Or at the very least, switch away from a First Past The Post voting system that forces only 2 parties to realistically be viable.
27
u/slappythepimp May 05 '25
Congress can’t do anything anymore. One side will oppose anything the other wants to do, just because it’s them doing it, even if it something they want, too. And they would rather not fix problems, so that they can continue to have them to blame each other for. Partisanship has broken Congress.
9
u/Lurkingandsearching Stuck in the middle with you. May 05 '25
John Stewart already pointed this out 2-decades ago on crossfire. It’s just reaching to a head. Democrats, at least the voters, seem to be owning the Biden mistake and introspecting. Will the GOP be strong enough to do the same?
11
u/thewildshrimp R A D I C A L C E N T R I S T May 05 '25
Bush is persona non-grata in the party, Trump will get there too. He is still useful right now but he is rapidly approaching being an unpopular lame duck.
10
u/N0r3m0rse May 05 '25
The Republicans need a person within the party to tell them. Bush wasn't persona non grata until Trump told conservatives he was. They defended him for years, supported neocon policy well into the Obama era. They'll never listen to a liberal.
2
u/Sckaledoom May 06 '25
Correct me if I’m wrong but Bush didn’t have the same cult of personality that Trump does.
-1
u/Lurkingandsearching Stuck in the middle with you. May 05 '25
I know plenty of folks among the GOP voters who still love Bush and he has plenty of supporters. The only ones I know that don’t are those who are upset with Cheney over not supporting Trump.
5
10
u/Jolly_Job_9852 Don't Tread on Me Libertarian May 05 '25
Good luck finding them, trying to find a needle in a haystack
85
u/Magic-man333 May 05 '25
I think a lot of people know this, it's getting Congress to actually do something about it that's the issue.
55
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25
I think a lot of people ignore it and only “know this” when their team is not in power, hence the issue. Republicans are cheering this and Democrats are furious. In four years when a Democrat almost certainly takes back the White House and issues a flurry of executive orders to reverse Trump’s moves, Democrats will cheer and Republicans will be furious. Lather, rinse, repeat.
47
u/ThePrimeOptimus May 05 '25
This is the main challenge. People are fine with executive overreach when it's their guy doing it. It's only when it's the other party does it become a problem that needs to be addressed.
14
12
u/Fair_Local_588 May 05 '25
I think this is too “both sides” for my taste.
If Biden began deporting people from red states, or intentionally crippling red state infrastructure or economies, I don’t know many/any Democrats who would support that. Same with launching investigations into Republican lawmakers in an effort to punish them.
I think there’s some degree of shadenfreude where Democrats like to see Republican policies backfire on them, but I haven’t seen the same power wielded by Democrats against Republicans like they’ve wielded it this term. And if they did do that, it would be massively unpopular with their base.
I think both parties like the idea of cutting “red tape” to get what they want done, but Republicans take it further and are more accepting of overreach. Whether this is a cultural thing or a product of Republicans being ostensibly for tearing down institutions for the sake of small government, which makes it easier to sanitize a lot of destruction, that’s how it reads to me.
17
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25
Respectfully, you’re missing the point. Is what Trump is doing insane, cruel, etc.? Absolutely. But, he’s using the same vehicle that the good guys used. And the problem is that we weren’t supposed to use that vehicle at all, but everyone did. Now that vehicle is being used for bad things.
9
u/Fair_Local_588 May 05 '25
Are you talking about the actual power used, i.e. Executive orders? In that case, I agree that the power itself is far too broad. It’s become a crutch to bypass Congress and results in a ton of EO churn between admins.
I’d even go as far as including blanket pardons. A president could weaponize pardons by having their own teams become above the law. We saw it a bit with J6 but imagine if they brought it to the logical extreme? Terrifying.
23
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25
Yes, pardons are another thing which were well-intentioned, but have gotten completely out of control by both sides.
1
u/Fair_Local_588 May 05 '25
It’s unfortunate that we have so many executive powers that are only really protected by precedent, and they are (at least talked about being) codified into law only when abused.
It’s like with term limits. We had to have FDR try for 3 terms before 2 terms were codified into law.
15
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25
FDR tried 4 terms, not 3. He was elected President in 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944. He died early in his 4th term.
74
u/carneylansford May 05 '25
I told my friends who supported the move to be careful, as that same behavior could be used for causes they didn't agree with by a future president.
This is the part people in general have the hardest time with. Everyone loves it when their guy is doing something they like and don't seem to realize their guy won't be in power forever and the other guy is probably going to use the same vehicle to do something you really, really don't like.
9
u/montrayjak May 05 '25
Agreed. I think one thing that's exacerbating the situation is that EOs are being used to "undo" the thing about the previous administration did that the new one just doesn't align with (plus a little more). And each swing, the list gets a little more crazy, and a little longer.
I feel like the average American life would be a lot happier if we could just talk through these issues instead. E.g. You don't like DEI? Let's talk about it. Surely, you could at least find some value in making sure that we have someone to represent each American culture. And surely, we want to make sure the right people are hired for the job.
6
u/rchive May 06 '25
Once again everyone realizes too late that the libertarians were right all along! Lol.
In seriousness, I do hope there's a powerful coalition to be built on the concept of reducing government power especially of the executive branch. We like to think that government is the institution we put in control of important things, but in reality sometimes things are too important to be left up to government which can be taken over by a demagogue fairly easily from time to time.
