Yours truly, though a lifelong Southern Democrat, is enough of a "Reagan Democrat" to have merited an invitation to the Red State Gathering this weekend. I was there with Uncle Jimbo, and we had an excellent time. The main feature was a set of speeches and Q&A with many of the Republican Presidential candidates. (Jim Webb, the leading Southern Democrat, did not attend and was probably not invited, but it would have been nice if he had been.) I'm going to give you my sense of them.
Donald Trump was going to speak on Saturday evening, but did not appear because Erick Erickson told him he was no longer welcome. This was because of Trump's remarks about a female reporter, which were as rude as they could possibly have been. We don't speak of ladies in that way in Georgia, and Erickson properly told him not to darken the door.
Before that, however, Trump had already made a small splash. What I heard from a sponsor was that the conference had been trying to get him to appear early on the first day, as Trump has his own 757 and could be there before anyone else. Trump's people refused, as they didn't want to have him speak early in the morning. So they the conference tried to schedule him at some other time, but his people put them off until all the slots were filled. Then Trump's people decided they wanted him to come, so the conference tried to help him by allowing him to speak at a separate location from the conference proper (the College Football Hall of Fame) where they were having the closing party. Trump's people accepted, and immediately began to tell reporters that he was the "keynote" speaker, and that Red State 'had to rent a larger hall to accommodate all his crowds.'
Nice.
Of the serious Presidential candidates, Jeb Bush was clearly the media favorite. The press mobbed him like no one else. He had almost no support in the hall, though: I only met one professed Jeb Bush supporter, a guy in a red-white-and-blue suit and tie ensemble who had purchased red, white, and blue custom leather wing-tip dress shoes to go with it.
Fiorina was a crowd favorite, but everyone is worried about her experience problem. She could help herself a lot if she could put together a kitchen cabinet because people would be much readier to support her if they knew she had top, competent people who had committed to being in her corner.
Rick Perry was there without a security detail. But, you know, he carries.
Uncle J was pleased by Walker, long his favored candidate, whom he thought presented himself as competent, experienced, and a proven winner.
For me, the two best speeches were given by Rubio and Cruz. They were quite different speeches. Both of them sounded like Ronald Reagan, but different Reagans.
Rubio's was a solid General Election speech. It was warm, hopeful, moving, filled with references to family and hope and economic progress. It reminded me of the later Reagan, the Reagan of his Farewell address in which he summed up all that America had accomplished in his tenure. You came away feeling like Rubio had a similar Morning-in-America vision, and honestly believes he could turn things around and make the place shine again.
Cruz did not give a speech of that kind. Cruz is out for blood.
His speech was a Reagan Insurgency speech, the kind of speech Reagan might have given before he won the nomination in 1980. Cruz is as angry at the Republican leadership in the Senate as he is at the Democrats. He outright accused them, in exactly these words, of "playing for the other team." He is furious about the direction of the country, and is committed to overthrowing the Republican leadership, gaining the Presidency, and overturning everything Obama ever did.
The crowd was really feeling it. They reacted to that speech like no other thing I saw. These people are out for blood too.
Good.
35 comments:
Thanks for the report. It sounds like a good meeting, and leaving out The Donald was probably a good call.
While the adults were talking, The Donald was hissing and spitting like a small, overmatched cat, and there are lots of commenters over at Breitbart and The Gateway Pundit that sound like they cut their teeth at DU and HuffPo.
I hope links to the Redstate speeches and transcripts will become widely available. It would be nice to know what the candidates said when they themselves got to pick the questions they would answer.
Valerie
I think Erickson picked the questions. At least, he made a show of shuffling through them on the stage before "picking" one here and there. I suppose that could be PT Barnum stuff. :)
I can envision him making a few jokes in the process. I had read references to "speeches," so I thought the format was different. Still, the whole question and the whole answer would be nice.
I think it is going to be crucial to get out what the candidates actually said, and for that, we need reference to transcripts and videos. There is a whole cottage industry of talking heads hell-bent on burying the statements of Republicans. http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/07/research-search-engine-google-could-swing-election/
Jim Webb will get the same treatment.
