Ruining the Environment Made Easy
Scrapping anything and everything that came from the Obama administration is an obsession for Donald Trump, and hats off, he’s ferociously good at it.
Take for example what he’s done with the Environmental Protect Agency and the repeal of the Clean Power Plan. Scott Pruitt, EPA administrator, is moving forward to kill this piece of legislation with lightning speed, based on the claim the EPA doesn’t have the legal authority to limit power plant emissions, i.e., that the CPP represents an overstepping of the EPA charter.
Well, who defined that charter in the first place? You guessed it: Pruitt himself, in the numerous lawsuits he brought against the agency earlier in his career.
The lesson: When you want something done in a hurry, don’t screw around with a team of unreliable and worse, potentially honest people. Appoint one loyal, single-minded henchman as judge, jury and executioner.
Craig,
“Pruitt, EPA administrator, is moving forward to kill this piece of legislation”.
I hate to correct you, but it’s the repetition of this sort of disingenuous information which discredits the message you are trying to convey.
The Clean Power Plan is not “legislation” !
That’s the whole point of Scott Pruitt and the new administration’s objection.
The principle objection is former President Obama’s overuse and reliance of “Presidential Degree or Fiats” in the form of “Executive Orders” to by-pass the US Congress.
It’s doesn’t really matter if President Obama’s intention were righteous or otherwise, the US Constitution, like many advanced democracies, reserves the power of administration to the Executive, and the power to enact legislation to the elected Congress.
It’s very understandable for a President when finding no support in Congress, to bypass the legislature and enlarge the power of existing legislation and agencies by means of Executive orders authorized by the constitution for administrative process only.
Naturally, a certain amount of overlap and interpretation exists between what power is permitted to the Executive to administer legislation, and what requires new legislation.
When this occurs, it’s the function of the US Supreme Court to decide the limit of Presidential Authority. The Court doesn’t rule on the value of the Executive action, only whether the Executive action is Constitutional.
Curiously, the present administration seems determined to reverse the trend of the last five Presidents to expand Presidential power by handing back Presidential power to the elected legislature.
Given the nature of the current executive, this seems a curiously principled stand not usually associated with ambitious Presidents.
Often overlooked is the influence of President Trump’s schooling. The New York Military Academy, Fordham University’s and the Wharton faculty at the University of Pennsylvania are all conservative institution and would have instilled in pupil a very strict attitude to the separation of Constitutional institutions.
President Trump’s attitudes may be genuine. Unlike previous President’s he has not sought to bypass the legislature, instead relying on deal making with legislators to pass legislation (the Constitution is silent about such methods).
The President is able to do this more easily since he has no real party loyalties or obligations. President Obama, like his predecessors, had to worry about offending his backers and party heavyweights.
The merits of the Clean Power Plan are not the issue.
The issue is can the Executive bypass Congress to achieve it’s objectives, or obey constitutional restraints and trust to the long, and often frustrating, process of enacting legislation through Congress ?
The issue is that simple, what do you prefer, government by Executive Presidential degree, or government with Constitutional check’s and balances ?
marcopolo – “Unlike previous President’s he has not sought to bypass the legislature” – please… really? Are you paying attention?
Cameron Atwood,
I realize your not big on research, replying pretty much on myths misquotes and tired cliches instead of objective analysis, but even for you this is an observation bereft of information.
Would you care to elaborate ? Provide any examples ?
US Presidents hold Executive office, not just Constitutional heads of state, although the duties of the executive branch and the legislature often overlap to a certain degree.
The Executive branch is administrative while the legislature is limited to enacting laws and endorsing certain administrative appointments and policies.
The is Executive is constitutionally granted certain reserve and emergency powers. These powers are necessary for emergencies and have set periods before requiring ratification by the Legislature.
Pardons, control of the military as Commander-in-Chief are administrative functions.
It’s not always clear at what point an “Executive Order” ceases to be an administrative action authorized by an existing law, and when an ‘Executive Order” is used to avoid the need to pass legislation.
Over the past few decades, the use of “Executive Orders” has increased. Toward the end of his last term, President Obama relied heavily on creating law by use of Executive Orders.
The danger of this practice is creating a government relying on Presidential decrees (or Fiats) instead of the hard task of persuading the elected representatives of the people to do the job they were elected to do, and fulfill the onerous task of participating in the decision making process.
Cue to the American system not electing cabinet ministers and political appointees filling jobs normally reserved for civil servants in other democratic systems, it’s important that legislatures accept responsibility for passing or rejecting legislation.
President Trump has consistently handed back Presidential power to the legislature. Abolishing the “Executive Orders” of previous administrations is an administrative function.
The best example is the President’s demand for Congress to enact the “Dream Act’ into law. The President supports the proposed Act and indicted he would immediately sign it into law.
What he will not do is continue the Constitutionally barred “Executive Order” ( Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA), which President Obama signed a “temporary” measure.
There’s no doubt President Obama’s motives were righteous, but if one President can circumvent the Constitution for good purpose, another can use the same precedent for corrupt reasons.
The current challenge to the US Supreme Court will undoubtedly result in the (DACA) Executive Order being struck down. In that case,with no law to replace it, the consequences are obvious.
Instead of praising the President’s action, his opponents and the liberal press have been obsessed with blaming the President, instead of urging Congress to do it’s job and pass legislation.