View RSS Feed

Memories of the 28th Century

Presidential powers

Rate this Entry
1 Comment
by
PeterL
, 02-06-2025 at 12:36 PM (1489 Views)
Recently, the extent of the powers of the president of the United States of America has become an issue. Actually, the extent of presidential power has been an issue for a long time, but it seldom has come to a head.
It seems that Trump thinks that he can make an order about anything, and the world must bow to his will. Things like that have happened in the past, and the matter of getting rid of political enemies was a major when Lincoln had some of his enemies convicted in military courts and executed. Eventually, the Supreme Court determined that that was not valid or legal, but it was late for Milligan. With Trump, I think that we should rein him in before he kills enemies through military tribunals or other invalid courts.

The powers of the U.S. President are simple and explicitly stated in the U..S. Constitution. Most of them are stated quite clearly in Article Two and a few other [places. The president is responsible for carrying out and enforcing laws passed by Congress. Specified powers include :
Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
Section 3
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.

There are some other items that the president is responsible for, but there is nothing in the constitution that gives the president the power to appoint Elon Musk to close down departments and agencies that the Congress voted into existence. Nor can the president repeal laws that were passed y Congress and signed into law, nor can he change state laws or policies. I don't think that he can make Gaza
Reagan spent a lot of time on vacation, and no one noticed the difference. Eisenhower spent a lot of time playing golf, but he didn't cheat.

Several presidents were much wealthier after their term in office. Several presidents also tried to rule by edict, but the courts quickly put them in their places.

If Trump had bothered studying history, then he would have found that golf was a better way to spend one's time than playing dictator, but apparently, Trump didn't learn that private crimes can be forgiven, but crimes against the people cannot be forgiven, so he continues crimes against the people. And if he had studied history, then he would have learned that no one has ever won a trade war.

Apparently, he doesn't care,but failure to abide by his oath of office is a high crime. OFFICE IS A HIGH CRIME.
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. tonywalt's Avatar
    One cannot help but admire, in the abstract, the author’s enthusiasm for constitutional fidelity—though I suspect that what we are reading is not so much an exegesis on executive power as it is a cri de coeur from someone whose civics education was shaped more by headlines than Hamilton.

    The writer, in what must be an act of heroic misapprehension, lurches from Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus to an imagined Trumpian reign of military tribunals—complete with executions, no less!—with the narrative breathlessness of a man who, having watched a History Channel special on the Civil War, immediately began scribbling notes for the second coming of Macbeth. One marvels at the elasticity of the imagination required to connect Elon Musk to Milligan v. United States in a single paragraph.

    But let us, charitably, descend from the realm of hallucination and visit that quaint document the writer references with such reverence: the Constitution. Indeed, Article II is clear—achingly clear—and if the modern presidency has at times strayed into realms of administrative overreach, the culprit is not merely the incumbent, but the inertia and cowardice of a Congress that prefers indignation to legislation. That the executive occasionally presumes upon this vacuum is not tyranny; it is physics.

    The suggestion that Mr. Trump (or, presumably, any president) could unilaterally "appoint Elon Musk to close down departments and agencies" betrays a misunderstanding not only of the separation of powers, but of basic syntax. Presidents propose; Congress disposes. It is a system, not a fiefdom. And while Mr. Trump may at times have spoken as though he were issuing edicts from the throne of Xerxes, one is reminded that petulance is not policy, and tweets do not repeal statutes.

    As for the claim that “office is a high crime,” I must pause. Is the author here issuing a metaphysical indictment of the very concept of executive authority? Or merely having a typographical seizure? Either way, the feverish conflation of vacuous sloganry with constitutional analysis places the essay in that special category of rhetoric one finds on badly photocopied leaflets left on windshields at the mall.

    And then there is that hoary aphorism—“No one has ever won a trade war.” That may or may not be true, but it’s less a principle than a fortune cookie. One might as well say “no one has ever won a metaphor,” and yet the writer continues to try.

    In sum, the essay’s tone is one of moral alarm disguised as legal precision, but it reveals little beyond the author’s distaste for Mr. Trump and his fondness for historic parallels, however tortured. One might suggest that before issuing further rebukes, he read both the Constitution and a reputable biography of Calvin Coolidge—preferably in that order.

    Respectfully and with trepidation,