Below is my Sunday column in the Washington Post on Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entry into the United States. Trump’s rhetoric has shocked many in his promises to unilaterally force sweeping changes regardless of Congress. Yet, Trump’s criticism of Congress and pledge to go it alone should be vaguely familiar for many. Both Obama and Trump advocate to use unilateral powers to change the immigration laws as a rejection of a “do nothing” Congress. Faced with opposition in Congress, President Obama insisted that he would order many of the very changes rejected by the legislative branch. Despite my agreement with President Obama on many of his policies, it is a dangerous and destabilizing legacy or a system based on the separation of powers. While these men may differ on their policy choices, the powers are the same. President Obama has been asserting many the powers referenced by Trump despite constitutional objections and losses in court like the Canning decision. For this reason, the objections from Obama supporters may ring a bit hollow for Trump supporters. While Trump may have coined “You’re fired” as an entertainment tag line, it was President Obama who fashioned it into a political doctrine in his rejection of Congress. This has been a role that Trump has spent years cultivating on reality shows. It is reality TV meets realpolitick. Below is the column.
Donald Trump has spent years cultivating a reputation as someone who won’t accept “no” for an answer, and he’s made clear that’s exactly the sort of president he would be. Never mind if there’s bipartisan opposition to barring Muslims from entering the United States or to building a wall along the Mexican border (and making Mexico pay for it). Trump doesn’t see a need to defer to Congress, which he dismisses as “grossly incompetent” and “pathetically weak.” Instead, he heralds instances of past presidents acting unilaterally, particularly Franklin D. Roosevelt’s executive order that led to Japanese American internment and Dwight Eisenhower’s deportation of millions under “Operation Wetback.”
These comments have understandably energized the Stop Trump movement. White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Trump’s proposal for barring Muslims “disqualifies him” from office. Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin rallied supporters with the message, “We have to be ready to stop him.”
But if Democrats are alarmed by this glimpse into a Trump administration, they are in part to blame. They have supported President Obama’s claims of unchecked authority in a variety of areas, particularly immigration. And the Obama model will be attractive to successors who, although they may have a different agenda, have the same appetite for unilateral decisions.
Obama has used his willingness to go it alone as a rallying cry for Democrats. “We can’t wait for an increasingly dysfunctional Congress to do its job. Where they won’t act, I will,” he told supporters in 2011. In his 2013 State of the Union address, his similar line, “If Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will,” was met with ecstatic applause from the Democratic side of the chamber.
Of course, the expansion of presidential authority did not start with Obama, and his predecessor George W. Bush was widely criticized (including by me) for seeking unilateral powers after the 9/11 attacks. Yet Obama has been particularly aggressive in his unilateral actions. From health care to immigration to the environment, he has set out to order changes long refused by Congress. Thrilled by those changes, supporters have ignored the obvious danger that they could be planting a self-defeating precedent if the next president proves to be a Cruz rather than a Clinton. While the policies may not carry over to the next president, the powers will.
Consider some of the positions expressed in the GOP primary race:
• Ben Carson dismisses the science on climate change, saying the real worry would be if temperatures stopped going up and down. A President Carson could order the same kind of sweeping regulatory changes that Obama has sought for power plants and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions — only in the opposite direction.
• Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee has pledged to recognize personhood beginning at conception. In a Huckabee administration, while subject to Supreme Court restrictions, a host of federal laws could be reinterpreted to treat the unborn as people. Huckabee’s view differs from Congress’s, but so did Obama’s when he parted ways with Congress on the urgency of climate change.
• Sen. Ted Cruz wants to repeal the corporate income tax. Just as the Obama administration claimed discretion to delay enforcement of the health-care law’s employer mandate and to defer the deportation of some undocumented immigrants, President Cruz might be inclined to use his executive discretion to extend, perhaps indefinitely, the deadline for corporate income tax payments. Likewise, Cruz could order prosecutors not to charge, or to reduce the charges associated with, certain corporate offenses, as Obama did with some nonviolent drug crimes.
• Various candidates have denounced what they see as biased treatment of religious groups and individuals on college campuses. The next president might want to order the Department of Education to strip away due process protections for those accused of anti-religious speech, just as the Obama administration did in cases of alleged sexual harassment or assault — putting federal education funding at risk for any university that defies the White House.
• Some of the presidential candidates reject evolution and support the teaching of creationism in schools. The new president could alter national science curriculum standards and waive requirements on the teaching of science. After all, the Obama administration offered waivers to school districts that didn’t meet state-defined goals for math and reading proficiency, in direct contradiction of No Child Left Behind.
• Trump has insisted that killing terrorists is not enough. He told Fox News that “you have to take out their families .” While many people were horrified, Trump is simply adding another target package to a program formalized by Obama. The current administration has asserted the authority to kill even U.S. citizens, anywhere, at any time, if it deems them to be imminent threats to national security.
• Most of the candidates oppose the Affordable Care Act. Assuming that Democrats have enough votes in Congress to prevent a repeal, the next president might be tempted to refuse to defend the law against court challenges, under the view that the law is unconstitutional. The Obama administration did that with the Defense of Marriage Act, announcing in 2011 that the Justice Department would no longer defend the statute.