Valerie
You're probably right. Tucker Carlson asked him today if just using the phrase "white working class" didn't disqualify him from the Democratic Party. It was part of a segment on why he was running as a Democrat at all, given his resume: war hero, Reagan cabinet, Veterans' advocate, etc.
I'm disappointed Carson wasn't invited. That said, it sounds like it was pretty good.
I want to hear what Carson has to say about immigration.
Valerie
Cruz did not give a speech of that kind. Cruz is out for blood.
His speech was a Reagan Insurgency speech, the kind of speech Reagan might have given before he won the nomination in 1980. Cruz is as angry at the Republican leadership in the Senate as he is at the Democrats. He outright accused them, in exactly these words, of "playing for the other team." He is furious about the direction of the country, and is committed to overthrowing the Republican leadership, gaining the Presidency, and overturning everything Obama ever did.
Single-handedly? Wow. Talk about writing checks your big mouth can't cash :p
How, precisely, does Herr Cruz plan on overturning laws passed by Congress without the help of his own party? By executive fiat.
I would think we'd had just about enough of that crap under Obama.
This is why I refuse to pay attention to the race this early.
This is why I refuse to pay attention to the race this early.
Respectfully, what I've discovered about that approach is that by the time I get involved the real race is over. By the time we're even getting close to voting in the primaries, the candidates who really have a chance to win are already determined by their success in building an organization. That was the point about Perry -- I don't think he's got a chance, because this late in the game he hasn't put together a real organization. He hasn't got a security detail, and I hear he's had basically one guy running everything about his campaign until just lately. (Carson is that way too -- Armstrong Williams is running the whole campaign.)
Cruz isn't doing anything that Bernie Sanders isn't doing. They're both making promises that are politically impossible unless they succeed at building a massive organization of supporters. Sanders is quite open about that. And Cruz, for his part, has outraised everyone including Jeb Bush, with donations averaging $68 (according to his speech this weekend).
Meanwhile, I've volunteered to help the Webb campaign because I know that if I don't, come wintertime when people start to pay attention he won't have the ground game to play. I think he's the most qualified candidate in either party's field -- Senator, Secretary of the Navy, decorated war hero, award-winning historian and author, long time participant in efforts to reform government programs, extensive diplomatic experience. Even so, he's a long shot right now. If Hillary collapses due to criminal investigations, though, the race will become between him and Sanders -- and Webb is going to be much more acceptable to the majority of non-socialist Americans.
But if people like me don't get out and help him get set up to run, even if he has his moment he'll go nowhere.
For those reasons, I'm already paying attention. I think the only hope to change things is to get more involved, more active, and yes, to do it earlier.
How, precisely, does Herr Cruz plan on overturning laws passed by Congress without the help of his own party? By executive fiat.
Well, first off, the things Obama did by executive fiat can rightfully be undone by executive fiat.
Second, he didn't say without the help of his own party, but rather, without the current members of its leadership. A LOT of the party are pretty ticked off at that same leadership and would be happy to see it tarred and feathered, then run out of town on a rail.
Webb doesn't have a chance in the Democratic primary precisely because of his resume. The Democratic base has become a European socialist democrat party with a strong taste for social justice warrior intolerance. The Democratic party abandoned Webb a long time ago, he is just too stubborn to admit it or to naïve to recognize it. The Democratic base is increasingly energized over the likes of Sanders and fellow socialist Elizabeth Warren. A party like that has no room for the Webbs of the world. He would have a better shot running as an independent. The Democratic Party is trying to erase people like you and Webb from the national conversation. You owe them nothing but your enmity.
Just returned from a much needed week long vacation at the beach. And one of the things I got to do was watch the Republican debate. And something has bothered me about Trump that I couldn't put my finger on until literally five minutes ago.
So during the debate, questions arose about Trump's past as a liberal. Not a passing, disinterested liberal, but his actual history of hardcore, pro-choice, single payer healthcare supporting liberal. And he gave some lukewarm response about having a road to Damascus type moment when someone he knew had a kid and thought about aborting them but didn't.
Later, on the drive home, a caller into the Limbaugh show (I'm not a regular listener as he is off-putting to me, but the Bride wanted to hear his take on the debate) said he didn't buy that whole story, as it seemed odd that The Donald had no such reaction to the birth of his own children. Now... I could dismiss that by thinking that perhaps Trump had never considered abortion and his own children. But still... it bothered me.
