Allowing dangerous precedents to be set is a double edged sword. The Republicans will not be in power forever. The pendulum swings back and forth, always has. The Trump/ Bannon rulebook for a future Democratic president currently looks something like this:
1. Reinstate every Executive Order Trump/ Bannon rescinded.
2. Start the process of repealing every piece of legislation Trump/ Bannon enacted.
3. Fire every employee from every federal agency that showed any loyalty or support for Trump/ Bannon.
4. Direct the EPA, FCC, and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to apply existing regulations more rigorously to protect the environment, internet neutrality and consumers.
5. Issue an Executive Order stating that no foreign health organizations will receive US funding unless they include services and information related to family planning, including abortion.
1. Issue an executive order proclaiming that sales of firearms have been suspended nationally for 90 days while the government looks at the situation. This is not a ban on firearms sales of course, merely a "temporary suspension" for the protection of the homeland.
2. When the attorney general instructs the DoJ not to defend this order, fire them for betraying the president. Then hire someone who is happy to do whatever the president says.
3. Ignore any protests from the Republicans.
4. When federal courts order an immediate halt to implementing the temporary suspension, ignore them too.
5. Declare all permits and licenses related to firearms invalid. Firearms owners will need to reapply once a new vetting system for firearms ownership is in place.
Week 3 . . . ?
In other words, more plain words, the Democrats will continue the insanity, the party politics and the refusal to do their job...that resulted in the election of Donald Trump. Payback will be more important than the nation. They are incapable of learning that they are not the boss, that the people own this country, not politicians.
Wouldn't surprise me. Once one has had the taste of power it is a hard thing to forget.
*edit* Any guesses as to why Obama made such last minute orders, orders that he know would not fit the new regime and would be rescinded? He can't possibly be so unintelligent as to think they would be allowed to stand; was it just grandstanding, a political ploy to discredit Trump or the GOP?
You can't have it both ways. You can't call Trump's current actions acceptable, but then suddenly call them "insanity" when taken by a future Democratic president.
Likewise, if it would be "insanity" for a future Democratic president to take these types of actions, that means the current president's actions are "insanity" also.
You may like the liberties Trump is taking with the Constitution, because you share his political views, but that's short-sighted. You will not feel the same when the person taking those liberties is a Democrat.
So be careful what you wish for. If you normalize Trump's behaviour, you are essentially creating a new playbook for the "left" to follow when they eventually get back into office (which of course they will). There is nothing Bannon/ Trump can do, that a future Democratic president can't. People would do well to bear that in mind.
Case in point, if the GOP and their agenda is to be received by the DEMS without obstruction, the GOP should have thought of that during all the years that they offered stubborn and purely partisan resistance to the policies of Barack Obama and the Democrats. Obama won both the popular and electoral college, BTW. They sowed their seeds and now must reap the harvest. Where was all of this sappy concern about the best interests of the country during the Obama administration? It is truly disengenous and is a crock of **** from the Republicans and there will be more trouble ahead.
Sad, isn't it, that the left wingers don't have any of that "sappy concern about the best interests of the country"? No better, and usually worse, than the far right whackos - somehow it always ends up with the people that can actually reason and DO care that have to take care of things.
Wilderness, it sounds 'sappy' from you because you only apply the concepts in favor of the GOP against the democrats never the other way around. You've said that you expressed dismay about the problem even during Obama's presidency. If you did, it was a mere whisper.
The 'reasoning' you keep talking about has to come from both sides, with both sides respecting the consequences of strident partisanism and avoiding same. We can't all just agree to get along merely because your people are in power now, that is going nowhere, as Trump is finding out to his dismay.
Yes, it is possible for progressives to care about the best interests of the country and take care of things even though they don't fit into your playbook....
"The 'reasoning' you keep talking about has to come from both sides, with both sides respecting the consequences of strident partisanism and avoiding same."
Applause! Now how about some of that reasoning and sappy care for the nation from the left wingers?
"We can't all just agree to get along merely because your people are in power now, that is going nowhere, as Trump is finding out to his dismay."
Good thing getting along was never mention. Only an effort to do so, an effort to listen, understand and choose what is best for the country rather than for the party. I haven't seen you actually discuss an issue in months - just bash anything said by Trump or the GOP simply because of the source.
"Yes, it is possible for progressives to care about the best interests of the country and take care of things even though they don't fit into your playbook"
I actually believe that. Just not that the far left, intent on bashing all conservative values or plans, cares one iota. Even the far right religious nuts think it's best for the country - their god will at least reward the country for doing what it requires. The far left, however, cares only for themselves.
