Suddenly, Washington Post Is Very Concerned Over The Expanding Power Of The Presidency

We’ve just spend 7+ years living under a president (perhaps yours, not mine) who has increased the power of the Chief Executive and the agencies which report to him by leaps and bounds. Obama has used whatever power he could take, legally or not, constitutionally or not, whenever he wants. The rule making emanating from the White House and federal agencies has been breathtaking. But, now, this is suddenly a problem. From the hoity-toity halls of the Washington Post, can you guess why? The headline says it all

Donald Trump and the expanding power of the presidency

The web front page headline reads “Today’s presidency offers almost unchecked power, enabling a potential Trump administration.” Obviously, this is all about Trump using the power of the presidency, as expanded by many presidents, without really noting that a) Obama has done more than any modern president, and b) Hillary would do much the same. Though, whether she would blow off Congress, even those in her own party, as Obama has done is up for question

Donald Trump has promised not only to be the voice of the American people but also to take decisive, immediate action. As president, he has said he would move fast to destroy the Islamic State, scrap bad trade deals, build that wall, “stop the gangs and the violence,” and “stop the drugs from pouring into our communities.” He would “immediately suspend immigration” from countries where terrorism is rampant. He might even defy treaty obligations and decline to aid NATO allies.

The Republican nominee has led some to conclude that he intends a sweeping expansion of presidential authority. His rhetoric implies a muscular, almost unitary, presidency that would be at least as expansive as what historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. famously dubbed the “imperial presidency” — his critique of Richard Nixon’s abuse of power in the era of Watergate and Vietnam.

But scholars of the presidency say that Barack Obama, George W. Bush and their predecessors have added so many powers to the White House toolbox that a President Trump could fulfill many of his promises legally — and virtually unchecked by a Congress that has proven incapable of mustering much pushback for decades .

Interesting. Hillary has made lots of promises to Do Things: why does this not apply to her? Candidates make all sorts of promises during election season. Suddenly, Donald’s are Bad. Like Hitler bad

Trump’s critics hear his sweeping promises as the words of a classic strongman, a ruler who seems prepared to push aside the cobwebs of bureaucracy and the checks and balances of American federalism to produce instant, decisive action. Critics have compared him to Mussolini, Hitler, Vladi­mir Putin, Saddam Hussein and Argentina’s Juan Perón. Trump has praised Putin and Hussein for being tough on terrorism. In the past, Trump has singled out China’s crackdown against pro-democracy activists in Tiananmen Square in 1989 as a demonstration of “the power of strength.”

Of course they do. Why not Hillary, though? For that matter, what about Obama, who has, furthermore, use and/or allowed federal agencies to target and abuse private citizens and groups that oppose him? Does that not bear the marks of a classic strongman?

The long article continues in its concern that a president Trump (not a president Hillary, mind you, because she’s a Democrat) would become an uber-unilateral president, forgoing Congress. Without mentioning Obama doing exactly that.

If a president does overstep his authority, Congress could cut off his funding or impeach him, but a President Trump could counter with the power of the bully pulpit.

Huh. When the GOP attempted to do this to Obama, Democrats and their media Comrades screamed bloody murder.

But Devins has concluded that the record of the past two decades shows that Congress “lacks both the will and the way to check the presidency.

“Today’s system of checks and balances,” he said , “is an abject failure.”

Suddenly, liberals are concerned about this. Where was the concern the past 7+ years? We know the answer.

But, let’s be clear: this expansion of power is a bad thing. While I certainly have a concern with Trump’s Big Government leanings, what’s wrong with rolling back federal regulations enacted by executive actions? He could hamstring much of Obamacare while simply following the law. He could eliminate the Contraception mandate, the work rules requirements, all the IRS positions created to fine citizens, and so much more. He could roll back the EPA’s ‘climate change’ rules, such as the Clean Power Plan, along with the dictatorial Waters Of The US plan. Negate the Paris climate accord and Iran deal. He could simply use the power of the presidency to enforce the law on illegal aliens.

But, article Marc Fisher does sorta make a good point earlier in the fable

Some Trump initiatives, such as repealing the Affordable Care Act, cutting taxes or expanding Social Security, would require extensive, close work with Congress. But presidents already have the power to do much of what Trump has proposed. Congress has given the president the authority to negotiate trade deals, for example, and Trump could try to renegotiate the nuclear deal with Iran.