And there was the generic conspiracy mongering about why is he in this race and talking about a third party run from the Right of the Republican field. And then it kind of hit me just a while ago... during the debate, Trump said that he paid the Clinton Foundation (before he "found out about how terrible it was") in order to have Hillary come to his wedding. AFTER his whole "road to Damascus" moment, and after he discovered he's actually a die-hard Conservative now.
...
Why on Earth would anyone want Hillary Clinton to come to their wedding, much less a die-hard conservative? That's not just congnitive dissonance, that's jaw dropping insanity. And to pay for the "privilege" of having her do so? Is anyone else buying this? So we have this "Conservative" who thinks paying the Clinton's in order to have Hillary come to his wedding is a spiffy plan, who is now espousing quite literally a near-parody of what the left thinks is red meat conservatism (the anti-immigrant stuff wasn't enough, but he had to throw the decidedly nasty anti-woman stuff out there too) and is talking about a third party run?
Look, I'm all about "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof", but this is beginning to smell like weeks old fish. The only person who thought Nixon had to cheat in order to beat McGovern was Nixon. And Hillary really is quite Nixonian in her paranoia and will to power. I'm beginning to wonder if she didn't put The Donald up to this run in order to ensure her win by splitting Conservatives from the Republican base. Am I taking crazy pills here?
Tom, a few thoughts:
Well, first off, the things Obama did by executive fiat can rightfully be undone by executive fiat.
I suppose that's true, if you don't care whether the President actually has the authority to do those things, and if you think Obama's use of executive orders sets a good precedent :p
If, on the otter heiny, you think Obama issued a lot of orders that he lacked the authority to issue, then doubling down with your own illegitimate use of authority doesn't exact scream, "Integrity". Granted, you could simply refuse to execute those policies (on the grounds that Obama lacked authority in the first place). But doing the very thing you complained about when Obama did it, well now that just looks like maybe Constitutionality only concerns you when it's conveeeeeeeenient (the "you" here, being Herr Cruz).
Also, he (according to Grim) said he would undo EVERYTHING Obama has ever done, which isn't terribly believable.
Second, he didn't say without the help of his own party, but rather, without the current members of its leadership.
How does he plan to depose that leadership? And doesn't that presuppose that the rest of the party have been voting with their leaders (but would vote *totally* differently with different leaders)? Not sure I'd trust in that prospect - if they lack the conviction to do the right thing now....
If Cruz knows how to do this, why hasn't he done it already? It ain't gonna get easier once he's no longer in Congress. The truth is that alsmost certainly doesn't have the numbers behind him.
A LOT of the party are pretty ticked off at that same leadership and would be happy to see it tarred and feathered, then run out of town on a rail
I have no doubt that's true, but there's that little matter of the Constitution, again. Unless we no longer care about the rule of law. Do the *votes* exist to do this?
Color me skeptical. Which brings me to Grim's comments:
Cruz isn't doing anything that Bernie Sanders isn't doing.
Is that supposed to make Cruz look better/smarter? :)
They're both making promises that are politically impossible unless they succeed at building a massive organization of supporters. Sanders is quite open about that.
Is Cruz being open about it too? I suppose anything is possible, but it doesn't seem likely (just one woman's opinion).
And Cruz, for his part, has outraised everyone including Jeb Bush, with donations averaging $68 (according to his speech this weekend).
Really? Because he was about 67 MILLION behind last time I checked (a week and a half ago). He's citing money his campaign has raised, but that's only part of the total funds. That's misleading at best, dishonest at worst. Cruz's take from PACs is about 2/3 what he's raised. Bush's take from PACs is about 10X what he's raised so far.
Doesn't sound to me as though Cruz has broad-based support, but what do I know?
FWIW, I"m not trying to be obnoxious here (for some folks, being obnoxious just comes naturally). Just offering my thoughts, but don't want to get anyone riled up.
Grim, I think your point about supporting Webb early so he isn't out of the race before it starts is a good one. I'm afraid I don't think much of his prospects (nor, frankly, do I think much of Webb). But I would be delighted to be proven wrong. I suppose I don't understand why you would support him given his voting record in Congress? He voted with the Dems 89% of the time - it is hard for me to understand why you would support anyone with that record?
