Trump's Diminishment of the Presidency Is Healthy, Not Scary

[EasyAce]

The checks and challenges invited by the president's "serial recklessness" should be welcomed.
By Jacob Sullum
http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/23/trumps-diminishment-of-the-presidency-is/print

Writing in The New York Times, University of Chicago law professor Eric Posner and journalist Emily Bazelon
identify one positive aspect of Donald Trump's "serial recklessness" as president: He has forced the other two branches
of the federal government to assert themselves, constraining executive powers that his two most recent predecessors
worked hard to expand. Except that Posner and Bazelon bizarrely view that development as ominous, warning that the
checks on Trump "may ultimately diminish the power of the office," leaving it "too weak for future presidents to be
able to govern effectively."

Posner and Bazelon cite two main ways in which Congress and the courts have challenged Trump: the congressional
investigations of Russian meddling in last year's presidential election, including the Trump campaign's possible
involvement, and the judicial decisions that so far have prevented Trump's executive orders restricting admission to
the United States from taking effect. Posner and Bazelon seem to view both responses as understandable but regrettable,
not so much because they are legally unsound but because they may have a lasting impact on presidential power—as
if that would be a bad thing.

There is no real dispute about whether Congress has the authority to investigate Russian attempts to hurt Hillary
Clinton and thereby help Trump by hacking embarrassing emails or spreading disinformation. It now looks like the
House and Senate probes will take a backseat to the work of Special Counsel Robert Mueller, but his appointment by
Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein was itself at least partly a consequence of congressional pressure . . .

. . . In short, Congress and the courts are doing what they are supposed to do by checking the president's powers.
It is hard to see why Trump's critics would be worried rather than reassured by that, unless they are invested in an
expansive view of presidential power and holding out for a time when someone they like better will get to exercise it . . .
By alienating and alarming so many factions of government, the current president has provided a much-needed corrective,
reacquainting people with the value of enforcing constitutional limits regardless of which party or which politician
happens to control the White House.

[r9etb]

The checks and challenges invited by the president's "serial recklessness" should be welcomed.

Ridiculous argument to justify a silly premise.

A similar argument: We should welcome drunk drivers because they keep us sober drivers on our toes.

[EasyAce]

Ridiculous argument to justify a silly premise.

A similar argument: We should welcome drunk drivers because they keep us sober drivers on our toes.

I don't know if I'd go that far. But I do applaud anything, even the foolishness of the incumbent, that
begins scaling executive power back to its proper bounds and concurrently kicks Congress (and even the
courts) to start or keep doing their damn jobs. Let Donaldus Minimus overwrite all the executive orders
he wants, that's just overturning previous foolishness. But let Congress especially get to real
legislating and oversight, that's their job. Including telling the president, if and when necessary,
"You're only allowed to recommend something. That doesn't mean we have to do a damn thing with it.
It even means we're within our bounds to tell you or any president where to stick it."

[skeeter]

I don't know if I'd go that far. But I do applaud anything, even the foolishness of the incumbent, that
begins reducing executive power to its proper bounds and concurrently kicks Congress and even the
courts to start or keep doing their damn jobs.

I agree. Anything that helps decentralize power the federal government has amassed, starting with the executive branch, is ultimately a good thing.

As long as that power is truly decentralized and not delegated to some unelected federal bureaucracy.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Ridiculous argument to justify a silly premise.

A similar argument: We should welcome drunk drivers because they keep us sober drivers on our toes.

I agree with the article. Although I do agree with you in that it would be nice not to have it done this way, but taking power away from the president is not a bad thing.