I hope that Kim Strassel is right:
President Obama never held much with laws, because he failed at making them. After his first two years in office, he never could convince the Congress to pass another signature initiative. His response—and the enduring theme of his presidency—was therefore to ignore Congress and statutes, go around the partnership framework, and give his agencies authority to dictate policy from Washington. The states were demoted from partners to indentured servants. So too were any rival federal agencies that got in the EPA’s way. Example: The EPA’s pre-emptive veto of Alaska’s proposed Pebble Mine, in which it usurped Army Corps of Engineers authority.
One revealing illustration from EPA world. Under the Clean Air Act, states are allowed to craft their own implementation plans. If the EPA disapproves of a state plan, it is empowered to impose a federal one—one of the most aggressive actions the agency can take against a state, since it is the equivalent of a seizure of authority. In the entirety of the presidencies of George H.W. Bush,Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA imposed five federal implementation plans on states. By last count, the Obama administration has imposed at least 56.
Much of Mr. Pruitt’s tenure as Oklahoma’s AG was about trying to stuff federal agencies back into their legal boxes. Most of the press either never understood this, or never wanted to. When the media wrote about state lawsuits against ObamaCare or the Clean Power Plan or the Water of the United States rule, the suggestion usually was that this litigation was ideologically motivated, and a naked attempt to do what a Republican Congress could not—tank the president’s agenda.
The basis of nearly every one of these lawsuits was in fact violations of states’ constitutional and statutory rights—and it is why so many of the cases were successful. It was all a valiant attempt to force the federal government to follow the law. And it has been a singular Pruitt pursuit.
It will be refreshing to have someone rein in the EPA by running it, instead of having to continually take it to court.
[Update a while later]
Will Trump finally provide an opportunity to sell “progressives” on the virtues of federalism?
“Turnabout is fair play” is a deeply human sentiment. In politics, it’s both tedious and fun, because while reciprocity is satisfying, hypocrisy is annoying.
For instance, when Republicans take control of the Senate, Democrats instantly become sticklers for procedure, precedent, and constitutionalism. When Republicans lose the Senate, it’s “Democrats, start your steamrollers.”
While “You did it, so now we can too” is a perfectly natural attitude, it encourages cynicism precisely because it renders principles into arguments of convenience. When President Obama was testing — and exceeding — the limits of his constitutional powers, liberals grabbed their pom-poms and cheered. Now that Donald Trump is in power, they’re rediscovering that constitutional safeguards are there for everybody.
When Obama grew the deficit, Republicans and tea partiers insisted there was a debt crisis. Now, the president-elect says we must “prime the pump” with up to $1 trillion in deficit spending, and the former deficit hawks slumber in their nests. Regardless, that excerpt from A Man for All Seasons is not intended to imply that Trump is the devil — or that Obama is. Suffice it to say that one partisan’s devil is another partisan’s angel. I’m more interested in breaking the cycle and seizing an opportunity.
I’m looking forward to it. Who knows, maybe even Trump can be convinced.
[Update a while later]
Trump is putting together the most business-friendly cabinet in decades:
Conservatives had expressed considerable reservations about Trump’s professions of conservatism, during both the primary and general-election campaigns. In the days after the election, Trump’s meetings with Obama on the ACA and with Al Gore on climate change prompted renewed concerns about Trump’s true direction. Even while the first few nominations got announced, some wondered whether they reflected vice-president-elect Mike Pence more than Trump, and when other shoes would begin to drop.
So far, though, Trump seems intent on creating the most conservative and business-oriented Cabinet in decades. If Horowitz was correct and “personnel is policy,” then conservatives should find themselves pleasantly surprised and encouraged thus far with a 180-degree change of direction these key appointments promise. The inauguration on January 20th marks the date in which conservatives might find their own version of hope and change.
Unfortunately, what we really need is a market-friendly one.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Trump’s selections indicate that massive deregulation moves are coming. Well, we need it, after all the unconstitutional and unlawful overreach of the past eight years.
[Update a while later]
Getting back to the original post topic, Trump has nominated a powerful defender of states rights.
President Obama never held much with laws, because he failed at making them. After his first two years in office, he never could convince the Congress to pass another signature initiative.
Just quibbles, but: He never seriously attempted to draft a ‘signature initiative’. And he never seriously tried ‘convincing’.
