Although most of the new Democrats are reacting to Donald Trump and his Executive Orders as if his favorite sport is poisoning cats with antifreeze but the reality of the Executive Orders is they're more Hollywood than anything else and the secondary purpose they serve is showing how little power the President has over the states (i.e. Congress).
If America wanted a King, the new country could have named Washington but, in that case, there would have been no need of a Congress since the King does whatever he wants. However, in America the King can only issue Executive Orders and there's no violation of law if Congress tells him, ever so gently, to fuck himself.
Executive Order to build a wall with Mexico
That will need some kind of legislative bill from Congress and enjoy the list of pork barrel projects which rides along with that dream date.
Executive Order to take down the Affordable Care Act
As you saw, that didn't change anything either but rather pushed it down to states rights without writing a line of legislation.
There's no need to further itemize since I'm sure you get the point.
The general premise is the White House is as much dancing with the stars as any of the P3 (i.e. Primary Political Posers) and so far we're just getting cover songs with nothing behind them. Trump has become the dream date of a relatively small number of new Republicans and the dream hate of a relatively small number of new Democrats. Fifty percent more in the electorate see the shadow boxing and only think WTF are y'all playing at out there.
It appears to me a good many of those skeptical scofflaws hang about at Ithaka and welcome; I admire your discerning eye and not so much in terms of having the extraordinary perspicacity to recognize the value of the incisive truth of the commentary on Ithaka but your skepticism regarding the government is what brought you around here in the first place and that latter aspect is the thing I admire.
Ed: I can always trust someone who wears a Waffle House hat?
You know it, dawg. (Ithaka: Powered by Waffle House)
The most amusing irony of it all for the Rockhouse is hearing Republicans talk of how much they loathe the power of the overbearing Fed but that same Fed is exactly what they're using to get all the groundlings in fear of losing their dogs, guns, and the right to frolic in the Sun.
Ed: I don't see much frolicking in the Sun!
It's probably better since the skin cancer sucks; you don't want any of that anyway.
In summation, stand back for the backlash from Congress since we haven't seen much of that yet but no-one gets more territorial than that lot and no-one tells them what to do.
Ed: the result is they don't ever do anything!
Well, sure, but that's how the Forefathers wanted it, right?
Have a ball with this one, American historians.
If America wanted a King, the new country could have named Washington but, in that case, there would have been no need of a Congress since the King does whatever he wants. However, in America the King can only issue Executive Orders and there's no violation of law if Congress tells him, ever so gently, to fuck himself.
Executive Order to build a wall with Mexico
That will need some kind of legislative bill from Congress and enjoy the list of pork barrel projects which rides along with that dream date.
Executive Order to take down the Affordable Care Act
As you saw, that didn't change anything either but rather pushed it down to states rights without writing a line of legislation.
There's no need to further itemize since I'm sure you get the point.
The general premise is the White House is as much dancing with the stars as any of the P3 (i.e. Primary Political Posers) and so far we're just getting cover songs with nothing behind them. Trump has become the dream date of a relatively small number of new Republicans and the dream hate of a relatively small number of new Democrats. Fifty percent more in the electorate see the shadow boxing and only think WTF are y'all playing at out there.
It appears to me a good many of those skeptical scofflaws hang about at Ithaka and welcome; I admire your discerning eye and not so much in terms of having the extraordinary perspicacity to recognize the value of the incisive truth of the commentary on Ithaka but your skepticism regarding the government is what brought you around here in the first place and that latter aspect is the thing I admire.
Ed: I can always trust someone who wears a Waffle House hat?
You know it, dawg. (Ithaka: Powered by Waffle House)
The most amusing irony of it all for the Rockhouse is hearing Republicans talk of how much they loathe the power of the overbearing Fed but that same Fed is exactly what they're using to get all the groundlings in fear of losing their dogs, guns, and the right to frolic in the Sun.
Ed: I don't see much frolicking in the Sun!
It's probably better since the skin cancer sucks; you don't want any of that anyway.
In summation, stand back for the backlash from Congress since we haven't seen much of that yet but no-one gets more territorial than that lot and no-one tells them what to do.
Ed: the result is they don't ever do anything!
Well, sure, but that's how the Forefathers wanted it, right?
Have a ball with this one, American historians.
3 comments:
Just one correction:
"...showing how little power the President has over the states (i.e. Congress)."
Constitutionally, Congress does not represent the states, it represents the Federal Government. The 10th Amendment, in its reference to the States, refers to the state legislatures. It is intended to restrict the actions of Congress to only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution, while acknowledging that the broadest and unfettered authority rests in the individual state legislatures.
You'll also note that the Constitution does not reference Executive Orders. The framers of the Constitution did not intend to grant broad powers to the Chief Executive, but that is how Executive Orders evolved over the last couple of centuries. Unless the Order is directing enforcement of legislation passed by Congress, the Order is, in fact, unconstitutional. (You'll notice, as an example, that the Executive Order issued this week on immigration specifically cites the federal immigration laws already on the books as laws that must be enforced. The Order doesn't amend them, nor does it attempt to implement new law; it sets the priority for enforcing current law.)
Fair enough on all points and I don't mean to quibble but those in Congress represent their states so they're playing on both stages since woe to the Congressman who fails to bring home the pork, regardless of how he or she plays it on the stage. No need I'm sure to belabor the stinkfest in that system of pork dollars.
I suspect we may have some general agreement these Executive Orders get a whole lot of airplay but it remains to be seen how they actually translate into actual change.
Oh, no disagreement here on the showmanship surrounding Executive Orders. It would be interesting to learn how many are ever actually enforced (or, better still, actually enforceable.) The best advice I have for anyone trying to understand what Trump is doing publicly is to read his "Art of the Deal." Everything he does is part of a negotiation, and as he describes in the book, starting from a seemingly absurd position gives you the edge in those negotiations.
It's interesting, because he's (to my knowledge) the first President to approach the office as a CEO of a financially troubled company would approach that job. I'm watching the parade of cabinet nominees he's put forth, and almost all of them are folks that are not overly supportive of the department they will lead. That is a technique sometimes used by new CEOs to scrutiny a department's budget and to shakeup the bureaucracy that inevitably builds over time. This will be interesting to watch since the technique does have merit. If nothing else, this may well lead to improved efficiency in those departments and, for a time, less pork in their department budgets.
Post a Comment