Let me answer the question Lee Drutman and Kevin R. Kosar ask in their piece at RealClearPolicy, “Does Congress want to govern?”, right off the bat. No. Congress does not want to govern. That’s why again and again over the last 60 years they’ve abrogated their power to the Executive Branch.
What Congress wants to do is posture and send messages back to the folks at home so they’ll be re-elected again and again (and again and again).
Here’s what they have to say:
Speaker Ryan’s “A Better Way†agenda declares: “The people granted Congress the power to write laws, raise revenues, and spend and borrow money on behalf of the United States. There is no power more consequential …Yet for decades, Congress has let this power atrophy — thereby depriving the people of their voice.†Similarly, Senator Mike Lee last year launched the Article I Project on the premise that, “the federal government is broken, and congressional weakness is to blame … Congress has handed many of its constitutional responsibilities to the Executive Branch.â€
Congressional Republicans who sounded these alarms about executive overreach may well have had Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in mind. But as Donald Trump prepares to assume office, these calls for congressional re-assertion have become increasingly bipartisan.
All of which prompts the question: How much will Congress let President Trump get away with? The answer? Probably more than they should. Congress has grown weak relative to the executive branch, and Speaker Ryan is right: legislators, themselves, are largely to blame.
Will the Congress finally muster some intestinal fortitude and start doing its job? I hope for it but don’t expect it.
I wondered whether there’s a flaw in the constitution in that congress can delegate its powers to the executive branch but not the other way around. I know de jure its not allowed but allowing delegation of regulation of vague statues or giving the ability to waive whole laws means defacto it is.
“Will the Congress finally muster some intestinal fortitude and start doing its job? I hope for it but don’t expect it.”
“Intestinal fortitude” depends on whose fortitude one is analyzing. When the GOP Congress tried to put brakes on Obama’s social programs and calls for higher revenue (taxes) it was called “obstructive” behavior. Now, with power reversed, what will the dems foot dragging be termed? Instead of obstructionism, will that be considered intestinal fortitude? How do the dems view the R’s passing the Reins act, Midnight Reform Act, and the start-up of the replace/repeal process regarding the PPACA? Is this overreaching or exemplifying intestinal fortitude?
So far it appears that Trump’s brash confrontation of PCism, the MSM, school choice, unsuccessful policies (the PPACA, Dodd-Frank), a ton of EOs, and various trade agreements (NAFTA) he’s targeting, to either repeal entirely or reform, is considered by the left to be reckless etc. I hear very few descriptions calling his direct approach strong-minded and courageously forging ahead despite the catcalls of rival pundits, lawmakers and of course we mustn’t leave out Hollywood.
Nice point on Eos. but uninformed as you were on the Iran deal, so wrong and not making the point you want. Anyway, Obama had relatively few Eos. Fewer than Bush, Clinton and Reagan. Of note, none of his were overruled or found unconstitutional, unlike Bush, Clinton, and IIRC, Reagan. Interesting that having the SCOTUS rule against you indicates tyranny, but issuing unconstitutional EOS, does not.
Steve