I’ve beaten on this subject before, the notion that Congress crafts legislation that is entirely too broad, which allows the Executive Branch to create rules and regulation, which carry the force of law to the point of criminal and civil penalties against private citizens and entities, out of seemingly thin air. For instance, there is not one instance where the words “sterilization” and “contraception” appear in the Patient Protection (snicker) and Affordable (snicker) Care Act, nor any mention of abortifacients in an manner. This was created out of thin air by HHS. The bill was so big and broad that things can almost be done at will. The Environmental Protection Act was a very good idea. It has since been expanded by the EPA and other agencies to mean whatever the hell they want it to mean.

This is the case for so much legislation, which is often so broad that the Executive Office can find a rationale for doing as they will at will. Legislation, when passed, should be specific with no wiggle room. Deal with the specific subject, and, if the POTUS wants more, he/she should come to Congress and provide the reason why, along with a plan that includes things like implementation, who is in charge, and the expected results. It is the role of the Executive Office to enforce law as passed by Congress, not create it themselves. If the legislation isn’t specific, it gives the EO the ability to take power.

And, while we’re at it, repeal the 17th Amendment and institute term limits on Congress.

Crossed at Right Wing News.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

30 Responses to “Suddenly, Washington Post Is Very Concerned Over The Expanding Power Of The Presidency”

  1. Jeffery says:

    He Trumples all over the truth. He can’t help himself. He lies so much he’s the only Republican who can lose to Hillary Clinton.

    The far-right desire for a dictator overrides their desire to win and govern as conservatives.

    The far-right: The gift that keeps on giving (to Democrats)!

  2. Jeffery says:

    Repeal the 17th? Do you hate democracy so much?

    Perhaps you prefer a parliamentary system.

    Why not also enact an amendment having the House appoint the President?

  3. Jeffery says:


    We get it, the “new”* conservatism that has captured the GOP finds the notion of living in a Constitutional Republic oppressive and prefers a monarchy with a ruthless strongman doing what is necessary to constrain the will of the majority. It’s the sine qua non of right-wing authoritarians. Trump stumbled upon this opportunity to lead the far-right and is playing the role as best he can.

    * The newness of the “new” conservatism is based on its recent political ascendency. This branch of conservatism has always been with us, e.g., John Birch Society, Dixiecrats etc, fueled largely by xenophobia and white, christian supremacy. At this point in time, the battle for the soul of the GOP is between the “new” conservatism and old-fashioned conservatism that seeks the same goals, but in a slower, more palatable way (e.g., starve the beast, reward the wealthy).

  4. Jeffery says:

    As if on cue, the lying liar lies again. It’s congenital with him – and most “businessmen” of his ilk.

    The NFL did not send a letter to Trumpelstiltskin.

  5. Jeffery says:

    The Trumpet absolutely, positively does not want a one-on-one debate with Secretary Clinton.

    He will: 1) Weasel out of them, or 2) Insist that libertarian, green, socialist party candidates participate.

    His NFL lie is just his opening salvo to avoid the debates. Can you imagine him discussing tax policy, healthcare or foreign policy in depth? LOL

    Conservatism is now and has always been about xenophobia and white, X-tian supremacy. Trump is popular with uber-conservatives because he expresses those sentiments explicitly. But he frightens some more “traditional” Republicans who hate his overt tactics but support his intent.

    Just last Tuesday, Donald Trump Jr. extolled the virtues of the confederate battle flag at the Neshoba County Fair just outside Philadelphia, Mississippi, where Reagan famously championed “states rights”, and where conservative white men, including local police, murdered 3 young civil rights workers in 1964.

    7 conservative white men were convicted but no one served more than 6 years. Discussing the sentencing the judge said, “They killed one nigger, one Jew, and a white man. I gave them what I thought they deserved.”

    This is the “tradition” that Reagan and now Trump exploit.

  6. Repeal the 17th? Do you hate democracy so much?

    Perhaps you prefer a parliamentary system.

    Why not also enact an amendment having the House appoint the President?

