The Executive Overreach Thread

[CrimsonJazz]

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/radical-presidency-obama-biden-trump

The radical presidency of Obama, Biden, and Trump can be distinguished from the “reconstructive” presidency of leaders like George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, William McKinley, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. These leaders transformed American society chiefly through inspiring legislation in Congress that was supported by at least some members of both major parties in their day. The new structures that they created by working with Congress were ratified and adopted in many details by successor presidents who belong to rival parties. In the 20th century, Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon ratified most of the institutions and policies of FDR’s New Deal. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton and his Democratic allies followed the turn toward the free market economics of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, promoting Bush’s North American Free Trade Agreement and abolishing a federal social insurance program, Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

In the age of the radical presidency, such new foundings seem impossible, for now. Instead, what we appear to be heading toward, or living through, is a series of temporary, elective dictators, who not only reverse the decrees of their predecessors by their own decrees but also, in some cases, mobilize the machinery of justice to try to bankrupt or jail their rivals, including former presidents and presidential candidates. With each “presidente” surpassing the last one in usurpations of legislative power, the decline of the United States into an unstable and lawless Latin American-style banana republic is accelerating.

This seems to be a popular topic around here. We have legislators who won't legislate and presidents who try to make up for it with an avalanche of EOs. What can be done about this? This article is an excellent intro to the topic, IMO.

 

[Tidewater]

Stop electing scumbags, for a start. The incentives as of now are all wrong. If an officeholder shirks his responsibilities, demagogues issues, and takes no action, he wins re-election.

I would set a term limt of one (1) term per office and then forbid the officeholder from ever again entering the federal district (unless elected to another office).

As it is, we reward bad behavior and deserve what we get.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Stop electing scumbags, for a start. The incentives as of now are all wrong. If an officeholder shirks his responsibilities, demagogues issues, and takes no action, he wins re-election.

I would set a term limt of one (1) term per office and then forbid the officeholder from ever again entering the federal district (unless elected to another office).

As it is, we reward bad behavior and deserve what we get.

No disagreements here. Unfortunately, 95% of political contestants are scumbags. And a critical mass of the voting public are perfectly ok with their scumbags as long as they beat the other team's scumbags. So, yeah, we get what we deserve.

The only solution, as a friend of mine once said, is to "get your treasure and build a wall around it." This plan has since been modified to note that "it may be necessary to relocate said treasure and wall to another country."

 

[Tidewater]

One of Lincoln's justifications for the Civil War was that the world would be watching what happened in America so see whether government of the people, by the people, and for the people could survive. Are people capable of governing themselves?
I'd say the same question still applies. The history is watching and if the US collapses because American voters were too stupid and self-centered and US political officeholders were too corrupt for the country to survive, then the very idea of self-government will be shown to be infeasible. Antidemocrats around the world will point to the US and say, "See? I knew that could not do it. Look what a disaster democracy is!"

 

[bamacpa]

I have never liked the executive orders even those coming from "my guy". That just isn't how it's supposed to work.

 

[JDCrimson]

I would eliminate primary elections. Put all candidates in a series of general elections over an 8 week election cycle or ranked choice voting. I think this would cause candidates to move back to the middle.

 

[crimsonaudio]

I would eliminate primary elections. Put all candidates in a series of general elections over an 8 week election cycle or ranked choice voting. I think this would cause candidates to move back to the middle.

I do think ranked choice voting could solve some issues.

 

[Tidewater]

I have never liked the executive orders even those coming from "my guy". That just isn't how it's supposed to work.

I would agree. The executive order has a troubling history.
I think, if the president negotiated a treaty and the senate confirms it, and some of the minor details were not specified (because that is the nature of treaties), then the president can give details for implementation by EO.
Trump uses them as a "I can't get Congress to do anything, so I'm going to do this by executive fiat and then we'll work this out in the courts.
That is not the way our system works.
Whig presidents at one time, promised never to veto any bill passed by Congress. Their duty, they said, was to execute the decisions of Congress.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

The Legislative Branch stepping up and doing its job would be a nice start.