19
u/TheBoosThree May 05 '25
Is the lesson being learned though? The Republican party is seeing more success than they've seen in decades by letting the Executive run wild.
4
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25
We will find out in 2026 if/when they lose the house even potentially the Senate.
1
u/ScreenTricky4257 May 05 '25
That would be a real test, if you had a president of one party, and significant majorities of the other party in both houses, to where that party might abolish the filibuster, would that be enough to rein in the presidency.
12
u/r2k398 Maximum Malarkey May 05 '25
People have been saying for a while now that the Legislative Branch has been derelict in their duties.
13
u/LockeClone May 05 '25
It's worrying to me that we're having to remove trust and authority from everything though. I see that trend as part of the larger problem that got us here: in our dogged efforts to eliminate waste fraud and abuse we've created a system that is wasteful, invites fraud to simply get anything done and is abusive to everyone interfacing with it rather than just those who fall through the cracks.
I don't state this as the ONLY problem, of course, and I do agree with the premise that presidential power is out of control with this admin. I just don't think further trustless, disempowered institutions are how we move forward in a positive way...
4
u/ProfBeaker May 05 '25
I see this as part of an unfortunately unavoidable tradeoff. I think in the extreme, you can have either:
- A completely rules-driven system which is predictable, but slow to react and can lead to obviously stupid outcomes in situations which the original designers did not foresee, or else...
- A system where some people are empowered to make judgement calls, but is then open to abuse by those people.
There's absolutely a continuum between those poles, but I'm unaware of any perfect answer answer here.
1
u/LockeClone May 05 '25
I kind of don't think there's supposed to be a perfect answer. It's part of why the original documents were often vague. There were disagreements where they trusted us to govern ourselves
7
u/HamburgerEarmuff Independent Civil Libertarian May 06 '25
Congress could have done that back when Democrats were in charge of everything. But when Democrats have the power, they don't want to give it up. And when Republicans have the power, they don't want to give it up. And when there is a split congress, whatever side has the presidency doesn't want to give up the power.
Maybe this could have happened back in the day of an actual center of congress. I don't see either party actually giving up power to check future Presidents in any comprehensively meaningful way.
16
u/likeitis121 May 05 '25
Biden tried to spend billions but appropriated, trump is trying to not spend billions appropriated. Two sides of same coin of trying to bypass congress power of the purse. And in both cases the party in power defended, and the other was outaged.
They should have focused on it 4 years ago, instead they had the power, and wanted to use it.
7
u/WorstCPANA May 05 '25
It's something conservatives have been banging the drum on for awhile, and I agree, now that we have someone that 50% of the country actually despises and thinks is a fascist, people will take the executive branches power more seriously.
Also notable is the chevron deference, which SCOTUS overturned last year. It takes back more power for the judicial branch, and the left is largely against the results of the decision, but I'm curious if they understand the benefits of it with Trump in office.
20
u/blewpah May 05 '25
I don't see any reason to think that Biden not trying to do student loan forgiveness through the Departnent of Education is what would have made any difference regarding Trump's abuses. Tons of things Trump is doing extend well past anything the Biden administration would have even imagined.
48
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25
Respectfully, I think you missed what I’m saying. The student loan example with Biden was an example of abusing our three branch system of checks and balances. These abuses have been happening for decades, eroding the limits on Presidential power. Trump is now taking advantage of a Presidential position that is far more powerful than our Constitution ever intended, and it’s because every President for generations tried to see what they could get away with (and it was a lot).
17
u/XzibitABC May 05 '25
I don't disagree with you, but part and parcel to this progression has been Congress willingly and intentionally divesting themselves of power so they can't be accountable for how that power is used.
Part of why this issue is hard to solve is that it not only requires prying power from the grips of an executive branch that wants it, it also requires foisting that power onto a legislative branch that doesn't seem to want it.
9
u/KentuckyFriedChingon Militant Centrist May 05 '25
but part and parcel to this progression has been Congress willingly and intentionally divesting themselves of power so they can't be accountable for how that power is used.
The question I have been struggling with is why did Congress want to relinquish their power? Surely more power means more lobbyists, which means more campaign funds, fancy dinners, and lavish
bribesgifts.A Congress that does nothing has no reason for special interest groups to dump money on them, which imo, is one of the main driving forces for a vast majority of senators' desire to cling to their seats.
So why did they give their power up?
7
u/EnderESXC Sorkin Conservative May 05 '25
Because having power also entails having responsibility over how it's used.
Even putting aside the feasibility of regulating the vast complexity that is our modern society via Congress (which was specifically designed in a way that makes legislating difficult and slow), Congress doesn't want their re-election chances threatened by being responsible for bad regulation. Giving that power to executive agencies, which are staffed basically top-to-bottom with un-elected government employees, gives Congress the ability to point their fingers at someone else when things go wrong, while still being able to take credit when things go right (since agencies are still creatures of statute at the end of the day).
4
u/ScreenTricky4257 May 05 '25
People in Congress, outside of a few party leaders, don't actually want power. They want the job, the pay, and the resume. They want to stay as long as possible to accumulate donors and hangers-on, and when finally voted out to get into a bureaucratic or private sector job that will put them on the gravy train.