    You obviously have zero understanding of the 17th. We don’t have democracy, we have a Republic. Or, at least, we’re supposed to. Senators were appointed by the state assemblies so as to give the state direct representation to Congress. Senators would vote the will of the states, and be directly responsible to the states. You know nothing. Did you even read the link? Your next two lines are typical leftist moonbattery.

  7. david7134 says:

    Then there is lyin, crooked, murderer Hillary.

  8. drowningpuppies says:

    Good to see the incontinent little guy who exaggerates often still shitting himself over Trump.

  9. Jeffery says:


    We get it. You prefer that party elites appoint Senators rather than their direct election by the citizens they supposedly serve.

    Historically speaking, why was the 17th enacted?

    Do you really think the party apparatchiks would do a better job selecting Senators? What advantage would repeal offer the Republicans (otherwise, why would you suggest it)?

    Anyway, as it stands now, our Senatorial system gives great power to small state Senators, to wit, a Wyoming Senator represents a 290,000 citizens while a California senator represents 19,500,000.

  10. Jeffery says:

    “[Putin’s] not going into Ukraine, okay, just so you understand. He’s not going to go into Ukraine, all right? You can mark it down. You can put it down. You can take it anywhere you want,” Trump said.

    Trumpski on TV this AM. He doesn’t have a clue and his knee-jerk reaction in his ignorance is to defend his man-crush, Putin.

    This afternoon Trumpski is likely to twitter that he wasn’t referring to Russian troops but meant Putin himself.

    He hasn’t a clue.

  11. Teach,

    We get it. You prefer that party elites appoint Senators rather than their direct election by the citizens they supposedly serve.

    Historically speaking, why was the 17th enacted?

    That right there tells me you have no idea who elected the Senators prior to the 17th. They weren’t party elites: they were duly elected legislators, who were much closer to the people they represent than those in far flung D.C., and much more accountable. The Framers wanted it that way. Are your federal dems really accountable to you? If you wanted to see one, how easy would it be? The GOP federally are about as lame.

    States are big. They were as big as European nations, hence the term, states. That’s what they called nations back then. The Framers wanted the government responsible to the People. Furthermore, they wanted people in the federal congress whose first allegiance was to their states, not their parties or any special interests. Sure, it’s not perfect, but, do you think corruption is any less with them beholden to the parties and special interests only?

    Do you really think the party apparatchiks would do a better job selecting Senators? What advantage would repeal offer the Republicans (otherwise, why would you suggest it)?

    They’re doing this now, only at a federal level, rather than a state level. Previously, they had to have a consensus candidate.

    Anyway, as it stands now, our Senatorial system gives great power to small state Senators, to wit, a Wyoming Senator represents a 290,000 citizens while a California senator represents 19,500,000.

    As it should be. States should have their say. But, now, they are, again, more beholden to their parties and special interests rather than their states and citizens.

  12. Jl says:

    Surprise. J is as clueless as Hitlary.

  13. john says:

    If he is not your POTUS you aren’t an American

  14. Dana says:

    The Washington Post isn’t as concerned about Mrs Clinton abusing executive power because she already has a record of being completely inept with executive power. The fear Mr Trump with executive authority because they know that he can and would get things done.

  15. Dana says:

    John wrote:

    If he is not your POTUS you aren’t an American

    And I’m sure that you felt exactly that way when George Bush was President, right?

    Of course, no one is “my” President. Rather, there is a President of the United States, who exercises authority over the government of the United States and its employees, but I, as a civilian who is not a government employee, am not beholden to any President; no President has any authority over my actions, as long as they remain lawful.

  16. Jeffery says:

    Trump’s lack of human decency has been revealed by his attacks on Mr. and Mrs. Khan and their hero son, Humayun, who was killed by Islamic radicals in Baquba Iraq in 2004, while trying to stop a car filled with explosives bearing down on his comrades.

    Mr. Khan was awarded a Bronze Star Medal.

    Sadly, Trump will not suffer politically as his supporters agree with him that all Muslims are evil.

  17. Jeffery says:

    I did consider George W. Bush my president.

    I DO wish he had been better and I DID oppose his decision to invade Iraq and to cut taxes on the super-wealthy.

