The presidency of Donald Trump has been a whirlwind of controversy and upheaval, with the commander-in-chief exercising significant authority since taking office.
He's imposed tariffs on various countries, notably China, sparking what many called a "trade war" that affected global markets and even everyday American consumers.
His administration deported large numbers of illegal immigrants and tightened legal immigration, including revoking visas and green cards.
Trump has deployed the National Guard to cities experiencing unrest, and there were instances of federal intervention in local law enforcement matters.
As commander in chief, Trump’s decisions on military matters and foreign policy has drawn global attention and sometimes concern from allies and adversaries alike.
And yet yet the president represents the current will of the American people, as he is the only nationally elected official. Donald Trump made many campaign promises of things that seriously resonated with the American people. He must now deliver, and is doing an excellent job. Despite this mostly overlooked fact, Donald Trump's unorthodox approach to governance has left many politicians, particularly those on the opposing side, wishing for a limitation on his powers. I imagine (particularly Democrats) creating a plan that would find an opportune moment in history when the House and Senate are majority Democrat and the sitting president is a progressive Democrat. But this future president would understand that his mission would be to effectively commit suicide for himself and future presidents. A bill would be passed and sent to his desk that would seriously limit his powers and for those who succeed him.
No longer would a president have control over the military.
No longer could a president open/close the borders.
No longer could a president engage in tariff wars or impose sanctions on other countries
No longer would it be necessary for a president to sign a bill into law.
The castrating list could go on and on, making the president nothing more than a face for the American people, someone who makes friendly public announcements while serving as a glorified ambassador to other nations—nothing more. It would be another crippling of our Constitution. All power would exist with congress. And the current will of the people would no longer be represented like it currently does with President Donald Trump.
Our thought experiment begs a question: could a future Democrat president, with a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate, pass legislation to curtail the president's authority?
In theory, it's possible. A Democratic president, with a unified government, could propose and pass legislation to limit the president's powers. Such a bill could potentially strip the president of control over the military, border control, tariff wars, and sanctions. It could also alter the legislative process, making it easier for Congress to override the president's veto or even eliminate the need for presidential signatures on certain bills.
However, the feasibility of such a scenario is questionable. The US Constitution grants significant authority to the president, and any attempts to drastically limit these powers would likely face significant opposition. The system of checks and balances is designed to prevent any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, and Congress would need to carefully consider the implications of such a drastic shift. There have been moments in U.S. history when Congress has sought to rein in the presidency—after Watergate, for example, with the War Powers Act and other reforms. However, the pendulum often swings back, especially in times of perceived crisis or strong leadership.
Many presidential powers are rooted in the Constitution such as commander in chief or possessing veto power. To fundamentally alter these, a constitutional amendment would be required, not just legislation. Passing such sweeping changes would require not only a majority in both chambers but also, in the case of amendments, ratification by three-fourths of the states—a very high bar.
Our thought experiment highlights a real tension in American governance: how much power should one person have, even if they represent the will of the people? While Congress can and sometimes does act to limit presidential authority, fundamentally transforming the balance of power would require broad political consensus and likely constitutional change. The debate over executive power is as old as the republic itself—and is likely to continue, especially after presidencies that test the limits of the office.
No comments:
Post a Comment