The New York Times has a big front page article today about how legal "experts" are worried by some of Donald Trump's statements that his election would "threaten the rule of law". It's a big worry since the rule of law is one of the foundations of our society. Let's consider what could happen:
1. Congress could pass legislation with very specific requirements about exactly when and how it is to go into effect. Trump, as president, could just decide to ignore those requirements and do it a different way; in other words, he could ignore the law.
2. Congress could consider and decide not to change an area of the law with which president Trump disagreed. Nevertheless, Trump could just issue a decree (excuse me an Executive Order) that moving forward the law would be enforced only the way he saw fit. That would be a major blow to the rule of law.
3. Congress and even the congressional Republicans could consider and reject a plan put forward by Trump. He could have regulatory agencies go around that rejection by Congress to put into effect most of what Trump wants even though the agencies really don't have the power to do that. It would be a stab into the heart of the rule of law.
4. Trump could decide as president that all the laws and rules about the personal conduct of federal officials really don't apply to him. He could just do what he wants even if it might have bad consequences for the nation. In other words, Trump could push aside the rule of law and place himself above the law.
Those would be bad things, things which the New York Times is stridently warning the nation to avoid. But it's just too late. They've already happened. The first item above is Obamacare. President Obama ignored the schedule and methods for implementation of the law which was passed by his own party. Obama announced "waivers" from a law that had no provision for waivers in it. He announced delays of dates set by statute. Basically, he undermined the rule of law.
The second item it immigration. Obama wanted to change the immigration system. Congress considered this at great length, but it never passed any new law. That was no problem for Obama, he just to an Executive Action that announced that the USA would no longer enforce the immigration laws with regard to more than half of the illegals already in this country. It was a body blow to the rule of law.
The third item has happened repeatedly. Obama, for example, has used the EPA to destroy the coal industry even though the EPA does not have the power to do that under the law. Obama is now using HUD to try to change local zoning laws and to force public housing into cities and towns that don't want it. It's a terrible blow to the rule of law.
The fourth item is rather obvious. It's what Hillary Clinton did with her email system and with the Clinton Foundation. She just decided that the laws governing federal officials were just for the little people and not for someone so exalted as she. She made clear that she sees the rule of law as not applying at all to her.
The real question is where has the New York Times been when it comes to these actual events. Did the Times warn its readers about the threat to the rule of law? Of course not. The Times was busy supporting all of these major blows to the American system of government. The truth is that if Donald Trump were to endorse soccer as a good sport, the Times would announce that Trump was threatening football and the American way of life.
1. Congress could pass legislation with very specific requirements about exactly when and how it is to go into effect. Trump, as president, could just decide to ignore those requirements and do it a different way; in other words, he could ignore the law.
2. Congress could consider and decide not to change an area of the law with which president Trump disagreed. Nevertheless, Trump could just issue a decree (excuse me an Executive Order) that moving forward the law would be enforced only the way he saw fit. That would be a major blow to the rule of law.
3. Congress and even the congressional Republicans could consider and reject a plan put forward by Trump. He could have regulatory agencies go around that rejection by Congress to put into effect most of what Trump wants even though the agencies really don't have the power to do that. It would be a stab into the heart of the rule of law.
4. Trump could decide as president that all the laws and rules about the personal conduct of federal officials really don't apply to him. He could just do what he wants even if it might have bad consequences for the nation. In other words, Trump could push aside the rule of law and place himself above the law.
Those would be bad things, things which the New York Times is stridently warning the nation to avoid. But it's just too late. They've already happened. The first item above is Obamacare. President Obama ignored the schedule and methods for implementation of the law which was passed by his own party. Obama announced "waivers" from a law that had no provision for waivers in it. He announced delays of dates set by statute. Basically, he undermined the rule of law.
The second item it immigration. Obama wanted to change the immigration system. Congress considered this at great length, but it never passed any new law. That was no problem for Obama, he just to an Executive Action that announced that the USA would no longer enforce the immigration laws with regard to more than half of the illegals already in this country. It was a body blow to the rule of law.
The third item has happened repeatedly. Obama, for example, has used the EPA to destroy the coal industry even though the EPA does not have the power to do that under the law. Obama is now using HUD to try to change local zoning laws and to force public housing into cities and towns that don't want it. It's a terrible blow to the rule of law.
The fourth item is rather obvious. It's what Hillary Clinton did with her email system and with the Clinton Foundation. She just decided that the laws governing federal officials were just for the little people and not for someone so exalted as she. She made clear that she sees the rule of law as not applying at all to her.
The real question is where has the New York Times been when it comes to these actual events. Did the Times warn its readers about the threat to the rule of law? Of course not. The Times was busy supporting all of these major blows to the American system of government. The truth is that if Donald Trump were to endorse soccer as a good sport, the Times would announce that Trump was threatening football and the American way of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment