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.
Now what, is that maybe we don’t need to spend more on our military than the next twelve countries combined, most of whom are our allies. That maybe we to “take our country back and start taxing the rich like we used to. And that maybe we can stop building tanks and airplanes the military does not want or need.
Of course no one wants to pay for but if you stop wasting their money on wars they don’t want, we could actually afford it.
When Trump is President he will have a Congress which will listen to him. He is not a muslim, he is not proud, he is not just another chink in the road. He will win the race easily. His wife will be the first female President down the line. If she can fix the immigration issue.
“Numerous polls have shown that THE PEOPLE wanted more banking reform, more investment in infrastructure, better health care for veterans, and on and on.”
And numerous more polls show they don’t want to pay for it. Now what?
ABC is reporting Jeh Johnson, head of Homeland Security, does not allow staff to look @ Facebook and other social media when doing background checks for visas for fear of charges of profiling. A simple look @ the San Bernardino Islamic terrorist would have shown her to ba a jihadist. PC KILLS!!
Sorry DBQ, but you are just wrong. Multiple national polls confirm my point as stated. The fact that so many republicans have gerrymandered themselves into permanent seats is the reason they get elected, NOT the will of the people. Slice it any way you want, but Congress is not acting on behalf of the people, just the very very small minority who elected them under this freakshow of an election system we have.
I accept that I don’t always get my way because I am a grownup. My butthurt, as you so charmingly call it, is about how badly the system is broken, how little Congress ACTUALLY represents the people, how money had corrupted politics, and how totally immature and self-serving our politicians are. Other than that, my butt is just fine, thanks for asking.
DBQ “If I were a Republican and elected someone as my Representative based on their campaign promises, I expect them to follow through on those promises.” It’s a lovely expectation but let’s be realistic. They make promises to the people and then DO whatever the Hell they were bribed to do. Obama is an example of that par excellence. I could list the examples but it would take far too much time. I’ve no doubt the same could compiled for just about any Republican as well.
2012 election bribes: $7,000,000,000 (That’s billion with a B.)
2016 election bribes estimated at; $10,000,000,000.
[OFF THE GRID] Jesse asks audience – what do you think these donations to candidates are?
These are valid points to make, however, as is commonly known by anyone with a social media account, the same folks celebrating Trump’s go-it-alone cowboy rhetoric lambasted Obama for acting in this manner. They love Trump for telling us how it is but hate when Obama does the same thing. So while this superficial “Obama did it first” argument will no doubt resonate with the Trumpsters the rest of us can come back and sling the “Trump is a dictator” argument because they slung it first. It’s just more kindergarten arguing.
I can’t find the column actually printed or posted by the Washington Post. Did they balk?
“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.”
“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.”
“In a Huckabee administration, while subject to Supreme Court restrictions, a host of federal laws could be reinterpreted to treat the unborn as people.”
“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.”
“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”
“The new president could alter national science curriculum standards and waive requirements on the teaching of science.”
“the next president might be tempted to refuse to defend the law against court challenges, under the view that the law is unconstitutional.”
“The next president could order the delay of any new rules on workplace safety, wages or discrimination.”
“The next president might be inclined to declare that banks are not required to fulfill certain obligations under the law.”
The next President might decide to HONOR THE OATH OF OFFICE; oh my!!! Does anyone seriously believe Professor Turley’s Op Ed is all about restoring the balance of power or is it more about preventing future administrations from unwinding policy that he supports? One way he can answer this question is to use his imagination and “WHAT IF” a Clinton or Sanders use of unilateral powers. THAT would be intellectually honest, would it not?
This was an excellent op-ed and I passed it onward. You brought up valid points.
It’s about time JT coin a different term for a President who exerts unilateral power – Gr-Uber President.
keithosaunders
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
It’s bizarre people on the left think a hostile congress is some kind of unique condition justifying an authoritarian reaction. This is exactly the circumstance envisioned by the constitution.
Bush overcame it by addressing issues the other side was interested in like medical care and education, and of course being willing to compromise. If Obama had tried even one of these tactics he might have had some success. Instead the left went their own way and the resulting policies are so bad they’ve been trying ever since to convince the public Republicans are at fault.
If the majority of The People elect those who agree with their will and the majority of the
Ooops…..brain fade. 😐
And the majority of those elected carry through with their promises then they are doing the will of the majority of the people. You don’t always get what you want, but sometimes you get a blend or partial granting of your wishes. This is how the system works.
