Missing: checks and balances
Remember the soothing murmurs before and even after the election that “checks and balances” would prevent Trump from getting away with authoritarian excesses? I do.
The Times points out the obvious fact that there don’t seem to be any.
By circumventing normal practices for formulating policies and their execution, the White House has created still-swirling confusion about whom the order targets and how it will be enforced. There is also ambiguity about the legality of the order, which the White House calls extreme vetting but which critics call a Muslim ban, and about how court challenges, already underway, will proceed.
For many abroad, the ban raised questions about how an American president could undertake such an action suddenly and unilaterally, seemingly unfettered by checks and balances. The order’s apparent breaches with usual protocol over how policy is made, and potentially with the law, are already creating major problems in its enforcement.
That’s putting it a good deal too politely. Trump is carrying on as if he had been handed absolute power on January 20th. Trump doesn’t give a rat’s ass about “usual protocol” because he thinks he’s the best person in the universe and that he can and should act accordingly.
Several federal courts have already prohibited deportations under the ban and have ordered that individuals detained at airports or at the border have access to lawyers. But there have been reports of customs and border officials refusing to comply.
This appears to set up a potential conflict between the branches of government — a worrying possibility, as the separation of powers is a cornerstone of American democracy. Should the judicial branch be blocked from performing its role as a check on the executive, it would lead to a constitutional crisis. It is unclear how Mr. Trump would respond to such a crisis or how it would resolve.
Again – carefully Timesesque wording for a starkly terrifying situation. To put it more bluntly: it seems to be entirely possible that Trump will respond to such a crisis the way he has responded all along: by imposing his will by force, by any means necessary. He’ll put us all in camps if that’s what it takes.
The president has broad powers to regulate and restrict immigration without congressional approval, though this is limited by certain constitutional protections that could apply.
Mr. Trump broke radically in this case with long-held norms of how executive power is exercised. Ordinarily, a president drafts policy changes by consulting, over a period of weeks or months, with federal agencies and other stakeholders in and outside the government.
Because even shitty presidents understand they are part of a government, not absolute rulers. But Trump is both too stupid and too conceited to understand that, and also to care if he did understand it. Malignant narcissists don’t understand things like that.
Those practices are meant to vet a policy for its legality and ability to be enforced, as well as for unforeseen consequences. The process also lets agencies begin planning how they will execute the policy and allows those affected to prepare.
The administration appears to have largely skipped that process, drafting this and other recent orders within a small circle of political advisers. Relevant agencies and the National Security Council were granted little or no review over the immigration order before it was signed.
Because he’s that stupid and incompetent, and he’s surrounded himself with enablers. The grownups have all left the building.
There is no law mandating such an internal review. But, by forgoing it, the administration circumvented an important internal check on executive power, while creating the impression that it is making critical national policy in slapdash fashion.
No, not “creating the impression” – actually doing it. It is obviously making critical national policy in slapdash fashion.
But internal vetting is about more than practicalities and legalities; it is also meant to protect the core values and interests of the United States. More voices are emerging to challenge the order on those grounds, a concern that will probably remain even if the administration amends the order to pass legal muster.
That of course is the real horror. With one violent yank, he has pulled us into the moral world of Nazi Germany, and we don’t want to go there.
The sad thing is that a lot of the people who put their faith in the “checks and balances” were fully expecting Trump to attempt to go off the rails, but were firmly convinced that someone would stop him before he went too far. Question is, how far is too far?
I know, I always wondered what on earth made them so confident of that. I hoped they were right, of course, but I had zero confidence of it.
I understand some people have already been deported and at least one person was bullied into giving up their green card before being kicked out. What the hell happens to them now, even if the original order is amended?
Clearly, he is unchecked as well as unbalanced. I’m not sure whether to view the complete incompetence of Trump’s moves as a (very, very faint) silver lining. The sheer chaos caused by the illegal Muslim ban should cause some of his less devoted allies to oppose him; on the other hand, most of them have displayed a total absence of character in this whole mess.
Shouldn’t it be easy to stand up and say “Let’s not be Nazis”?
I’m afraid this may be a case of the Democrats being hoist by their own petard. Clinton and Obama (and Dubya, between them, of course) all made extensive use of executive orders, expanding the powers of the Presidency in order to bypass hostile Congressional delegations. That they usually did so for good cause doesn’t undermine the fact that they laid the groundwork for this rampant abuse of that same authority. If we’d had a Democratic Congress with Trump in office, this whole mess could’ve at least had a small sunny side of that Congress moving to limit the executive authority. But unfortunately, Ryan and his cabal are in heaven–Trump gets to make all the bad calls, and take any heat that arises, and they can just bask in the deplorables’ adoration.
Well, the Acting Attorney General just stood up to him.
She’s now the former acting attorney general.
It’s pretty astounding to pull a Nixon just two weeks into your term.
Trump: I won. I have the power. I can do what I want. Rules are for losers.
Sane Americans: We will do everything in our power to stop you.
Trump. Shut up and Respect The Rules.
It has occurred to me that if you ignore everything Trump has ever said or done in public it’s impossible to tell whether Trump is an evil genius or an evil idiot. Bear with me.
Putting through the Muslim ban without consulting the DoD or DHS could have been an attempt to consolidate power or it could have been ignorance of how and why these things are done and refusal to listen to anyone who tells him because – as Ophelia says – he assumes his way is automatically right (and that someone will bail him out when it inevitably all goes to shit for him).
The ban itself could be an attempt to test the boundaries for an upcoming coup attempt. Which officials will do what he says regardless of the law? Or it could be the case that a racist fucktangle is calling the shots. Some things suggest the former (the fact that officials actually are flouting the law, that the AG was sacked etc.) and some things suggest the latter (the detention of people who were en route when he signed the bill, which can only be pure, Trumpic tantrum spite).
The same goes for his sacking the acting AG. Her replacement looks like quite a clever move for Trump because she’ll not only do what he says but for various reasons she’s quite difficult to sack. Or it could be that an idiot has thrown a tantrum.
From the immediate implications (of the actions alone) it’s virtually impossible to tell whether Trump is a genius or an idiot. It effectively makes no difference, so there’s no way to tell.
Fortunately, we don’t have to ignore everything Trump does and says in public. It’s completely obvious that he’s a malevolent idiot, bumbling his way across a busy road while cars smash into each other trying to avoid him. But it’s interesting that it seems to make no functional difference in the short term whether he’s an evil genius or an evil clown.
The longer-term implications are quite another matter.
It turns out the supposed checks and balances against misuse of power can be sidestepped by simply not consulting with a person that might say no to you.
I believe Andrew Jackson set the precedent, essentially suggesting that the Supreme Court was welcome to send its armed forces to stop him from expelling the Georgia Cherokee.