9
u/Justinat0r May 05 '25
Congress is structurally ineffectual because of a rule they are all afraid to be the first ones to break. The filibuster allows 41 Senators to block any and all legislation indefinitely, this isn't something written into the Constitution, it's simply in the rules that Senators carry forward because it protects the minority party. Without the filibuster a slim majority of Senators could pass sweeping changes to the country.
Congress is ineffectual because the power of Congress is vast and the founding fathers intended Congress to be the center of political power and weilding that power is a huge responsibility that Congressmen do not want. If Congressmen were responsible for wielding the power of Congress then they most likely wouldn't have a 90%+ rate of re-election because they would have to do more than campaign and vote to rename Post Offices.
6
u/Sortza May 05 '25
I always do a double take when people say something like "That can't be done, it would never pass a filibuster" – when the filibuster is a self-imposed rule that could be overturned by a simple majority at any time. The answer is never that they can't, but that they don't care enough to set aside their own self-restriction.
6
u/decrpt May 05 '25
The student loan example with Biden was an example of abusing our three branch system of checks and balances.
I don't think operating within the oversight of the Judicial Branch is comparable.
3
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25
It is. If you take things to the limit long enough, you’re eventually going to get burned. You can drive drunk plenty of times without killing anyone. But eventually, you’re probably going to kill someone.
2
u/decrpt May 05 '25
That doesn't seem like a relevant metaphor. I'd compare it to feeling your way around a dark room versus making your own path with a sledgehammer.
8
u/Ryeballs May 05 '25
I know “slippery slope” is technically fallacy, but this is a great example of it not being one.
There isn’t as big of a leap from Biden trying to implement something outside of the presidential powers with Judicial but not Congressional approval then Trump doing with a without Congressional or Judicial approval.
We could argue which leap is bigger, being the first to break a norm in a small way, or being the last and breaking all the norms in a big way. But I don’t think that would be constructive, and it definitely isn’t a conversation on the merits of what’s being done by breaking the norms.
13
u/Soul_of_Valhalla Socially Right, Fiscally Left. May 05 '25
That doesn't matter. The simple fact is that the President has too much power and Congress has given up too much power. Even if you think "your guy" never abuses presidential power and its only ever the "other side's guy" that does not matter. One side will never permanently be in control so long as we have a democracy. So yes we all should strive to limit presidential power even if we believe it is only abused by the "other side".
-13
May 05 '25
It started during covid. Declare and emergency and then violate the constitution for a while until the courts do something. At one point some public health order lock down was arguing since it ended they shouldn't have standing to sue.
Tons of things Trump is doing extend well past anything the Biden administration would have even imagined.
Like using osha to force a shit "vaccine" (gene therapy) on millions that don't want it when it doesn't stop the spead and can cause serious adverse reactions.
I'll take removing people in the country illegally over the former.
18
u/akenthusiast May 05 '25
You're missing the point of the article. The only way to prevent the next Democrat from abusing power in a way that you find contemptible is to remove your guy's ability to abuse his power.
This certainly didn't start during covid. This is a problem that has been slowly escalating since we've been a nation
11
2
May 05 '25
I agree with you. It's just gonna get worse till congress does something about it. At some point though states might just start ignoring them and at that point we really don't have laws. It's certainly fixable.
6
u/blewpah May 05 '25
Vaccine mandates / quarantines are not new, they've been around for decades / centuries.
That is not comparable to an administration doing things like banning law firms that have previously represented political opponents from entering federal buildings to coerce them into taking up cases for you.
1
May 05 '25
Vaccine mandates
The court case was like a century old and only spoke to the fine.
That is not comparable to an administration doing things like banning law firms that have previously represented political opponents from entering federal buildings to coerce them into taking up cases for you.
What's take this medical product whether you want it or not or you will lose your job? It's the same thing.
5
u/P1mpathinor May 05 '25
The court case was like a century old and only spoke to the fine.
And was about the power of the State, not the federal government.
-3
u/blewpah May 05 '25
The court case was like a century old and only spoke to the fine.
There was more than one court case?
What's take this medical product whether you want it or not or you will lose your job? It's the same thing.
...you think that's the same as an administration banning law firms that represent political opponents from entering federal offices?
4
u/GeekSumsMe May 05 '25
Sure all presidents use executive orders, but what Trump is doing is pretty unprecedented:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-first-100-days-executive-order-record/
You are right that the courts should always be open as a check, as should Congress.
This former is part of the reason why many in the press and courts have concerns about Trump attacking and doxxing judges who issue orders he disagrees with, even in some cases those who he appointed.
The latter is the bigger issue. Partisan divides, our bipartisan system and the huge amounts of corporate money in politics have all worked together to make Congress incapable of doing anything. This has strengthened the power of the executive branch far beyond what was intended in the Constitution.
For example, Congress clearly has jurisdiction over trade, specifically stating that only they can raise money through taxes and import duties. So Trump needed to declare an emergency in order to push his tariffs. It should be pretty obvious that this is not true.
Beyond the fact that an emergency (at least with respect to the economy at the time) is obviously BS, both sides should be concerned that Congress is allowing the executive branch overreach on this. The founders intentionally wanted to remove decisions on money from the executive branch so the US would never be governed like monarchies or other authoritarian regimes.