I was at the dog cathouse in Amsterdam last year while my half blind human guy was in the human cathouse one flight up. The mate was complaining about global warming. She said that the migrants come in from the cold, warm up and fail to pay. Amsterdam is full of these global roaming global warming deadbeats.
The republicans are NOT doing the will of the people
@ Philly
Sure they are. If I were a Republican and elected someone as my Representative based on their campaign promises, I expect them to follow through on those promises. They are expressing the will of the people who elected them…..the will of their constituents who are Republican. The same thing would be true if I were a Democrat.
The “People”….in the biggest sense, in our system have the option to elect other representatives than the Republican ones to do their will. If the majority of The People elect those who agree with their will and the majority of the
The mix of Representative and Senators of DIFFERENT ideological stripes are supposed to work together to come up with legislation that can try to represent all of the combined people’s will. This is the system working correctly as it was designed.
What the heck are they teaching in school anymore anyway?
You are just b^tthurt because sometimes they don’t represent YOUR particular wishes and are dismissive of the fact that there ARE other people out their in the mix who don’t want your wishes to come true. Tuff. That is how the system works. If you don’t like it elect more people who represent your wishes.
You want a dictatorship as long as it is one that YOU agree with. Admit it.
The republicans are NOT doing the will of the people. Numerous polls have shown that THE PEOPLE wanted more banking reform, more investment in infrastructure, better health care for veterans, and on and on. The republicans are doing the will of ALEC and the Koch brothers, and it’s all politics to them.
I agree with your idea that they are supposed to be acting on behalf of the people, but they aren’t and haven’t been for the last seven years. That’s also why they have had their lowest approval ratings ever.
You have some valid points but how to you propose a sitting president to get any legislation through when you have an obstructionist Congress;
@ Keithosaunders
Just proving my point. The President is not the king and is not allowed to write legislation. He can propose ideas but it is CONGRESS who is elected by the people to represent THEIR desires who writes legislation.
When you have a split government, as we do in some Rep some Dem some Libertarian etc representatives, you will naturally have some opposition from one side or another. This is a GOOD thing and is by design.
Obstructionist Congress means that the Representatives and Senators are doing the jobs that they were elected to do. Represent the WILL of the PEOPLE.
The President is not a King or Dictator and while you may agree with Obama’s agendas, you need to recognize that many millions of other citizens do not.
If you want an all powerful dictatorial President and are happy with it when it represents your side, your interests and your desires, recognize that at some point the tide will change and your wishes will not be paramount to the next Dictator/President.
Be careful what you wish for!
It is a delicious irony. The Democrats/Progressives act with impunity, spit on the Constitution, ram through policies despite what the people want, act in totalitarian ways and laugh in our faces about it. They never ever imagine that someday some other power might be in charge and will act the same way on them. Use their own tactitcs on them….Oh…NO! not on US!!!! they whine.
They squeal like little stuck piggies when their tactics are turned upon themselves.
Granting a President Obama the power to just wave his magic “pen and phone” to gut the Constitution and ignore the elected Representatives of the people, may come back to haunt them. The old adage of be careful of what you wish for because you might get it…come to mind 😉
Uh oh, scary Turley is on the move. Don’t let a Republican win because all the great things this President has done during his uber presidency will be wiped away by a stroke of the pen or a well-placed phone call. Let us not forget this so called do-nothing-Congress had the power to do anything they wanted FOR this President during his 1st two years and didn’t. Last I checked Congress is supposed to represent the People and the States, NOT the President. So if Congress opposes the President, if he does not get his way, then he MUST find a way WITHIN the constitutional limits and not outside of it. Congress IS NOT obligated to fulfill this arrogant President’s bucket list nor the next.
I do believe Trump will try and seize the same uber Presidency mantle and extend it to wherever it will take him. He has the same gruber-like following that the Dems have and that is an indictment of our entire electorate. As the saying goes, “Life is hard, but it’s even harder when you’re stupid.”
Paul, It’s an el Nino year which is a naturally occurring weather pattern. What it means for the upper Midwest is mild winters. Yesterday, it was 60 degrees! Those Dallas Cowboys can’t blame their loss on it being too cold. But, although el Nino is a natural phenomenon, the “GLOBAL WARMING” zombies are blaming this NICE weather on that. They are shameless liars.
Nick – El Nino means a wet winter here. In fact it is raining here today.