Trump Thread

[Pannonian]

No, it would be closer to the U.S. as it practiced politics from 1820s-1860s. Although, with the amount of baseline responsibility POTUS has as a world leader with nukes and whatnot, it would be a different beast entirely.

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

[Montmorency]

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

That would be Polk. Or Jackson. Or Jefferson. Definitely Adams?

Uh.....

[a completely inoffensive name]

That would be Polk. Or Jackson. Or Jefferson. Definitely Adams?

Uh.....

Almost all presidents increased power, but they did not increase power to the same degree. Jackson, Lincoln, teddy, FDR really shifted the perception of what the president is/ can be

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Was it Lincoln then, who first significantly accrued power in the executive?

His was the largest single change aside from FDR. However, ACIN is correct that a majority tried to enhance federal power and that Lincoln was certainly not the first.

Washington -- the least power acquisitive of them -- used a recess appointment to pick the CJ of the SCOTUS
Jefferson began a war with the Barbary pirates without Congressional approval, made the Louisiana purchase without prior approval, and allowed support for the slave rebellion in Haiti while minimizing support for the French there.
Monroe allowed General Jackson to conquer Florida as a "oopsie" while conducting a punitive campaign against the Seminole.

...and that is just the first 5. Lincoln's suspension of habeus corpus, emanicipation proclamation, and --arguably -- his refusal to see participation in the Union under the Constitution as voluntary, were merely the biggest growth in executive power during our Republic's first century. He was certainly not alone.

[Montmorency]

Personally, we might give the days of the imperial executive, independent of Congress (and first among equals in the party) another shot.

Post-1974 has been executive by committee, corporate boardroom style, or maybe like 1990s Chinese CP. I don't see that you can bundle a weak executive, weak central party control, and a strong Congress in itself, let alone that it would be desirable.

In other news, Puerto Rico votes for statehood again.

The 2012 referendum had a good turnout at 3/4, so while this plebiscite had a much bigger proportion voting for statehood, 97% to 61%*, the turnout at 1/4 is embarrassing.

Unlikely that Congress will pay much attention to the matter.

*This figure not counting the 500,000 blank answers (out of 1.9 million ballots) to the 2012 question on desired status, which altogether suggests most Puerto Ricans don't have much concern about formal status one way or another.

[Sarmatian]

Or simply let POTUS be divided into president and prime minister. Problem solved

[Strike For The South]

So apparently someone has floated a ballon that Trump will fire Mueller.

be still, my heart.

[HopAlongBunny]

This balloon is bigger, HUUUGER! than the Hindenburg baby!
It appears Mueller is just another partisan hack intent on dimming the bright light that is Trump.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...rogates-239447

Of course it might be a continuation of deny, deflect and defame any critic of the administration,

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Pence resigns. Trump appoints B Sanders VEEP. Senate Confirms. Trump resigns. Media switches to "at last all will be as it should" mode.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Personally, we might give the days of the imperial executive, independent of Congress (and first among equals in the party) another shot.

Post-1974 has been executive by committee, corporate boardroom style, or maybe like 1990s Chinese CP. I don't see that you can bundle a weak executive, weak central party control, and a strong Congress in itself, let alone ...

The imperial executive is unstable in the long term, even in the medium term. We had a future president (nixon) direct his team to commit treason in order to undermine the re-election of the sitting president.

I don't see that you can invoke Roman notions of princepe civitates without any awareness of how quickly augustian/trajan rule devolves into nero/commodus.

[Montmorency]

The imperial executive is unstable in the long term, even in the medium term.

That's not a weakness while cyclical factors remain at play in our life. There are no long-term stable power-sharing structures, "mature democracy" or no. The contemporary executive looks the way it does in the context of a federal government (and counterparts in Europe and Asia) preoccupied with security and maintenance rather than with expansion. If we could say it were possible to take a particular direction in the future, I would prefer the old example over the trend toward endless compartmentalization of governance. That doesn't mean that a modern strong executive would act like a 20th-century executive, that the world would look or run like a 20th-century world, or that the state would bend toward the narrow social democracy many on the left pine for as the unfulfilled promise of those days - but I would like to see how such a thing would play out in its new ways, and what kind of world could produce it.

I don't see that you can invoke Roman notions of princepe civitates without any awareness of how quickly augustian/trajan rule devolves into nero/commodus.

I was just talking with respect to party leadership; it's not necessary to think in this kind of analogy. Nixon was not like Nero or Commodus vis-a-vis an FDR Hadrian (or what have you).

[HopAlongBunny]

Apparently two Attorney's General (Maryland and D.C.) have decided to test the emoluments clause applicability to Trump's situation.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/...sident-n771081

This looks complicated :) Is a transaction to a related organization/corporation directly tied to an office holder, within the scope of the clause?
Is "just business" even a defence?
Weren't these issues raised at Trump's inauguration? (yes) and solved? (sort of-questionable att if the measures were sufficient; clear that the measures were implemented haphazardly)

[Pannonian]

That's not a weakness while cyclical factors remain at play in our life. There are no long-term stable power-sharing structures, "mature democracy" or no. The contemporary executive looks the way it does in the context of a federal government (and counterparts in Europe and Asia) preoccupied with security and maintenance rather than with expansion. If we could say it were possible to take a particular direction in the future, I would prefer the old example over the trend toward endless compartmentalization of governance. That doesn't mean that a modern strong executive would act like a 20th-century executive, that the world would look or run like a 20th-century world, or that the state would bend toward the narrow social democracy many on the left pine for as the unfulfilled promise of those days - but I would like to see how such a thing would play out in its new ways, and what kind of world could produce it.

I was just talking with respect to party leadership; it's not necessary to think in this kind of analogy. Nixon was not like Nero or Commodus vis-a-vis an FDR Hadrian (or what have you).

Do you have an equivalent of an independent unelected civil service?