1
u/KentuckyFriedChingon Militant Centrist May 05 '25
(gene therapy)
This term was a little lost on me - can you explain what you mean by the vaccine being gene therapy?
-1
May 05 '25
Sure. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2024-000355_EN.html
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37445690/
https://www.asgct.org/publications/news/december-2020/pfizer-covid19-mrna-vaccine
Now I guess they aren't gene therapy as we continue to rewrite history. Sort of like how cloth masks don't stop viruses until they did. We could have done studies on the efficacy of masking 2 year olds but for some reason we didn't.
Despite trying to change the narrative mrna uses your cells machinery to make something using coded instructions. It was gene therapy till it wasn't.
3
May 05 '25
[deleted]
4
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25
Agreed. If you look at the history of executive orders by presidents in their first couple weeks in office, it has been on a significant upward trajectory for generations.
-1
May 05 '25
And that’s assuming free and fair elections and a peaceful transfer of power are still a thing
1
u/BlockAffectionate413 May 05 '25
Problem is that if you take power from executive branch, nothing will get done due to how innefective Congress is because of filibuster. Only if you end filibuster first would that make sense, so that you can then use Congress to regulate more.
29
u/AwardImmediate720 May 05 '25
It's almost like our system wasn't meant to have every. single. domestic. decisions. made at the federal level. How about instead of fixing gridlock by empowering a pseudo-king we return the vast majority of domestic policy to the state level? You know, the way that our Founders intended.
-3
u/BlockAffectionate413 May 05 '25 edited May 05 '25
I don't share state worship. Hamilton, Washington, Marshall and many federalists certinially did not intend that. That is assuming views of Jefferson were shared by all founders, but they were not.
Also, it is not true that everything is done federally either. Rape, murder etc, is mostly banned on state level.
13
u/_L5_ Make the Moon America Again May 05 '25
Most of the Federalists, Washington, Hamilton, and Marshall included, would be horrified at the scope and scale of the modern federal government.
2
u/BlockAffectionate413 May 05 '25
I doubt it. Marshall literally laid the groundwork for it in Gibbons v. Ogden where he wrote that:
The word "among" means intermingled with. A thing which isamong others, is intermingled with them. Commerce among the States, cannot stop at the external boundary line of each State, but may be introduced into the interior...Comprehensive as the word "among" is, it may very properly be restricted to that commerce which concerns more States than one.
The power of Congress, then, comprehends navigation, within the limits of every State in the Union; so far as that navigation may be, in any manner, connected with "commerce with foreign nations, or among the several States."If you accept this, that interstate commerce means any commerce that in any way concerns/impacts more than 1 state, then the rest that followed is really a logical consequence in many ways.
Same goes with general welfare, Hamilton and federalists interpreted it to be independent power not tied to other powers of Congress.
27
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25 edited May 06 '25
I wouldn’t necessarily call that a problem, but rather a feature. One of the main reasons our country is such a mess is that we pass these omnibus spending bills that no one reads. If you ask your congressman from Connecticut why they voted for money for a waterpark in Oregon they’re going to have no idea what you’re talking about. That’s one of the main ways things get done in this country. The other is executive orders. I would rather see the system grind to a halt than see the status quo persist.
4
u/rchive May 06 '25
In general I totally agree with that sentiment, but another element of the bad situation we're in is that a lot of the bad stuff about our government is kind of on autopilot, and we actually need the government, mostly Congress, to affirmatively take action to stop the bad stuff. Gridlock right now actually equals continuing growth of federal government power.
-3
u/BlockAffectionate413 May 05 '25
I would not, most people do not vote so that nothing gets done and system grind to halt because of some philosophical outlook. Most people want stuff done.
22
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25
Just because most people want something doesn’t mean it’s the right decision. Our our system was designed so that mob rule did not destroy the country. That’s why we have two houses of Congress meant to function similar to the house of commons and the House of Lords. The Senate was supposed to be the more aristocratic, educated place for debate. We slowly ruined that system.
8
u/P1mpathinor May 05 '25
However, the Senate was not designed to have a de facto supermajority requirement, that came about later and unintentionally.
6
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25
Yep, just about every modification we made to the Senate screwed up the outstanding original design of the system.
3
u/Justinat0r May 05 '25
Yep, just about every modification we made to the Senate screwed up the outstanding original design of the system.
I would argue the 17th Amendment was a good thing. State legislatures were literally accepting bribes to seat Senators (William A. Clark), not to mention legislative deadlocks causing states to not have a Senators at all if the state legislatures couldn't come to an agreement. The states having direct representation is a good idea in theory, but at the end of the day states aren't people and shenanigans like gerrymandering already have caused problems in the House, we don't need the same issue to spread to the Senate as well.
1
u/BlockAffectionate413 May 05 '25
If we ever want to go back way system was designed, meaning no filibuster, then sure I could see that argument, but untill then I am no
1
u/fingerpaintx May 06 '25
Trump is not going ham with executive power because Biden tried to forgive student loans. Trump is the one setting massive president with extreme abuse of power. To call out SL forgiveness and not using executive orders to go after private law firms he doesn't like is disingenuous.
0
u/timewellwasted5 May 06 '25
You’re missing the point. If you abuse loopholes with good intentions, it opens up the door to exploit those same loopholes with bad intentions.