The Executive Branch has been usurping power for decades, mainly because the Legislative (Congress) has been voluntarily giving it up.

Prime example: The only reason the President has essentially unfettered authority on tariffs (which are undoubtedly taxes) is because Congress ceded that authority about 50 years ago.

The obvious solution would be for Congress to take it back. Problem is, that would require the President to sign a bill. And when’s the last time you saw a President of either party voluntarily give up power?

Congress could still take it back. But it would have to be over the inevitable veto, which would happen regardless of the President’s party affiliation.

That requires a two-thirds majority of both the HoR and Senate. You can’t get two-thirds of these clowns to agree that water is wet, let alone override a veto.

So it takes only 51% to give up authority, but 67% to take it back.

Moral to the story….do your stinkin’ job, Congress!

 

[UAH]

I have never liked the executive orders even those coming from "my guy". That just isn't how it's supposed to work.

I have little expertise on the subject but it appears to me that one way all of this began is with Congress passing these huge bills that no one read completely that required the Executive Branch to build an administrative body and promulgate rules to administer the acts. Congress essentially gave away much of its power and the Federal Government grew all out of bounds. That brought us to Trump!

 

[Tidewater]

The Legislative Branch stepping up and doing its job would be a nice start.

The Executive Branch has been usurping power for decades, mainly because the Legislative (Congress) has been voluntarily giving it up.

Prime example: The only reason the President has essentially unfettered authority on tariffs (which are undoubtedly taxes) is because Congress ceded that authority about 50 years ago.

The obvious solution would be for Congress to take it back. Problem is, that would require the President to sign a bill. And when’s the last time you saw a President of either party voluntarily give up power?

Congress could still take it back. But it would have to be over the inevitable veto, which would happen regardless of the President’s party affiliation.

That requires a two-thirds majority of both the HoR and Senate. You can’t get two-thirds of these clowns to agree that water is wet, let alone override a veto.

So it takes only 51% to give up authority, but 67% to take it back.

Moral to the story….do your stinkin’ job, Congress!

I agree but the incentives are wrong.
Just sitting in Congress is lucrative. If Congress is considering a bill to regulate the airline industry if it is really going to put the screws to airline companies,, members of Congress can short airline stocks. Legally.
Or if Congress is going to loosen regulations on X industry, they can legally buy stock in companies working in X industry before the regulations are made public. Legally.
Congress does not even have to do anything. If Congressmen hear that the president is going to do something by executive order that will help (or hinder) an industry, they can play the stock market based on that insider knowledge.
So, just sitting in a Congressional seat and doing absolutely nothing is very lucrative.

 

[Tidewater]

I have little expertise on the subject but it appears to me that one way all of this began is with Congress passing these huge bills that no one read completely that required the Executive Branch to build an administrative body and promulgate rules to administer the acts. Congress essentially gave away much of its power and the Federal Government grew all out of bounds. That brought us to Trump!

If you look at the federal code before say, FDR it was tiny compared to what it is today.

 

[Tidewater]

Look at the Code of Federal Regulations, just since 1950.

Now that is not statutes. Congresses passes a law "The environment shall be clean." And then adds, "The EPA shall develop regulation to implement this law."

 

[Bodhisattva]

The bureaucracy will expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.

 

[4Q Basket Case]

I agree but the incentives are wrong.
Just sitting in Congress is lucrative. If Congress is considering a bill to regulate the airline industry if it is really going to put the screws to airline companies,, members of Congress can short airline stocks. Legally.
Or if Congress is going to loosen regulations on X industry, they can legally buy stock in companies working in X industry before the regulations are made public. Legally.
Congress does not even have to do anything. If Congressmen hear that the president is going to do something by executive order that will help (or hinder) an industry, they can play the stock market based on that insider knowledge.
So, just sitting in a Congressional seat and doing absolutely nothing is very lucrative.