"Applause! Now how about some of that reasoning and sappy care for the nation from the left wingers?"
Resisting Trump and his policies IS that care for the nation by left wingers.
"Good thing getting along was never mention. Only an effort to do so, an effort to listen, understand and choose what is best for the country rather than for the party. I haven't seen you actually discuss an issue in months - just bash anything said by Trump or the GOP simply because of the source. "
From the progressive point of view, Trump has already told the progressives, the nation and the world where he stands. Trump IS NOT from the perspective of the vast majority of decent people interested in the well being of the country. I don't care for Republican nor Consrvative orthodoxy, that is well known. Trump represents the very worse of the right, and we are not friends. Trump is worse than either BUsh or Reagan combined. Trump is treated in an excessive way by me because he is excessive. Like you told me once, 'Obama can't seem to do anything right', that is my opinion of Trump and I don't need a hundred days to come to that conclusion.
"I actually believe that. Just not that the far left, intent on bashing all conservative values or plans, cares one iota. Even the far right religious nuts think it's best for the country - their god will at least reward the country for doing what it requires. The far left, however, cares only for themselves."
All far right people are dangerous whether they bang a bible or not, and to think that any of them are altruistic is bull sh*t. They are all as determined to drive progressive enlightened thought into the stone age. Thatis what isin the White House now and as long as it stays there, unrest will continue.
He had better moderate his policies and move to the center fast for any chance that he can put out all the fires that currently rage around him.
"Resisting Trump and his policies IS that care for the nation by left wingers. "
You cannot possibly convince me that even a far leftwinger as yourself finds zero value in ANY of Trumps plans. Which means that it isn't the country you care for, it's liberalism, socialism and the Democratic party.
"Trump IS NOT from the perspective of the vast majority of decent people interested in the well being of the country."
Denigratinig the millions of "decent" people in the country does little for your faux cause.
"Obama can't seem to do anything right', that is my opinion of Trump and I don't need a hundred days to come to that conclusion."
No you certainly don't need 100 days. All it took was to see the "R" in front of his name. I already mention that you aren't interested in the issues, just whether they came from Trump - does it need said again?
"They are all as determined to drive progressive enlightened thought into the stone age. "
As there IS no "progressive enlightened thought" to be driven into the stone age, they're going to have a hard time with that one. The only thing those "enlightened" ones care about is sharing the wealth of others among themselves and growing their power over others.
"You cannot possibly convince me that even a far leftwinger as yourself finds zero value in ANY of Trumps plans. Which means that it isn't the country you care for, it's liberalism, socialism and the Democratic party."
Yes, he says all the right things, but how he goes about crafting policy is another thing. If there is any value in anything Trumps says it is measurable at the angstrom level. Why are you this such caring individual? You support authoritarianism, the politics of reaction and the Republican Party, not the country.
"No you certainly don't need 100 days. All it took was to see the "R" in front of his name. I already mention that you aren't interested in the issues, just whether they came from Trump - does it need said again?"
All I needed to do was read of his background supporting racism and misogyny bringing in the very demons as part of his cabinet. I wasn't born yesterday, Wilderness. I evaluate a man by his record despite what he says. Trumps record while good enough for you and the alt Right, for me, falls far short of acceptable. There are few Republicans from that perspective that are any good, but every now and then you get lucky and find a diamond tiara in the rubbish can. So, my hopes are not great.
"They are all as determined to drive progressive enlightened thought into the stone age. "
It's no wonder I hear praises of Trump as restorer of the Age of Eisenhower, and the retroworld conservatives crave.
As I said, you can't have it both ways. You can't call Trump's current actions acceptable, but then suddenly call them "insanity" when taken by a future Democratic president.
The liberties Trump is taking with the Constitution suit you, because you agree with them. Clearly you won't feel the same when it's the Democrat's turn.
That's why you should be careful what you wish for. Normalizing Trump is setting the playbook for the "left" to follow when they get back into office (which of course they will). There are no executive orders Trump can sign that can't be rescinded.
"The liberties Trump is taking with the Constitution"
What liberties would that be? The ban on travel in the interests of national security in time of war, that is specifically allowed by law? That one?
Or the one requiring investigation on how to protect our southern border, as required of the President by law and the constitution? That one?
"Normalizing Trump"...can we at least be honest and say "Allowing Trump liberal policies and orders"? I'm not a politician, and not very good at "interpreting" the spin they use. Nor much interested, for that matter; honesty counts for far more than sounding true while presenting a falsehood.
Trump's stated intention to ban Muslims and favor Christians, and the detention of people without due process, is taking liberties with the Constitution.