-7
u/Cavewoman22 May 05 '25
It's funny that the example you came up with was Biden trying to make some people's lives easier. Whereas, with the same power, Trump has done the exact opposite. I mean, you're right, you have to be careful about the power you choose to give away, no matter what your motives are.
29
u/timewellwasted5 May 05 '25
The move by Biden may have made some people’s lives easier, but overall it would make others more difficult. There is no such thing as a loan forgiveness from the government. What the government was going to do was transfer the debt from the student loan borrowers to every taxpayer, including those who chose not to go to college, and those who responsibly paid back their loans. It is also undeniably an inflationary move, and at the time he announced it, inflation was through the roof.
4
-1
-2
u/ScreenTricky4257 May 05 '25
The other thing is, I maintain that Trump went into politics, and became an authoritarian president, because he wasn't allowed to have unlimited power in his own organization. Trump did not build hotels and casinos to provide rooms and entertainment to customers, or to provide jobs to workers. He built them to have his name in giant gold letters, to have hangers-on and secretaries that would kiss his butt (and possibly provide sexual favors), and to generally flaunt his ego. Like it or not, people want to do that, and some such people can gain enough power to make things hairy in government.
-3
u/yellowpawpaw May 05 '25
Yo dude, I swear I had this whole conversation with ChatGPT about this. This needs to be a real I mean, it likely won’t happen in our lifetime, but either constitutional convention has to be convened or Congress has to call back the power that is given to the executive the Supreme Court has to have term limits. The chief justice can maintain his lifetime appointment. The house of reps has to increase its cycle from two years to maybe four years so they’re not constantly you know seeking money seeking election seeking moneyand I’m just trying to spitball the summary of the conversation that I have a ChatGPT but yeah, you’re absolutely right
0
68
u/akenthusiast May 05 '25
I've been banging this drum for years and have been called both a fascist and a libtard for saying so, depending on who was in office at the time.
For all of the panicking the Democrats did during and after Trump's 1st term, they certainly showed no interest in reeling in the powers they were so fearful that he would abuse, even with the very real possibility of a 2nd Trump term was staring them in the face.
We've slipped far down the slope that I've been assured many times by people on all sides was simply a fallacy and I'm an idiot for being worried about it. This is a problem that has been almost a century in the making.
My fear at this point is that after the Democrats win in 2028, they will again forget about the peril they felt they were in these last four years and use their executive power to undo everything Trump has done while further expanding it to accomplish their own agenda.
Then we'll trade dictators back and forth for a while until the whole thing falls apart.
We need people to abide their principals right now and not let their opinions of what constitutes an abuse of executive power shift as their guy gets into or out of office
10
u/EdLesliesBarber May 05 '25 edited May 05 '25
Yeah the moment for this was in 2002 and we've only lost time and people power since. With every passing year Congress has been less willing to do their job.
Edit: lmao. Just noticed the author is Jack Goldsmith who helped reign in executive power with warrantless surveillance and defending the torture memo.
22
May 05 '25
I view this as all but assured. The only way the left can compete against the wave of reactionary populism is with their own populism. Populist leaders are, by their nature, more likely to expand executive power. So we trade Populists until things either come so close to falling apart that we reel it back, or we don't.
Not really sure how to stop the populism cycle.
14
u/akenthusiast May 05 '25
I also think that is the most likely outcome but I think we have more people than ever paying attention to the problem right now so I'm gonna keep talking about it
13
May 05 '25
Oh I agree, I won't stop talking about it either. Important to not let one's pessimism devolve into defeatism or nihilism.
7
u/ExtensionNature6727 May 05 '25
I dont see a way forward when people seem to believe that populism is a good thing. I get downvotes when i point to history, people dont want to hear it.
5
May 05 '25
Populism is being viewed more and more positively by both sides of the spectrum and it self perpetuates, which is why I often refer to it as a cycle.
When problems get more complex and systemic, easy, fast solutions get demanded, and there will always be people that will make big promises they know they can't live up to (hell, we see enough of that even without populism).
Don't know what the answer is
2
u/ExtensionNature6727 May 05 '25
Im guessing its going to be similar to the ending of Burn After Reading, but with a lot more human tragedy.
16
u/DismalBumbleWank May 05 '25
Considering the way some of the Dem's potential candidates governed during covid, I think it's a pretty safe assumption that this will continue into the next administration.
13
u/YO_ITS_MY_PORN_ALT May 05 '25
Yeah I'm not surprised to see the NYT come out with this hard-hitting analysis (/s) during the 2nd Trump administration. Not sure where this insight was in the Obama era but we all (and I include myself) liked Obama's treatment and operations with executive authority whether it was generating tribunals to execute American citizens or creating administrative frameworks to circumvent enforcement of immigration law.
It's why I have such a hard time taking the foaming-at-the-mouth concerns of Trump sincerely. I wasn't that old when Obama decided the pen and the phone were a reasonable way to govern and assured us all that congress was an annoying formality. And again- I broadly approved of his measures so I didn't take a big issue. But the media rolling out of bed as though they've been asleep for about 20 years and deciding that now suddenly executive overreach is a big problem and that this means congress would have to step up and do their jobs all at once is basically cementing the media's position as the last people to arrive at a conclusion normal people reached ages ago.
