The nation's founders, despite including various undemocratic features in our Constitution, were very clear on one thing: they did not want a king. They defined "king" as someone in whom all decision-making authority was vested. It didn't matter if this king held the title of "president", unchecked power was what they were to guard against. In modern terms, since the kings we have in the 21st century are mere figureheads, we would term one in whom absolute power is concentrated a dictator. In order to prevent a dictatorship they devised a government structure where power and authority was spread among three theoretically coequal branches. The national legislature (Congress) made the laws, the executive branch (headed by the president) executed and enforced the laws and the judicial branch interpreted the laws. The system by which the three branches keep the others from assuming absolute power is generally referred to as checks and balances. Congress writes laws, but they must be approved by the president, whose veto can be overridden my a Congressional supermajority. Presidential appointments must be approved by the Senate. The president can be removed by impeachment and conviction by Congress. Laws can be deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.
There is a constitutional theory, mainly propounded by conservative legal scholars, called the Unitary Executive. This theory posits that all according to Article II of the Constitution executive branch agencies and departments are overseen and directed solely by the president, with Congress having no role in oversight or control. Trump, in his usual ignorant manner, has summarized this theory as "I have an Article II which means I can do whatever I want". The problem is that Congress has created agencies and departments and imbued them with a specific mission, and regularly appropriated funds for the executing of that mission. Some of these agencies have been termed "independent", in that they were envisioned as being able to conduct their mission unencumbered by partisan considerations or change in administration. The advocates of the Unitary Executive believe that all of that is unconstitutional; that the president has complete authority over all departments and agencies. This theory is at odds with the law. If an agency is established by law, and funds are appropriated for it's operation, the president, according to Article II Section 3, is to "...take care that the laws be faithfully executed...", not pick and choose what laws to follow and which ones to ignore.
What Trump is doing with his blizzard of executive orders (EO's) is to announce that he is not bound by the law or the Constitution, and that he has the power and authority of a king, a dictator. This is completely separate from the issue of whether his policies are actually good ideas. That's a discussion for another day. The fact that his ideas, whether good or bad, are being pursued unilaterally, without following previously passed laws or appropriations, is what makes what is going on a dictatorship. A lot of ink has been spilled about Elon Musk's installment as the unquestioned arbiter of what is inefficient in government. I saw an article the other day about what Trump should do to rein in Musk. But the problem isn't Musk, it's Trump himself. Musk is merely acting on illegally delegated authority from a president who is illegally exercising authority that he does not have.
One of Trump's first moves was to fire Inspectors General in most federal departments. It's the job of these officials to identify corruption and other problems in their departments. I am unclear whether it is within their purview to proactively conduct audits. In Nebraska the Auditor of Public Accounts, an independently elected official (i.e. not controlled by the governor) conducts audits of all government agencies. I can tell you from experience that they are extremely detailed and leave no stone unturned. If there is not a similar federal position, there should be. Instead, we have a team of people who have no experience in, or understanding of, government, who wouldn't know if something was inefficient or not, unilaterally shutting down government agencies with no oversight whatsoever. Whether or not government is bloated and inefficient isn't the question, it's whether budget trimming should be done in the dictatorial manner.
I brought up checks and balances earlier. It remains to be seen what action the judicial branch will take, but the Republican Congressional majority has decided that they will be doing nothing. They're okay with allowing a president to assume dictatorial powers, as long as they kinda-sorta agree with the broad outlines of his "plan", and as long as they stay on his good side, and therefore in the good graces of his cultish supporters.
Whether you think USAID is a waste of money, or agree that the Department of Education should be eliminated, or CFPB should go, or woke communist transgender gun takers must be stopped, are you really fine with the United States becoming a dictatorship?
Oh well, at least the trains will run on time.
No comments:
Post a Comment