Let me rephrase "normalize". If you say Trump's actions are acceptable because the end justifies the means, then every president and their supporters can apply the same logic, including Democrats.
So, a future president wants to deal with the gun issue? No problem. Issue an executive order invalidating all gun permits, and proclaim a new, harsher vetting process. Constitutional? Debatable. But hey it's for public safety, so the end justifies the means, right?
Even though I want something to be done about the gun issue, I'd be first to complain about such an executive order, because the Constitution is more important than partisanship. Everyone, left and right, should value the Constitution more than their own pet political ideology, even if it "gets in the way" of taking an action we agree with. The fact that the Constitution gets in the way of the government sometimes, means it's doing what it was designed to do, preventing the presidency becoming a dictatorship. That's more valuable in the grand scheme of things, than whatever action is being delayed or prevented.
You DO realize there is a difference between campaign rhetoric and actual actions, right? I'll assume a "yes" on that one, so how about showing an action banning Muslims, all muslims and nothing but muslims. That's what you're insinuating: show it.
And along with that, show where people are being detained against their will. People that could not get back onto a plane to where they came from, anytime they wish to. Or does "detained" suddenly mean that they simply can't go wherever they wish?
I'm not the one making the call. As I've said, the courts can (and likely will) look at the intention and effect of the order, not just the wording of it. That's standard practice with something like this. As I also said, previous public comments (e.g. Trump's comments, and Giuliani saying he was asked how to ban Muslims "legally") can be used in court to establish intent. Then it's up to the courts to decide.
Read one of the many news reports about people who were detained in airports and denied access to lawyers etc. There are plenty of them.
"Trump's stated intention to ban Muslims and favor Christians, and the detention of people without due process, is taking liberties with the Constitution."
Then this isn't true at all, and you can provide nothing at all with which to back it up.
Watched one of the families that had been "detained"; they had returned home and were now back in the states. Really detained against their will, weren't they!?
As I said, the intent and effect of an order can be considered, not just the wording of it. The 9th circuit judges specifically say as much in their last briefing:
"It is well established that evidence of purpose beyond the face of the challenged law may be considered in evaluating Establishment and Equal Protection Clause claims. See, e.g., Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534 (1993) (“The Free Exercise Clause, like the Establishment Clause, extends beyond facial discrimination. . . . Official action that targets religious conduct for distinctive treatment cannot be shielded by mere compliance with the requirement of facial neutrality.”)(emphasis added)(1)
In other words, carefully wording an EO to make it look neutral at face value, does not allow you to evade the scrutiny of the courts. That's not new. It's been established in case law. That's why Trump's stated intentions, and the comments of his advisors(2) will come into play in this case.
(1) https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ … -35105.pdf
(2) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … 24a7b806a8
Remember the saying this too will past. The main thing is to depend upon oneself for success & the good life. Yes, depend upon self. America is still the land of opportunity. MAKE YOUR OWN LIFE, people.
It is time to stop looking to the government for one's socioeconomic success. Successful people don't do this. People have succeeded in so-called good & so-called bad socioeconomic times. Think big & outside the box. People have become wealthy & successful regardless of what president, governor, & mayor is in office.
Memo to America: It isn't the government, it is.......YOU. Now, get cracking, work smart, aim high & succeed. Don't ever be average......don't listen to the naysayers, negaters, & other haters..........SUCCEED & WIN.........Your life is depending upon it........
In the end.........you either lead.....a GRAY or.....a RED life. Which life do you choose to.....LIVE?
by Jack Lee12 months ago
The executive order to suspend entry from 7 middle east countries for 90 days.Before you answer, consider the following,1. Is this order Constitutional?2. Was there precedence for this type of order by previous...
by Prakash Ranjan Paul12 months ago
I think it's high time someone brought home to Mr President the brute and naked truth, as I view it, namely the fact that his silly policies that fail to win the seal of approval of the international community including...
by Credence220 months ago
Some of you older ones might remember this character from the annals of animation many years ago. Donald Duck might be more appropriate but this time 'Baby Huey' says it all about the 'Donald'.More of my issues with...
by Jack Lee12 months ago
This ruling is an over reach by our courts to co opt the powers of the Executive branch.When did our courts and judges stop reading our Constitution? They are suppose to rule based on the Constitution, instead they have...
by Don W12 months ago
Call me simplistic, but doesn't the 2017 executive order break the law?Executive Order, Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States, 2017:"Sec. 3. Suspension of Issuance of Visas and...
by Scott Bateman10 months ago
Odd that the House was able to pass 60 bills repealing Obamacare when Obama was president but can't pass one when Trump is president.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.