I know some readers will say yes he is….and others will scoff at the idea.
But is he?
That’s look at the country as a whole and not your personal beliefs.
In 2016, Americans were asked to pick their poison.
On the one hand a highly competent, highly qualified mainstream pro-Wall Street pro-corporate candidate who would in most regards hold the Reagan-Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama trajectory—while entirely missing the desperation working Americans were feeling.
On the other hand a corrupt businessman calling bullshit on the entire system, willing to burn everything down to Make America Great Again—meaning give working people back the dignity (and manufacturing jobs) that had been stolen from them by the evil cabal of globalist elites. The fact that he was lying was entirely beside the point for his supporters.
And many Americans were willing to live with his exploiting of resentments and divisions to get anything that wasn’t business as usual.
What was business as usual?
An interesting article by a publication started by “Never Trumpers”……..
This question makes me think of a political theory…that being the theory of the unitary executive…..
To what extent can presidential power be restricted by Congress?
Some believe the president holds broad power, citing this passage from Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution:The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
And from Section 3:[H]e shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.The view that the president holds total control over the executive branch is called the unitary executive theory.
Under the George W. Bush administration’s interpretation of the unitary executive theory, the president has authority over members of the executive branch.
He functions as a CEO or Commander-in-Chief, and his power is restricted only by the U.S. Constitution as interpreted by the judiciary.
Congress can hold the president accountable only by censure, impeachment or constitutional amendment. Legislation restricting the executive branch has no power.
SCOTUS is making the case for a “Unitary Executive”…..
On June 29, Chief Justice John Roberts relied heavily on something called the “Decision of 1789” to expand presidential removal powers. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that the structure of the CFPB was unconstitutional as an independent agency, because Congress required the president to have good cause to remove its single director.
Roberts held that such a requirement interfered with a president’s power to supervise the executive branch, because a sole director with for-cause protection would have held too much concentrated power independent from presidential control. Roberts limited this decision to principal officers as singular heads of agencies, as opposed to commissions. However, his expansion of the “unitary executive” theory could continue expanding presidential power and thwart potential reforms to address recent abuses.
That said…now I ask is there a pragmatic cvases for a unitary executive?
The theory of the unitary executive is gaining traction in American law. That view of the Constitution asserts that the president controls whatever power is given to the executive branch of the federal government. As a result, the president must be able to dismiss his subordinate executives at will. Otherwise, these officials will be responsive to others or to themselves, not to the chief executive.
The unitary executive is persistently, sometimes willfully, confused with the notion that the president enjoys large residual constitutional powers. But the scope of presidential powers is distinct from the control over whatever those powers are. As Justice Samuel Alito said at his confirmation hearing, the first question “is the scope of Executive power: [W]e might think of that as how big is this table, the extent of the Executive powers.” That was distinct from a different question, “[W]hen you have a power that is within the prerogative of the Executive, who controls [it]?” The unitary executive is concerned only with the second question
After the ruling by SCOTUS and the chance for a pragmatic reason for the unitary executive…..are there any risks?
Of course there is!
PHH Corporation involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a powerful financial regulatory agency headed by a single director appointed by the president for a five‐year term, during which he or she can only be removed “for cause.” As Kavanaugh explains, the Constitution lodges all “executive” power in the hands of the president. Independent agencies such as the CFPB, he says, are “a headless fourth branch of the U.S. Government” that poses “a significant threat to individual liberty and to the constitutional system of separation of powers.”
My thought is that when it comes to governing the US….the 3 branch system is by far superior than any system that has one all powerful demagogue at the head.
I Read, I Write, You Know
“lego ergo scribo”