If he had slapped draft bills down on Day One and said ‘pass these’, most of the cringeworthy EOs would have simply passed into actual law -then-. The Republicans were totally supine, and the Democrats had sixty votes in the Senate. Heck, they probably could have rammed through things like McCain-Feingold as Amendments, because the name “McCain” was on it.
They spent a year plus passing Obamacare – (which is only ‘signature’ in that he nipped over tot he head of the parade and called it his). And Obamacare stripped enough Senatorial votes away that “I won” became “I have a phone and a pen.”
Love him, hate him, and anywhere in between – Trump has already changed the course of the nation and he’s not even sworn in.
Looks like he’s doing the right things from my point of view which is really a bonus. It was enough that he showed HRC the door.
The EPA managed this past summer to tick off Harley riders by going after the Motor Company in regards to tuning (full disclosure: I work for a dealer). That timing right before the election sure didn’t help the party of ivory towers and safe spaces make any inroads with traditionally blue-collar v-twin guys. Gutting the EPA from the inside would ensure that Mr. Trump stays their hero.
I want the Republicans to take the high road here, but I think there should be some sort of punishment for the Democrats for pulling this trick in the first place.
Say three quarters of the Democrats who were in the Senate when the rule change on filibustering happen or in the Senate now, should sign a pledge that they regret creating this situation (or in the case of those who might not have been around then, created by their predecessors) and pledge to unconditionally oppose it in the future.
Get it in writing. Or Republicans push through that huge pile of nominations, including the Supreme Court nomination, just like that.
And if Democrats complain about Republican judges merely on the basis that they passed in an undemocratic process, start trotting out Democrat examples.
Karl, there is no deal-making with these people, they will always cheat and lie. They will always complain and cry racism.
Trump had better push that SC nomination immediately, for a strict right wing constitutionalist and nationalist. And he’d better be ready to do it again when the time comes. Sotomayor and Kagan will need counterbalancing for a long time.
Well, of course. But now, you have it in writing. That would help Republicans knock over some future senate races should Democrats pull that sort of trick when their time of advantage comes.
Taking the high road is how we got into this trouble. They must be destroyed or they will destroy the country and world. Tyranny is the only thing govt. guarantees and our founders knew that govt. is determined not by law but by men. Law is just a means to give good men a fighting chance against the lawless. The lawless being those that want to hold you to the high road while cheating at every turn.
Look at what the recount has shown us. In a minority of (only blue) districts up to half the votes were fraudulent. The gas lighting media has been caught lying and simply continues lying. Rioters are called protesters. While regular folk are called deplorable names.
You can’t make a reasonable argument with them because they will ignore it and continue to claim lies as truth.
No party has a right to exist. It’s time the dems were shown the door.
We should be focused on cleaning up the GOP without worrying it means replacing them with something worse.
Or Republicans push through that huge pile of nominations, including the Supreme Court nomination, just like that.
Make a list for recess appointments that would cause complete havoc on the Left. They don’t have to qualified, they have to be -infuriating-. CEO of Colt to the Supreme Court, things like that.
“You can have a discussion and confirm my actual nominations chop-chop, or Congress will declare a recess. And you’ll regret it.”
And any pledge should be along the lines of a confession-in-advance for impeachment proceedings. “I admit under oath that If I X, Y, or Z, it shall be considered a confirmation of guilt for any following impeachment proceeding.”
They won’t follow what they swear, but it would be good fodder for election time.
It’s about time they stopped putting lawyers in the Supreme Court, and started filling it with people with real-world experience. It’s not as though the Constitution is a large or complex document. Only lawyers could misinterpret phrases like ‘Congress shall make no law’ or ‘shall not be infringed’… the words are pretty darn clear.
I used to argue with someone knowledgeable about this “words are pretty darn clear” claim, and believe it or not, I took your side. But the counter-argument is that there is an enormous amount of case-law precedents to understand and apply (or not ). Read some supreme court decisions – not just the famous ones – and you’ll see for yourself. Visit https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx
‘Case law’ is just a list of lies lawyers came up with to pretend that ‘make no law’ means ‘make any law they feel like’.
Its not like SCOTUS members don’t have large a large staff to do research for them. And SCOTUS changes/sets president.
The problem with viewing the constitution in plain english is that the language has changed. This is why we need an originalist, from whatever background.
That’s tricky.
Yep. That damned con man is going to do so many things right for the next eight years… just to fool us!
The media accidentally admits the truth.