Cass, I think a president rescinding an unconstitutional executive order is only appropriate. I don't see the hypocrisy here.
I agree he can't undo EVERYTHING Obama did. But, hyperbole is also a recognized form of rhetoric, so it's not necessary to take it literally.
How does he plan to depose that leadership?
He won't need to depose it. As president, he would have a great platform to support more Republican insurgents for office, and he can also work directly with the insurgents in Congress by supporting their bills and amendments and vetoing those that the leadership favors. The leaders can remain in place, but he can work around them as president.
Frankly, I don't see anything unconstitutional in handling things that way. Maybe you could point me to the articles and sections you are concerned about?
Oh, sure, we can't tar and feather them, but Cruz didn't propose that. And, we could amend the Constitution to allow it. I'd support that. ;-)
sure, we can't tar and feather them, but Cruz didn't propose that. And, we could amend the Constitution to allow it. I'd support that. ;-)
Heh :)
As president, he would have a great platform to support more Republican insurgents for office, and he can also work directly with the insurgents in Congress by supporting their bills and amendments and vetoing those that the leadership favors. The leaders can remain in place, but he can work around them as president.
So we'd have a Republican president, vetoing Republican bills (if the leadership favors them)? Doesn't sound like a workable plan to me, unless his plan is to have no friends when he does want something from Congress.
He's going to have a helluva time building that large, national base of supporters with a set of scorched earth tactics like that. On the other hand, the Dems will just love him :p
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Tom.
Cass, I think a president rescinding an unconstitutional executive order is only appropriate. I don't see the hypocrisy here.
If you think Obama's executive order is unlawful because the President lacks the ability to act unilaterally, and your solution is to issue *another* unilateral executive order in the very area you claimed Obama lacked authority, then I'd say that's hypocritical. If you (and Obama) both lack authority to do a thing, then you lack authority.
Period, end of story.
Now if you just *disagree* with Obama's order (but agree he had authority to do whatever it is he did), that's another story. There, Presidential authority is not in dispute.
What I'm saying is that you can't very well claim (on the one hand) that an order of Obama's is *unlawful* because the President lacks authority in a particular area, and then turn around and issue another order in that area yourself.
Presidents have wide discretion on how they execute the laws Congress passes. Seems to me that if Obama issues an executive order that fundamentally conflicts with a federal statute (and he lacks authority to do so), then the new President could simply say, "Yanno, we're going to enforce that law Congress passed. You know, the one the previous president didn't enforce."
I don't think an executive order is needed to enforce the law as it's written. And if you're talking about enforcing the law in a manner that *conflicts* with the way it's written, then you're no better/different than Obama.
Hopefully that's clearer.
Cass, I'm really not being clear, and I apologize.
Let's go back to Cruz wanting to overthrow the Republican leadership. First off, the leadership of the party is actually only a tiny part of the party. Yes, it has huge influence, but it's still very small, and those leaders have to convince enough Republicans that they are effective in order to stay in power.
Cruz's election to the presidency would signal that the political winds have shifted. Given his conflicts with the Republican leadership in the Senate, that alone might convince the House and Senate to elect new leaders. Or not.
Even if not, there is also a sizable portion of the Republican Party that genuinely detests its leadership. How sizable? I don't know. However, roughly 42 out of 245 Republicans in the House are known to be in the loosely Tea Party-ish Freedom Caucus that butts heads with Boehner and the Republican leadership. So, at a wild guess, 1 in 5? (If our Representatives are representative ...)
What could a President Cruz do with that 1 in 5? Obviously, not force a change in leaders. But, he would have latitude to negotiate, and if he makes it clear he will support bills the Freedom Caucus agrees with, and oppose bills they oppose, then it forces some changes in legislation and shifts power and (importantly for party leaders) perceptions of effectiveness.
When the establishment types see that's the way the wind is blowing, some of them will go along to retain power. That's what they've done with Obama, so why wouldn't they with Cruz? What they want is to stay in power and get richer.
Additionally, more Tea Party types could ride in on his coattails, so maybe anti-establishment Republicans in Congress get stronger.