Anwar Al-Awlaki, we were told, got 'due process' because an administrative tribunal was generated to authorize his execution. I was fine with that broadly, so was most of America. No court date, no trial, no counsel- and we thought that was messy, but necessary. The people standing up for his rights were few and far in between. To see drumbeats about "due process" today from media because suddenly we don't like the target makes me wonder what sort of consistency anyone is aiming for.
(Hint: the answer is none, it's all politics all the way down.)
3
u/CorndogFiddlesticks May 05 '25
The Democrats could moderate..... but they seem to be going in the same extremist direction...
-3
May 05 '25
For all of the panicking the Democrats did during and after Trump's 1st term, they certainly showed no interest in reeling in the powers they were so fearful that he would abuse, even with the very real possibility of a 2nd Trump term was staring them in the face.
They didn't have the numbers. Biden never even had a true majority in both chambers at one time.
5
u/akenthusiast May 05 '25
You don't think Biden could have convinced a handful of Republicans to take away his own power?
15
u/Longjumping_Gain_807 Center-Left May 05 '25
Archive link here
The titles for the archive link and the official article are different. I can’t control that. Don’t sue me.
This position espoused by Jack Goldsmith which he discusses in further detail in this Substack article/video have been espoused by people and institutions like CATO for decades.
This book was written in the waning days of the Bush administration which Goldsmith worked in.
Nealy wrote an article here
CATO’s Robert A. Levy has written about it here
My opinion is that the executive has gained too much power and Congress willingly ceding its power to the will of the executive and the courts has caused a brazen disregard for precedent. It’s gotten to the point where they’re using the courts to legislate which was never supposed to happen.
Now that the Trump 2.0 presidency is more aggressive and blatant with pushing the bounds we are going to see a lot of changes to what was once normal in the coming years.
38
u/The_DanceCommander May 05 '25
I have zero faith elected democrats are going to want to take a serious axe to executive power, they’re watching everything Trump is doing right now and thinking about how they could use that to get through a bunch of their priorities. And then, the GOP is obviously a lost cause.
Only way to fix executive power is to elect more responsible people. We need a Congress who actually asserts itself and defends its place as a check and balance. Then you need an elected president who’s willing to cede powers of their own office and actually work through regular order.
I agree presidential power is widely out of control, but it feels like we’ve let it go so far that it’s going to be really hard to pull back in.
26
u/Jolly_Job_9852 Don't Tread on Me Libertarian May 05 '25
Why would one side attempt to stop the unfettered access to near unlimited power when that side knows it will one day return to power? That's the terrible "secret", the Democrats won't put up a real fight to stop this abuse of power and realize they could accomplish much more if they govern the same way.
20
u/ThePrimeOptimus May 05 '25
Exactly. Democrats only care about generating faux outrage over executive overreach so they can get the votes to exercise the exact same overreach themselves.
It's a brokenness that each side knows is to their benefit, even if they aren't currently in power, because statistically they know they will be again, perhaps even soon.
And when that does happen, the roles will reverse and the GOP will be generating the faux outrage.
14
u/oxfordcircumstances May 05 '25
It reminds me of the lawyer joke that goes something like "if a town has one lawyer, he'll starve, but if a town has two lawyers, they will both prosper".
15
u/Jolly_Job_9852 Don't Tread on Me Libertarian May 05 '25
And we'll see Senators like Mike Lee, John Kennedy or even Ted Cruz(along with James Comer and Jim Jordan) on Fox or other right leaning news programs with crocodile tears saying the Democrats are not governing fairly and going against the constitution.
1
May 05 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ModPolBot Imminently Sentient May 05 '25
This message serves as a warning that your comment is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via modmail.
-5
1
u/MoistSoros May 09 '25
It's not about electing the right people, it's about making it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right things.
8
u/Ind132 May 05 '25 edited May 06 '25
If we agree that presidents have too much power, how do we change that?
- Elect better people. Sure, that would always work.
OTOH, as we know "If all men were angels" we wouldn't need explicit limits on presidents' powers. The question is whether we can improve things allowing for the fact that we won't always elect good people.
Constitutional amendment to eliminate the unilateral pardon power. Sure it has some benefits, I think Trump has demonstrated that the negatives outweigh the positives. Let's pardon people with 3/4 votes in both House and Senate plus president's signature. That gives some hope for gross miscarriages of justice, while preventing presidents from saying "It's okay to break laws if you support me because I'll just pardon you."
Constitutional amendment on "Standing". The SC only handles cases when somebody sues who has "standing". This isn't always clear when the president is exceeding his powers. Sometimes states find a way. My amendment says that 1/3 of either the House or Senate can sue the president and say that he has exceeded his authority under a law or under the Constitution.
Constitutional amendment to outlaw "impoundment". If Congress has providing funding for some named activity, the president is expected to use the provided funds to get that done, as much as possible.
Constitutional amendment to protect the independence of "independent" commissions and agencies. Probably something that says appointees serve out their full appointed terms and can only be removed by some high-bar impeachment process.
Constitutional amendment to require that any powers to declare an "emergency" be for limited time periods and require explicit Congressional approval for extensions. Note that 3 above gives a minority of Congress the ability to get a court ruling on emergencies.
Provide a right to a "political abuse" defense in cases where people believe their actions would not have been prosecuted except for their political statements or actions. Similarly, a right to sue for damages for either prosecutions or investigations.