Agreed. If literally anybody else did this, it would be illegal insider trading. But if you're in Congress or have such knowledge because of your job in Congressional staff or the Executive staff, it's legal. Mind boggling.

In another thread, I advocated for full financial and medical disclosures, closing loopholes for jointly-owned assets (commonly, but not always, with a spouse). Along with that is a ban on trading of any stocks, bonds or derivative contracts, with all financial assets being in a blind trust.

Former President Biden Diagnosed With Aggressive Prostate Cancer

Hard to say but its his right to refuse it. People refuse tests all the time. Thats their prerogative. Woody Guthrie died from Huntingtons which is inheritable. His son Arlo, to the best of my knowledge, refused to be tested for it. 🤷‍♂️ This is where I get reminded that the reality is that...

www.tidefans.com

And yeah, I know I'm yelling at clouds. But a guy can dream.

 

[JDCrimson]

Now you know why Tubs is running for governor. Heat was getting too hot in the Senate kitchen...

Agreed. If literally anybody else did this, it would be illegal insider trading. But if you're in Congress or have such knowledge because of your job in Congressional staff or the Executive staff, it's legal. Mind boggling.

In another thread, I advocated for full financial and medical disclosures, closing loopholes for jointly-owned assets (commonly, but not always, with a spouse). Along with that is a ban on trading of any stocks, bonds or derivative contracts, with all financial assets being in a blind trust.

Former President Biden Diagnosed With Aggressive Prostate Cancer

Hard to say but its his right to refuse it. People refuse tests all the time. Thats their prerogative. Woody Guthrie died from Huntingtons which is inheritable. His son Arlo, to the best of my knowledge, refused to be tested for it. 🤷‍♂️ This is where I get reminded that the reality is that...

www.tidefans.com

And yeah, I know I'm yelling at clouds. But a guy can dream.

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Now you know why Tubs is running for governor. Heat was getting too hot in the Senate kitchen...

That's an interesting point, but are they, indeed, feeling the heat? From where I'm sitting, these clowns look mighty comfortable to me.

 

[Tidewater]

Imagine if the only things Congress could legislate on were:

• To lay and collect Taxes
• To borrow on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
• To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,
• To establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies
• To coin Money, regulate its Value
• To fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting.
• To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
• To secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute federal courts;
• To punish Piracies and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, and for calling forth the Militia
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in DC

With such limited powers, megalomaniacs would not be attracted to federal office. What would be the point? The federal government could actually do so little.
Imagine how undramatic that would be.

 

[bamacpa]

I have little expertise on the subject but it appears to me that one way all of this began is with Congress passing these huge bills that no one read completely that required the Executive Branch to build an administrative body and promulgate rules to administer the acts. Congress essentially gave away much of its power and the Federal Government grew all out of bounds. That brought us to Trump!

As much as I think Trump is terrible, the overuse of EOs started before him. It sets a terrible precedent even when I agree with the intent of the EO. One man making unilateral decisions regardless of Congress makes me very nervous.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Imagine if the only things Congress could legislate on were:

• To lay and collect Taxes
• To borrow on the credit of the United States;
• To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States,
• To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,
• To establish uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies
• To coin Money, regulate its Value
• To fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
• To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting.
• To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;
• To secure to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their Writings and Discoveries;
• To constitute federal courts;
• To punish Piracies and Offenses against the Law of Nations;
• To declare War, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
• To raise and support Armies
• To provide and maintain a Navy;
• To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, and for calling forth the Militia
• To exercise exclusive Legislation in DC

With such limited powers, megalomaniacs would not be attracted to federal office. What would be the point? The federal government could actually do so little.
Imagine how undramatic that would be.

*waves general welfare clause in the air as if it somehow magically grants congress more power than what is outlined in the constitution*

See? That was easy.