• Most of the contenders have criticized increasing regulation and bureaucratic costs for businesses. The next president could order the delay of any new rules on workplace safety, wages or discrimination. After all, the Obama administration treated deadlines specified in the Affordable Care Act as little more than aspirational. Alternatively, the next administration could simply relieve businesses of such statutory obligations. Obama’s administration told companies that when imposing layoffs connected to federal budget cuts known as sequestration, they could ignore the 60-day notice requirement in place since the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act was passed in 1988.
• Virtually all of the candidates have called for the repeal or weakening of Dodd-Frank, the financial reform law designed to curb abuses by big banks. The next president might be inclined to declare that banks are not required to fulfill certain obligations under the law. Consider the Obama administration’s treatment of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. TANF was signed by President Bill Clinton to condition receipt of welfare benefits on work (or preparing for work). The Obama administration, however, told states that it would waive that requirement .
The problem with allowing a president to become a government unto himself is that you cannot guarantee who the next president might be. Now the leading Republican candidate is someone who views most of his creations in eponymous terms — as reflected by 20-foot letters spelling out his name on top of his hotels. He is the perfect uber personality to fit our uber presidency.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
If the science on climate change was so sound NOAA would not be fighting so hard to keep the raw data secret. And other scientists are backing them. Michael Mann has called his raw data proprietary and has protected it in at least one lawsuit.
Your Congress is a collection of dweebs who are all about themselves. Take for example the issue of health care coverage. Congress members all have complete medical care and it is free to them. The rest of you taxpayers pay for it. They go to their capitalistic health doctors and hospitals who make huge profits off of you taxpayers. Millionaire doctors. Meanwhile you have one Indian Chief who has been trying to look out for the population as a whole.
Chief Obama ought to unilaterally eliminate the free medical care for Congress members. That might give them “standing” to sue.
” Ben Carson dismisses the science on climate change,..”
I love this ….. THE SCIENCE. As if all scientists agree on this. Don’t you mean “the science I agree with” Jonathon? Has a smart guy like you not researched the opposing (and maybe less politically driven) scientific research on this? It’s like saying “The science is clear! GMOs have been proven safe”. The science is clear! Vaccines have been proven safe.” And indeed they have been ‘proven’ safe. And they’ve also been proven UNSAFE! What to do? In the words of Pete Townsend “You gotta judge the judge”, Jonathon.
Comparing Trump to Obama is really reaching for it. Obama is a pathological liar. How many times does this need to be repeated? And anyone who compares Ross Perot to Trump, in my opinion is confused. So if Trump runs as a third party it will “give” the nomination to Hillary? In my opinion, the power brokers have chosen Hillary the same way Obama was chosen. Our presidents are SELECTED not elected. People seriously need to wake up to that sad fact.
Trump can’t be bought. In his own words, “This wasn’t supposed to happen.” There isn’t supposed to be a candidate running who can’t be bought. Think about it long and hard. If Trump does somehow miraculously gets the nomination and somehow miraculously they “let” him win, he won’t have long to live and the media and everyone else who are taking his words out of context, directly misquoting him, painting his as another Hitler or (God forbid) another Obama will be to blame.
Give it time, people. Everyone wants to jump on one bandwagon or another. United we stand, and there’s way too much inflammatory dividing going on.
The Oracle Report: Reading on Donald Trump; The timing.
https://jhaines6a.wordpress.com/2015/12/11/oracle-report-update-just-in-laura-gives-a-reading-on-donald-trump/
LOL! The cult followers have amassed. However, they would be SCREAMING if a Republican president acted like our current, feckless, petulant, prez. And, a point that eluded JT in his superb piece is, so would the MSM. Republican presidents are held in check by the Woodward and Bernsteins. Sheryl Atkisson and James Rosen went after this Administration and had their computer hacked, phones tapped by the govt. in the name of finding leaks. Even more reprehensible than that is most of the MSM were silent when their own were being slimed by Obama’s Chicago gang. No, the MSM will hold a Trump or any Republican accountable. They are just like the cult followers here. Hell, they got this Chicago gang politician elected. Obama makes Nixon look like “the jayvee/”
Obama has extended the overreach of executive orders that was well underway in previous administrations including republican ones. This article makes a fine point.
We have affordable healthcare in our house. Obama has been fighting the free health care babies in Congress for 7 years. Yes. Congressmen and women get free health care. They voted for it for themselves.
While I don’t think that everything the president has done has been great, let’s not forget that this congress broke the record for filibusters and made it clear that all they cared about was political defeat, the country be damned. In that, they succeeded.
Many of Prof Turley’s points are well made, but they also are absolutist in that he insists that the LAW must be enforced no matter the consequences or intent of Congress. It is like insisting that a cop MUST give a ticket on EVERY stop when he sees ANY violation, and NO warnings are allowed and NO discretion at all. This is clearly absurd.