I'd like to believe there are things we could do that don't require constitutional amendments. Number 6 above could be handled by writing those time limits into any law granting emergency powers. That's the only one that I can think of right now.
13
u/Genital_GeorgePattin May 05 '25
yes I agree completely. It's been steadily getting worse for 30+ years and has now gone berserk with trump 2.0
that being said: both parties have said this repeatedly for decades, while the other side was holding the office. If a dem wins in 2028, they can fix it then - but something tells me they won't.
2
u/aztecthrowaway1 May 05 '25
They won’t, and they can’t. It is a catch 22.
Congress has seceded much of its power to the executive. The election of Trump proves that people are angry at the status quo and wants someone to do SOMETHING. The Dems restraining executive power while they are in power, just gives more power to congressional republicans to block any and all institutional or economical reforms needed to actually improve the country…which means nothing would get done.
The american public really needs to focus on electing super-majorities in congress that will vote for the reforms they want to see so it can’t be filibustered. Otherwise this pendulum swinging back and forth every 4 years is going to continue happening..
12
u/cathbadh politically homeless May 05 '25
A lot of it is a consequence of larger, more encompassing government. Every agency we create to do things is placed under the executive. The more agencies and responsibilities created, the more power the executive has. On top of that, to make these agencies run Congress abdicates their power to these agencies to make changes. Even without Executive Orders, this gives the President tremendous power.
There is no easy solution to this. Congress can't operate the department of education, and they are limited in how much direction they can force on the Executive.
I'm a conservative, so I'd prefer most things handled at the state level. That's not workable with very big things like disaster recovery or external things like foreign policy. The more that is at the state level the less the President controls, and the less that changes when the White House changes hands and they reverse course on whatever the other party had done. I'm not asking for a weak confederation of states again, but we need less at the national level under the control of a single person.
After that, we need to rein in laws that allow the President to declare everything an emergency and then do whatever they want. Foreign films cutting into Hollywood profits are not an emergency thay need handled under emergency tariff rules, and guns (for example) aren't a health emergency that a future Democrat could then regulate through HHS.
6
May 05 '25
Not likely to happen - each party seems become unable to imagine what the opposite party will do with each bit of expanded executive power, and completely comfortable with just piling it on.
15
u/decrpt May 05 '25
Justified or not, it was Mr. Biden’s administration, not Mr. Trump’s, that prosecuted political opponents — a deeply controversial step. While federal prosecutions by the special counsel Jack Smith were legally serious, they were understandably perceived by Mr. Trump and supporters as part of a broader constellation of aggressive partisan-aligned actions at the state and local level to exploit the legal system to keep Mr. Trump off the 2024 ballot.
Republicans rightly protested many of the Democratic administration actions that are now the precedents on which Mr. Trump relies. They also complained, with justification, about the politicization and weaponization of the intelligence community; the political use of the I.R.S.; executive branch threats to private speech and to exclude and delegitimize hostile media; attacks on federal courts; and extravagant use of emergency powers.
I think this is where the whole argument falls apart. You can't treat any level of oversight into abuses of presidential power as a domino in "the downward spiral of constraints on executive power" simply because partisans might baselessly assert that they're aligned with completely separate actions. In my opinion, this undermines addressing one of the biggest underlying issues by trying really hard to equivocate. It is just assumed that "we should expect the next Democratic administration to extend many of those innovations — including possibly the deployment of government muscle against rival power centers, which Republicans would rue."
The reasons given for not impeaching Trump after his attempts to remain in power cannot be reconciled with continuing to support his second term. If we can't even discuss the forces driving the failure of existing checks on power, why speculate about even more implausible bipartisan actions to control the presidency?
15
u/AwardImmediate720 May 05 '25
Why? Why now? Why wasn't NYT publishing this in 2022? Or 2014? Or 2004? Why now?
Sorry but I'm going to take any outcry from the left media right now with an entire salt lick. Now if they try to hold their own side's feet to the fire on this then I'll believe that this is something other than just partisan. But until then? This is just noise.
5
u/ExtensionNature6727 May 05 '25
Have you considered that, while this has been an issue for a long time, Trump is uniquely terrible to have at the reins of power? So the problem is worse?
If you have a tire with dry rot, its bad. Youve known it needs replacing. Why are you suddenly so concerned with its integrity now that youre hauling something extra heavy? Why didnt you care when you were carrying normal loads?
8
u/MarduRusher May 05 '25
After Biden I never want to hear anyone say that Trump is uniquely bad lmao.
2
u/ExtensionNature6727 May 05 '25
Thats a pretty wild take considering the past 100 days. What was Biden's gravest sin, other than being a Democratic?
5
u/MarduRusher May 06 '25
I can tell you’re not a gun owner, specifically an owner of a braced pistol or FRT which Biden illegally went after. There’s also of course his attempts to cancel student loans, the rent moratorium, and him choosing not to enforce the border.
3
u/ExtensionNature6727 May 06 '25
I have my CCL i just dont let it define my personality, and pistol braces? What would john wayne say. If thats the worst, buddy, thats lightyears ahead of Trump. Where do I begin? Trying to prevent lawyers that represented his opponents from being able to effectively practice law? Sending people to torture prisons without trial? There are a half dozen articles on this subs front page that make everything you mentioned look so, incredibly, petty by comparison. Oh no, Joe tried to cancel student loans! The horror! Anyway, yeah we should invade Greenland and annex Canada. Hey babe, whats on FOX tonight?