Will all that be enough for a change in leadership? I don't know, but it's possible. Even if it isn't, he could effect some changes in legislation and in the overall balance of power in the party.
Could his election lead to an overthrow of the current Republican leadership? Yes. How likely would that be? I don't know.
OK, about those executive orders. I did, alas, say that what was done by executive fiat could be undone the same way. Later I tried to sorta kinda clarify that I meant rescinding executive orders, but I can understand why you would think I meant new executive orders to do new things to change what had been done. That's not what I meant.
I meant, President Cruz could cancel Obama's executive orders. I don't actually know if it takes an executive order to cancel a previous executive order, but it's clearly within the president's rightful powers to cancel executive orders.
I so wish I would write more clearly.
Cassandra, that sounds insane to me.
Obama: "I have issued an executive order that certain companies are exempt from Obamacare requirements." [Actually, I think that was HHS, but work with me here...]
Future President: "I have issued an executive order rescinding that executive order, because the President lacks the legal authority to promulgate such an exemption, and therefore I believe it to have been unlawful."
Cassandra: "That's hypocritical! You have no authority to do that!"
jaed:
Why would he need an executive order to enforce existing law? All he needs to do is direct the appropriate Cabinet officer to enforce the law as it's written and announce same at a press conference.
Why is an executive order required at all? It's a publicity mechanism, AND a bold assertion of power. If you legitimately believe the President DOESN'T have the authority to unilaterally change policy in a particular area, and then you turn around and do the same thing, how is this *not* hypocritical?
Cass,
Would it be an acceptable use of power, in your opinion, simply to issue an executive order rescinding the previous order on the stated grounds that it was unlawful? Or even several: "The following executive orders are considered unlawful in the opinion of the current executive, and are hereby to be held null and void..."
Then the President isn't undertaking to change the law on his own authority. He's just pointing out that the law was never lawfully changed, and using the EO as an instrument to instruct his administration to obey the law as actually written.
I suppose I don't understand why you would support him given his voting record in Congress? He voted with the Dems 89% of the time - it is hard for me to understand why you would support anyone with that record?
Jim Webb and I share several things in common, and disagree about some other things. I'm much more likely to think that labor unions are on balance a good thing than many of my readers, based on my experience with them down in Savannah. I don't approve of closed shops or mandatory dues, but I do think that voluntary labor unions often do good. They really turned the lives of a lot of the poor and less-well-educated around, and you could see it: the youngest workers lived in trailers with bad floors, older workers in small homes, the retired workers usually in solidly middle class but not fancy brick houses. There would be pictures on the wall of their kids in graduation gowns. So Webb's focus on American labor and the American working man is something we share.
Another thing I agree with (as you know) is that free trade has proven a failure. I was convinced of the wisdom of NAFTA in 1996, but I can't look at its record as anything but a failure. So that's an issue we share. I regard the TPP and T-TIP as serious dangers to American sovereignty, as you know, and that's another issue. I am sure that Jim Webb believes in American sovereignty.
Naturally I admire his scholarship and writing. That isn't necessarily by itself an advertisement for a potential President -- Teddy Roosevelt was a scholar and author and a solid President, but Woodrow Wilson was both and a terrible President.
Where I tend to disagree with him is in his anti-adventurism with the military and his faith in diplomacy. He's not an isolationist, but he (like retired Gen. Zinni) combines a record of personal heroism with a deep skepticism about using force. I don't agree with his opinions here, but I respect them -- as you know (indeed you of all people!), I don't have to agree with someone to respect them.
I think, though, that the next President is not going to have a lot of choice -- he's being left a legacy of fire. Care will be warranted, but I don't think there's any danger that we will retreat from the world under Webb. Also, I am sure that he will not present the world with the provocative weakness we have shown under President Obama. Actors like Putin will tread with more care with Webb in the White House, even though Webb is disinclined to go to war. Peace through strength is not a bad strategy.
So that's why. Some of it is that my economic opinions aren't universally in line with the Republican party's, and some of it is that I think he can be respected where we disagree. Finally, there's simply no one in the race whose experience compares. None of the others, frankly, is even close in terms of practical qualifications.
