Decency, Trump and Obama.

[Belsnickel]

(03-10-2017, 08:23 PM)Dill Wrote: A question for you, Bels.

So many of the things Trump has done so far were once agreed upon as "out of bounds"; no president did them, so there was no need for legal restriction.

Along with those are actions which, though not prescribed, came to be respected and practiced by everyone, like releasing  tax returns.

I am curious if you think that one consequence of the Trump presidency will be tighter restrictions on the executive and perhaps some added requirements for future candidates, such as a law specifying release of tax forms and the like and further specification of what might count as "emoluments."  The public undermining of the Intel services--in favor of unvetted tabloid-level conspiracy theories no less--may also get Congress thinking of further restrictions if people can get past their astonishment. An intel-fueled policy disaster would hasten that.

Johnson's actions in the Vietnam War prompted the War Powers Act. Nixon's actions brought restrictions on the president's powers to surveil. Given those presidents far greater statecraft and relative mental balance compared to Trump, I am wondering what impetus the Trump presidency will give Congress to start eliminating grey areas and unspecified powers.

It is interesting how many of the things that we saw as necessary to place the president above reproach were based entirely on tradition and were not, in fact, codified. A lot of people just didn't realize that. The issue is that a lot of the things that people are having trouble with, we don't know who has the authority to codify anything against the behavior.

Congress has certain authority with regards to the POTUS, but do they have the ability to codify any of the traditions that have existed? We can't really be certain at this point. It would likely require a constitutional amendment, but that would not likely happen.

(03-11-2017, 08:23 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Some would probably argue that is not a consequence, but a benefit.

Indeed.

(03-11-2017, 09:35 AM)hollodero Wrote: Read and registered.

It still seems like abouse of office to me, though...  . I mean, could a POTUS appear in a commercial? Maybe lie in one of these bathtubes in the sunset that somehow represent an end to erectile dysfunction (I mention that because to me this is maybe the most bizarre symbolization in the whole commercial world)? Could he hold a press conference in an overall saying "Godaddy.com" or something like that?
If not, I still feel he also can't use his office to slam department store chains for not selling daughter stuff. But OK. I realize I'm beating a dead horse.

The issue is that it seems like abuse of power because your ethical code would lead you to that conclusion, as it would for many other people. The problem is that there is nothing by law that would be an issue for many of these things. Just about everyone agrees with the position that it would be an abuse of power, but that doesn't really mean anything until the next election comes around and people voice their opinions. Of course, that doesn't even mean it will make a difference at that point, either.