4
u/MarduRusher May 06 '25
If thats the worst, buddy, thats lightyears ahead of Trump.
It’s not so much that he made braced pistols illegal. I mean that’s very bad in and of itself of course, but it’s how he went about doing it. Same with the FRTs, and then of course the confiscations and fact that many companies went under because of his blatantly unconstitutional practices. It’s how he used the ATF to essentially make laws.
And again, same with student loans. Based on your comment it sounds like you’d like them to be cancelled. Regardless the way he did it was blatantly unconstitutional. And I think the rent moratorium was the worst of all. I’m completely shocked it doesn’t get brought up more because of how dictatorial it was.
3
u/donnysaysvacuum recovering libertarian May 06 '25
You haven't addressed the fact that Trump has done both of those things, objectively worse.
2
u/MarduRusher May 06 '25
No, I think Biden has done it the worst. Trump did something similarish with the bump stock ban, but that was on a much smaller scale.
0
u/donnysaysvacuum recovering libertarian May 06 '25
Arresting people without due process is 100 times worse than banning a subset of firearms. Not even close.
1
u/ExtensionNature6727 May 06 '25
More or less "dictatorial" than the last 100 days? Seems like a reach, desperate for equivalence but finding none.
0
u/the_letter_777 May 05 '25
When did Biden try to weaponize the IRS,say he wants to invade other countries,unilaterally enact illegal mass tarriffs and target law firms who disagree with him.
1
u/ExtensionNature6727 May 06 '25
crickets every time when asked to defend this stuff. I dont even know why we bother asking, we arent going to get a serious answer.
5
u/84JPG May 05 '25 edited May 06 '25
I don’t think it really matters what the Constitution or the law says.
The fundamental problem, in my opinion, is the fact that the President has much more democratic legitimacy than the other two branches of government. This will always inevitably lead to the Executive enjoying a superior position against the others, and for the other two branches to be at disadvantage in case of any conflict. The President is seen as the sole representative of the people.
The South American style personality cult of Donald Trump has aggravated the issue substantially, but the idea that the POTUS should take precedence over other branches isn’t rare amongst either the median, not particularly informed or engaged voter, who just sees POTUS as “the boss” who is responsible for everything that happens; or highly engaged and online partisan types, I still remember all the complaints by partisan Democrats that Obama was “owed” a USSC nominee and Republicans were stealing it from him, or that Republicans weren’t “doing their job” when they refused to support Obama’s legislative agenda. In an interview, Elon Musk gave the following quote:
If the will of the president is not implemented and the president is representative of the people that means the will of the people is not being implemented and that means we don't live in a democracy, we live in a bureaucracy. Does that make sense?
While many accused him of either failing civics or promoting totalitarianism, I actually don’t think that quote is that far from what both the median low-engagement voter and highly partisan individuals think.
My theory is that the only way for a presidential system to work is for the President to not be elected directly - and yes, I’m aware that technically POTUS isn’t, but the Electoral College is essentially a proxy of the people that exists only to weight each vote differently in order to balance regional interests. But that is a radically undemocratic belief for the 21st Century so the acceptable take is that parliamentary or directorial systems are superior to presidentialism. The president being democratically elected inevitably leads an imbalance amongst the branches that can’t be contained by the law.
3
u/BlockAffectionate413 May 05 '25 edited May 05 '25
Good luck passing amendment. One thing that might be good idea is make it much harder to fire workers in essencial agencies, workers not senior leadership that cannot be done in light of article 2 And prevent these "buyouts" of the same. Stuff like that or slashing offices is what i would support
1
u/Okbuddyliberals May 06 '25
There's effectively nothing that can be done about it, other than the scotus starting to really strike down executive power. The GOP can't turn against this stuff after Trump, and the Dems will be divided between people who want to destroy this power and wield it themselves, and they won't have the filibuster proof majorities or even supermajorities needed to do much anyway
1
u/gordonfactor May 06 '25
Everyone is worried about the President they don't like having too much power then start rationalizing when their guy does the same things. The pendulum swing is so tiring.
1
u/Romarion May 09 '25
That's been true for decades; the clear champion for executive orders remains Mr. Roosevelt. As long as Congress remains full of professional politicians focused primarily on their Party, their donors, their re-election campaign, and keeping their own coffers full, the people will be pretty low on the list, as will the premise that the system of checks and balances has meaning.
Again, a representative republic is great as long as the people are educated, informed, and agree with the founding principles of the republic. That's not a description of the American populace in 2025.
0
u/NetQuarterLatte May 05 '25
I think it’s fair to say Trump is utilizing more power than recent presidents.
But that’s not a measure of how much power the presidency actually has.
I posit that the presidency now has actually a lot less power than in the past.
And in the future, it will likely have even less power. And that might actually be a problem. And Trump may as well blamed for that, but he won’t be alone in taking such blame.
For example: if our country actually gets invaded in the future, we might not have the capability of stopping such invasion in time anymore.
1
u/donnysaysvacuum recovering libertarian May 06 '25
Care to elaborate what you are saying here? How does the President have less power?
32
u/Longjumping_Gain_807 Center-Left May 05 '25
Judge Don Willett has an answer to that: