06-19-2024, 08:02 PM
(06-18-2024, 08:44 PM)Dill Wrote: Some great points here.
Speaking to the first bolded, it's not clear that the Trump et al. can accomplish these sweeping changes. This goes way beyond EOs to an attempt to literally reshape government institutions from the ground up in ways that make the changes permanent. Think of the varieties of chaos--regulatory, legislative, foreign policy, school policy, immigration, etc.--that would come down on the nation all at once across many different policy areas. Confusion and resistance would be the order of the day. Trump's desired response to the protests generated would further increase resistance. He had adults around him last time around, hemming him. He'll know not to pick them this time around. So I don't think implementation can be successful. Best case scenario (for them) is to get if partially done before resistance in and outside government becomes too much. It's likely that, as a matter of self-preservation, Trump would stop at some point before the Heritage Foundation can declare "mission accomplished."
As to the second bolded, the prominence of EOs has more to do with Congressional gridlock than anything. There comes a point where, in order to govern, presidents must turn to the EO as a stop gap.
As I stated above, Project 2025 is not going to be like changing a few EOs. If Trump wins and seeks to implement the Project, I'm betting the counter reaction will be more like traditional conservatism--restore the balance and function of institutions that were hundreds of years in the making. People will be SICK of radical restructuring of all parts of the executive branch all at once. Biden won campaigning for a "return to normalcy"; whoever follows Trump will have an even better case.
I get your question. It would apply to, say, getting rid of the filibuster or refusing to hold a confirmation of a SCOTUS appointee. But those are really localized disturbances; they don't involve 10s of thousands of people losing their jobs, leaving a vacuum of regulatory oversight and guidance as "true believers" step into government offices deciding what the new rules are with Trump's blessing.
Pretty sure the legislative is intended to be more powerful than the other two branches. One goal of Project 2025 is undo traditional checks on presidential power. They are reviving the "Unitary Executive" concept, popularized under Bush II by neocons like Cheney. Another step to autocracy if they are successful.
IMO the executive should be limited no matter who they are. I think it was Hamilton that came up with a lot of the powers/limits of the executive branch. Most of his plan was to prevent an overpowered president from having enough authority to run over the legislature as King George had to British Parliament. I also semi-understand that many of the founders didn't even want an executive to exist in the new government. It just became too messy to go without.
Gridlock is good and bad. It sucks that desired change is slow. It's good that change we don't like is stifled. Balance.
The only way a US president should have meaningful, enhanced power is by having a legislature in place that allows it. At that point, enough voters have decided that he/she gets a little more leash to run with. Then they have to survive challenges in court. Any think tank drafting plans to expand executive power never really believed in the US Constitution anyway. This wouldn't be changing a social policy or 2 to piss off the libz. It would be a rejection of how this country has been governed since the beginning.