Cass, because, I believe, an executive order has the force of law until it is revoked or the judiciary strikes it down. Presidents revoke or modify previous executive orders by issuing new ones. So, Obama's order to not enforce a law needs to be revoked by a new order directing enforcement. That is how I think it's done, so that is why I think it's necessary to issue an executive order about it.
If I'm wrong and it does not require an executive order to revoke a previous executive order, then of course I wouldn't advocate using an unnecessary executive order. That would just be silly.
As I think I made pretty clear right above jaed's comment, all I'm saying is get rid of unconstitutional executive orders. If that means issuing a new one, fine; if not, fine.
The best source I've found on it so far is a report on the topic from the Congressional Research Service. If you have a better source, please share.
Joel:
Webb doesn't have a chance in the Democratic primary precisely because of his resume. The Democratic base has become a European socialist democrat party with a strong taste for social justice warrior intolerance. The Democratic party abandoned Webb a long time ago, he is just too stubborn to admit it or to naïve to recognize it.
I like stubborn.
I think Webb could win, but only if Hillary implodes. I don't think he has the machine to overcome hers. If she collapses, though, then people are going to have to look at Bernie Sanders as the new leader. While the base of the Democratic Party is now as you describe it, a lot of people vote Democrat who aren't socialists. If Hillary's collapse happens at the right stage, I think people will look at Sanders and a lot of them will say, "No, we do not want a socialist in the White House."
If that happens, we're down to two candidates -- Webb and O'Malley -- who are currently polling evenly. And of the two, Webb is the clearly superior man.
"And doesn't that presuppose that the rest of the party have been voting with their leaders (but would vote *totally* differently with different leaders)? Not sure I'd trust in that prospect - if they lack the conviction to do the right thing now...."
Cass, an awful lot of folks in DC are reeds in the wind- no conviction, go along to get along to stay in good standing in 'the club'. A successful Presidential campaign and the Bully Pulpit can start to make the wind blow from a different direction. Not easy, but when Reagan was running early in the 1980 primaries, no one would have believed he could do what he did.
Am I skeptical? Sure. Do I believe it can be done? Yes.
Would it be an acceptable use of power, in your opinion, simply to issue an executive order rescinding the previous order on the stated grounds that it was unlawful? Or even several: "The following executive orders are considered unlawful in the opinion of the current executive, and are hereby to be held null and void..."
Possibly, if your position is that the President has the authority to unilaterally state what the law is (I think my example of enforcing a law already passed by Congress as written - this is *well* within the President's existing power under the Constitution - is a good example of that situation). But again, I don't see why the President ever needs to justify doing his job in areas clearly laid out in the Constitution. He's not explanding his power, asserting *new* authority, or coloring outside the lines (and isn't that exactly what so many have objected to in Obama's orders?).
Tom, thanks for the clarifications - I think I understand your position better now :)
I think it's the president's job to enforce laws.
When a prior president has issued an executive order to not enforce a law, I think it's entirely consistent with that principle for a new president to issue a new executive order to enforce the law.
You say that it's not necessary to issue an executive order to enforce a law, and normally you would be right. However, the prior president's executive order not to enforce the law is in effect and has the force of law until it is revoked by Congress, a court, or a new executive order.
Executive orders have the force of law until revoked, and for a president to revoke an executive order requires issuing a new executive order. Yes, it's silly to have to issue an executive order to enforce a law properly, but it was the previous president who issued the ridiculous order to not enforce it who is to blame.
... if your position is that the President has the authority to unilaterally state what the law is...
I think it may sometimes be necessary to state an opinion about what the law is, which is not quite as strong as having the authority to unilaterally state what the law is. Even if you recognize a duty to defer to the courts for confirmation of the opinion, you'll often need a working opinion where there are questions.
I agree, which is why I said I thought the President could just issue a statement at a press conference. Presidents do this all the time.
I am deeply suspicious of the proliferation of Executive orders, especially in areas where the President is staking out a new claim of expanded power or bypassing Congress. So my personal opinion is that if all you're doing is something well within the normal course and scope of presidential authority, the better course is simply to do it.
I don't think executive orders should be used as political tools. In fact, that's part of my problem with this administration. But I can see Tom's point too (and yours).
