Government Regulations
To quote Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan Chase before Congress on June 13, 2012, "Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater", ... "I believe in strong regulation, not necessarily more regulation".. He clarified by saying that continuing to add regulation on top of bad, ineffective regulation would just make it more complex and costly and less effective, meaning be a little thoughtful about the regulation that you impose on business. That is the common sense approach. People are concerned when they hear that Congress invites industry experts in to discuss development of laws and regulations for fear of watering down the law/regulation. So, that means they would rather have politicians in Congress who DO NOT understand the industry, develop a new law/regulation on their own? That hurts the industry, the economy and the employees and clients of the industry in question. If Congress is the "executive" representing the people of the US, they should use industry experts and make strong and proper executive decisions that create effective laws with with the best interests of the country in mind, and with out political maneuvering.

The Overinflated Presidency

from The Wall Street Journal,

The president-elect will inherit an executive branch whose power has ballooned far beyond its constitutional bounds. For example, President Obama enacted nearly 50% more major regulations than George W. Bush.

In an interview in early December, Speaker of the House Paul Ryan said that President-elect Donald Trump is committed to respecting the constitutional prerogatives of Congress. “We’ve talked about…the separation of powers,” he told “60 Minutes.” “He feels very strongly, actually, that under President Obama’s watch, he stripped a lot of power away from the Constitution, away from the legislative branch of government, and we want to reset the balance of power so that [the] people and the Constitution are rightfully restored.”

If history is any guide, Mr. Ryan’s optimism is misplaced. During the election of 1912, the Progressive candidate, Theodore Roosevelt, articulated a populist defense of virtually unchecked executive power, declaring that the president is a “steward of the people” who can do anything that the Constitution does not explicitly forbid. Roosevelt’s rival, the Republican incumbent William Howard Taft, defended a far more constrained view of executive power, holding that the president could only do what the Constitution explicitly authorized. Ever since the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Republican and Democratic presidents have embraced Theodore Roosevelt’s view, asserting ever more expansive visions of the president’s ability to do whatever he likes without congressional approval. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama aggressively deployed executive power to circumvent Congress, and their partisans accepted it.

Teddy Roosevelt’s populist vision is hard to reconcile with the vision of the framers of the Constitution, who set out to create a president energetic enough to lead national initiatives but constrained enough that he would not threaten liberty.

Article II of the Constitution assigns to the president a few explicit powers—command of the armed forces, a veto on legislation, the power to make appointments and treaties with the Senate’s consent—but the text doesn’t specify whether the president has any general powers beyond those specifically listed. It fell to George Washington to fill in some of the gaps—establishing, for example, the president’s power to recognize foreign governments and initiate treaty negotiations without formally consulting the Senate. From George Washington to Abraham Lincoln, presidents were sensitive, by and large, to Congress’s constitutional prerogatives, which Congress asserted vigorously.

As president from 1909 to 1913, Taft took a constitutionally constrained view of his own powers. “The thing which impresses me most is not the power I have to exercise under the Constitution, but the limitations and restrictions to which I am subject under that instrument,” he declared. Taft was appalled in August 1910 when Theodore Roosevelt, his predecessor in the White House, delivered his famous “New Nationalism” speech in Osawatomie, Kan. In his autobiography, published in 1913, Roosevelt elaborated on what he meant in that speech by declaring that “the executive power” was “the steward of the public welfare.” Roosevelt explained, “My belief was that it was not only [the president’s] right but his duty to do anything that the needs of the nation demanded unless such action was forbidden by the Constitution or by the law.” As he dramatically concluded, “I did not usurp power, but I did greatly broaden the use of executive power.” Taft strongly disagreed. “The true view of the Executive functions is, as I conceive it, that the President can exercise no power which cannot be fairly and reasonably traced to some specific grant of power,” he wrote in “The President and His Powers,” published in 1916.

When presidents have acted imperially without the support of Congress, the Supreme Court has tended to rebuke them.

As a presidential candidate in 2008, Barack Obama promised to repeal Mr. Bush’s executive orders on constitutional grounds. “The biggest problems we’re facing right now,” he said, “have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power in to the executive branch, and not go through Congress at all.” And yet, as president, Mr. Obama came to embrace—and even expand—the use of executive orders. In fact, in December 2011, he literally endorsed Theodore Roosevelt’s populist vision of the presidency, traveling to Osawatomie and invoking the New Nationalism speech to justify his own use of unilateral executive action. “Today,” Mr. Obama said, “we are a richer nation and a stronger democracy because of what [Theodore Roosevelt] fought for in his last campaign: an eight-hour workday and a minimum wage for women, insurance for the unemployed and for the elderly, and those with disabilities; political reform and a progressive income tax.” President-elect Trump is now drawing on that same populist tradition as he pledges to undo many progressive achievements by executive fiat.

In areas such as immigration, greenhouse-gas emissions and gun control, Mr. Obama proposed policies, Congress refused to endorse them, and he then enacted the policies on his own. Overall, according to the Congressional Budget Office, Mr. Obama independently enacted 560 major regulations during his first seven years in office—nearly 50% more than during the two terms of the George W. Bush administration. The Supreme Court has repudiated or questioned some of Mr. Obama’s efforts to circumvent Congress, including his immigration orders.

Now Mr. Obama’s constitutional shortcuts may come back to haunt him. Mr. Trump has the power to repeal Mr. Obama’s executive orders with the stroke of a pen, just as Mr. Obama repealed those of his predecessor. Indeed, Mr. Trump has signaled that he may use his executive powers to dismantle key parts of Mr. Obama’s legacy—deferred deportation for undocumented immigrants, the Education Department’s Title IX regulations concerning gender identity on campuses, the Iran nuclear deal and the lifting of sanctions on Cuba. With the support or acquiescence of a Republican Congress, Mr. Trump could end up wielding even more sweeping powers. And he does not need congressional support to deploy troops abroad for limited periods.

The Supreme Court might check Mr. Trump if he tried to carry out promises that are clearly unconstitutional—such as his threats to take away the citizenship of those who burn the American flag, to repeal libel laws or to deport people based on their religion. It might even check Mr. Trump in national-security cases—if he tried, for example, to reinstate waterboarding or sweeping surveillance without congressional approval. Mr. Trump’s international business interests and his children’s role in the White House may raise legal and constitutional challenges of their own. But unless a Republican Congress actively resists him, the conservative populist could enjoy sweeping powers, expanding the imperial presidency in ways that might make the progressive populist Theodore Roosevelt look constrained.

Over the past century, presidential power has grown enormously in both foreign and domestic affairs. The only real check has occurred when the people themselves say that they have had enough—protesting in the streets, reshaping the parties and throwing the rascals out. In the end, only the American people, exercising their rights of speech, voting and association, can rein in a presidency that congressional Democrats and Republicans alike have allowed to grow far beyond the original bounds of the Constitution.

More From The Wall Street Journal (subscription required):

365 Days Page
Comment ( 0 )