  18. Monday morning links

    Why Verizon wants an ailing Yahoo Obamas’ holiday idyll shattered by local anger over outsize mansions Dallas Weatherman Resigns After Criticizing DNC For Having Mothers Of “Slain Thugs” Truth can sometimes get you fired these days Millenn

  19. Liam Thomas says:


    The far-right desire for a dictator overrides their desire to win and govern as conservatives.

    As usual your simple task of trolling a right website prevents you from fully understanding what is going on in the middle all the way to the far right within the GOP right now.

    For 7 years we elected people who P R O M I S E D to rid us and the nation of 1. Obamacare and 2. Illegal Immigration.

    They have to date done absolutely NOTHING….despite being in charge of both houses.

    The right is pissed….enter Donald Trump

    OR… follow along closely here Mr. Jefferson of moving on up….the Archie Bunker of the left………

    Donald trump….non politician….

    Thats basically all it took…..any NON POLITICIAN.

    The right at this moment is more interested in punishing THEIR OWN for lying to them…….

    Thats what Donald Trump represents……

    As for Any candidate…..well any candidate but Hillary would be up by 25 points as it is….its basically a tie right now……..


    So the MESSAGE IS BEING SENT by the right… matter what.

  20. Jeffery says:

    Why is Trump hiding his tax returns?

  21. Jeffery says:

    Why does Trump continually lie about Putin, David Duke, Michael Bloomberg?

    He has claimed for 3 years of having a relationship with Putin, including talking with Putin, but now denies any relationship or ever speaking with Putin, even on the phone.

    Says he doesn’t know who Bloomberg is yet there are multiple photos playing golf together, at baseball games together…

    He could shoot a pregnant woman in Times Square and not lose a single vote.

    I don’t blame Trump, I blame is ignorant supporters.

  22. Hank_M says:

    We’ve seen this act before.
    Seems any time a Repub could win or does win the presidency, the left is always concerned and alarmed at the power of the office. Then when the left wins the office, any and all abuses of power are conveniently overlooked.

    If you look closely, you’ll see hypocrisy is one of the planks of the democrat party. That along with double standards and projection.

  23. Richard Bell says:

    Of course Trump wants a one on one debate with Hillary, but only if it is on live television. Hillary cannot even handle a press conference, a live debate on television with Trump, who will ignore the moderator and just say what he feels like saying, must be Hillary’s worst nightmare. None of her substantive points resonate with the electorate and personal attacks are counterproductive. If she calls him a liar, he will bring up her lying. If she calls him corrupt, he will bring up the Clinton Foundation’s links to dictatorships.

    People would like us to believe that Trump cannot face Hillary in a debate, in the hope that they can get away with not having a televised debate.

  24. Jeffery says:

    Richard Bell,

    Trump is a thug and a bully and knows so little about anything, so you may be right that he will attempt to hijack any debate.

    It’s more likely though that if the polls are close he will just refuse to debate. Perhaps he will run another “charity” showcase instead.

    What’s the over-under on how soon he calls Secretary Clinton a cunt or a whore on live TV? Obviously, his minions will eat it up.

    He could set fire to a kindergarten class on HBO and stomp those that stop, drop and roll and not lose the devotion of a single minion.

    What is saddening to most decent Americans is that 35% or so of our countrymen, some walking amongst us, believe Trump should be president.

  25. drowningpuppies says:

    Trump is a thug and a bully…

    –that little guy who exaggerates often

    Except he isn’t.

    ISIS cock, keeo sucking it little guy.

  26. Jeffery says:

    scared little puppy,

    Just because he’s gentle when you suck his tiny cock, doesn’t mean he’s not a thug and bully!

  27. Jeffery says:

    Hmmm, so it turns out that Saint Trump wanted Marla Maples to abort Tiffany Trump. And it’s all on tape, thanks to the odious Howard Stern.

    Trump could perform 100 abortions on live TV and his minions would still worship their god-king.

    As long as he hates all non-white, non-X-tians, he is A-OK with his minions!

  28. david7134 says:

    After all the liberal comments we boil down to one fact amid all the lies and that is that Hillary is a lyin, corrupt, murder, incompetent nut.

  29. drowningpuppies says:

    The incontinent little guy who exaggerates often keeps shitting himself over Trump.

  30. Jeffery says:

    I don’t blame Trump, after all he’s always been a shameless self promoter. I blame his hateful minions.

Pirate's Cove