I confess I don't see what's wrong with one president reversing a prior president's executive order. The whole point of executive orders is to do things the way the current executive wants them done, if they don't require Congressional approval. It moots the whole question whether the original executive order was ultra vires, which I'd just as soon not litigate for five years if possible.
A president who wants things like this to survive his term needs to work with Congress and get something passed that the next president can't change. Of course, Congress can change it any time the votes can be rounded up, and that's fine, too. Laws aren't supposed to be forever any more than executive orders are.
Voters ultimately are in charge of all this, by changing Congress and changing presidents. Also as it should be, absent a Constitutional hurdle that would require a formal amendment to change.
The whole point of executive orders is to do things the way the current executive wants them done, if they don't require Congressional approval.
I'm obviously not making my point understood, despite several tries.
The objection to several of Obama's executive orders was that they *DID* require Congressional approval. If the new President issues another executive order that - like Obama's - requires Congressional approval, then he has just done exactly the same thing: issued yet another unlawful executive order.
If, on the other hand, his order does not require Congressional approval (as in the example I gave of enforcing the law as written), there's really nothing to litigate. The law is already clear and the President already has the authority to enforce it.
We don't solve the problem of bypassing Congress by bypassing Congress.
I do understand what's concerning, you, truly: the two-wrongs-making-a-right problem. It can arise here, but I'm arguing it doesn't arise in the cancel of a simple cancellation.
It's never completely clear where the boundary of an executive order's power lies. Wherever it is, though, it's exactly co-extensive with the power of the next executive's order.
I would not want to see a future executive retaliate with an arguably over-broad executive order in another area, which is simply escalating and weakening the system. I don't have anything like the same concern with a new executive order that precisely cancels the first one. If there was anything in the first one that shouldn't have been there in the first place, fine, that part's gone, too--or it never was legitimately there in the first place, which amounts to the same thing.
That may leave the courts with a problem to sort out if there was a leftover effect from the years the first order was in effect, but otherwise the problem is all cleaned up going forward.
Isn't it much like the problem we get if Congress passes an unconstitutional law? A new Congress can repeal it; they needn't wait for the Supreme Court to throw it out.
I'm not advocating a nasty gotcha here: I really think this is the way it's supposed to work.
I think I understand as well, but I also agree with Tex. The kind of order we're talking about is analogous to the military order: "Belay that." It's not really an order to do anything, but to stop doing something you shouldn't have been doing in the first place.
Still, I don't have any problem with going to Congress with a list of questionable EOs and asking for clarification. If you have a responsible Congress to work with, you could get a much better result that way.
Cass,
If I may. I'd say the issuance of an Executive Order that specifies that a previously issued Executive Order is to be disregarded because the previous Order was an overreach of the powers of the Executive Branch could be considered legitimate IF the basis for the order were taken as "it is the role of the Executive Branch to enforce the laws of the Nation in accordance with the US Constitution. This former order violated those laws and Constitutional obligations, so I am directing the offices of the Executive Branch to cease enforcement, support, and obedience to that unlawful order."
In fact, the best analogy I can think of in a military sense is that it is illegal to order troops to slaughter civilians. If another officer comes on the scene and orders troops to stop slaughtering civilians, then his order is not an illegal one. This is the same in principle.
Right--let's take an order that's not quite so cut-and-dried, an officer orders his men to do something they're highly skeptical about, but not sure enough to mutiny over. While they're agonizing over whether they should risk life and/or career in disobeying, and trying to figure out if there's time for someone upstairs to get wind of it and issue a countermanding order, the officer is relieved of his duty and a new officer of equal rank announces, "That order is cancelled." Everyone can relax. The new officer hasn't subverted the system; he has no duty uphold prior orders. Maybe the prior officer should be court-martialed, maybe not, but the validity of the new order doesn't depend on that outcome.
If the new officer looked over the situation in disgust and said, "Well, if that's the way the game is going to be played, then my new order is that all you men should drop your weapons and build me a free house," that would be subverting the system. Similarly, a new president should not say, "OK, if there's no practical limit to the reach of an executive order, then I'm ordering that all Democrats in Congress must resign and the IRS henceforth is to cancel all the tax obligations of Republicans." But he can legitimately say, "Executive Order XYZ, whether or not it was legal in whole or in part when signed, is now null and void."
Post a Comment