It becomes even more absurd when he insists that Obama has NO discretion as to who are to be deported. I disagree with Obama on his immigration policy, but he can only deport as many illegals as CONGRESS appropriates funds for. So Turley would demand that Obama appropriate funds apart from Congress to carry out his duties? Then Obama would be castigated for spending money he was not authorized to spend! Sort of a heads I win, tails you lose proposition.
The specific points Prof Turley misses on are the so called right to kill US citizens anywhere any time. The fact is that Reagan and Nixon had and USED that authority on many US citizens for political reasons, NOT because they were in actual armed conflict with US forces. Obama has only used that since we are at war with terrorists who are in safe havens immune from legal processes. I will become concerned with his policy when US forces are killing or kidnapping US citizens in say Western Europe where there IS a legal process that can be and must be applied. This objection is like demanding that cops not shoot an armed crook while he is trying to resist or escape. Get Real.
Then we have the bogus concern about responding to legitimate complaints about ACA with giving those who have a problem a break. Please get serious since you complain that using some common sense in applying the law is bad. Then we have your objection to not providing a 60 day notice when Congress cuts off funding immediately to Federal contractors when it is clearly impossible to give notice! You cannot be serious. Then you slam Obama for allowing states to disregard the work provision mandate during the biggest period of depression since the one in the 30s! Just where are those folks supposed to get jobs?
It gets even more surreal when Turley slams Obama for responding to state requests on standards for school in math so that they can continue to get funding. Since when is it wrong to listen to and grant waivers if the state has a good reason? Again, it is like demanding that a cop give a traffic ticket no matter what. Once again. let’s use some common sense in this, not an absolutist view.
You know, this assertion of executive power stuff didn’t start with Obama; it goes back to George…. Washington. Pres. Washington began the practice of signing treaties before their ratification by the congress, a transgress against the spirit of the constitutional separation of powers.
I dont think any of you all understand that morally he is wrong but by the law he is right. Especially you mr. Turley. Until someone becomes a naturalized citizen there are no laws against what he wants to do. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/us/politics/donald-trumps-plan-to-bar-foreign-muslims-might-survive-a-lawsuit.html
Thats part of the law of the law, which means until they are us citizens they exist at the whim of congress or the president. It is really amazing how none of you all can think critically rather than deal with this as a knee-jerk reaction.
And to expand on my comment…
ALL THE CANDIDATES ARE PART OF THE 9/11 COVER UP.
THEY ARE ALL ZIONIST CRIMINAL PIGS!
http://buenavistamall.com/Zionistcandidates.jpg
Both Obama and Trump are part of the 9/11 cover up. They are Zionist Criminal Pigs! Neither has the morality to be president.
Oh look! Another column blaming the fact that the current batch of Republicans running for president are bat sh%t crazy on President Obama. Comparing Donald Trump’s insane proposal to ban entry to the US to every member of one of the world’s four major religions to President Obama’s modest proposal to most effectively use limited resources to enforce immigration law is shoddy journalism.
There is just no evidence that President Obama has pushed the envelope on executive authority any more than any other President with a Congress controlled by the opposition.
Life is a balance of the vehicle and what the vehicle is carrying. The Book of Psalms is a perfect example. The vehicle, poetry, is exquisite. The messages are life affirming. The vehicle and the messages work together in harmony.
However, when the vehicle breaks down, how do the messages get across? Turley you harp continually on the vehicle. It is nothing but chaos without the messages. Sometimes a leader has to focus on the messages and then the critic must do so as well. Trump’s messages are asinine. Obama’s messages, for the most part, are life affirming.
You’re missing a leg, Turley.
Pres. Obama has been the poster child for the anti-democratic left.
Now Trump is going down the same ethical rabbit hole.
Both Obama and Trump are fundamentally lazy – they don’t want to do the work to build the necessary support to enact legislation.
Both mistake dictating for leadership.
The difference is that Trump is signalling his tactics before the election – Obama disguised his anti-democratic tendencies until after elected.
Trump Independent Run Would Be Like ‘Ross Perot on Steroids’
Presidents have been taking whatever power they could since the beginning. Let’s not forget Richard “Well, when the president does it that means that it is not illegal” Nixon. The difference is that Congress has been taken over by Republican royalists who love the idea of a monarchy, and Democrats who lack the will to stand up to the president.
We can just assume that every president who gets elected will take every bit of power they can, and that it’s up to Congress to do their job and take it back. The end.
Well, one Dictator inevitably leads to another.
What is being done to stop the present one.?? The Court is taking an awfully
long time to rule on the push back…….thank God this reign of terror is coming
to an end. Hopeful, the American people will understand the next time someone says
they …”want to fundamentally change America”…. and stop them in their tracks..
Prof. Turley, appears to not be in agreement with life beginning at conception………?.?
That would be a big disappointment for me, as an ardent admirer of his and as
a Catholic.
You have some valid points but how to you propose a sitting president to get any legislation through when you have an obstructionist Congress; one that was known to having vowed to oppose Obama from day one. At the very least people can now afford health care.
Wow. Your column is a real eye-opener, thanks!