Lacking any significant legislative accomplishments, and governing almost exclusively by executive order, Trump places the blame for his lackluster performance not on himself or his staff—or even his opposition in Congress.
If the president is having a hard time because of the peculiarities of our system of government, that means the system is doing exactly what it is supposed to do.
Specifically, Trump criticizes the filibuster, claiming that it forces the government to make bad decisions. Trump’s views on the filibuster are not surprising, having never shown an ounce of principle on anything, he seems to have no problem with archaic rules and institutions when they benefit him.
Earlier this week, the Army Corps of Engineers decided to block the final easement needed for the Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe. Tribal groups and environmentalists celebrated the federal government’s decision to reject the permit, claiming that the pipeline threatens tribal land and the environment. Unfortunately, the easement was blocked for reasons that are motivated by political pressure. The Army Corps’s decision has little to do with scientific evaluations or concern for economic benefits, providing further evidence of the extreme politicization in the federal regulatory process.
In its 2015 environmental assessment, the Army Corps specifically addressed the concerns surrounding the portion of the pipeline that would cross under Lake Oahe. The Army Corps rejected these concerns, noting Dakota Access’s effort to include safety features that would “minimize the risk of spills and reduce or remediate any potential damages.” The environmental assessment concluded that there was such a minimal effect on the environment that there was not even a need to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.
One will note that the Army Corps’s sudden reversal on this is based on no new evidence at all.
In today’s slow-growth climate, many pundits and politicians are pushing for new solutions to get the economy in a higher gear. A better path forward may be looking to lessons from the past.
New York University law professor Richard Epstein spoke about Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek’s continued relevance to today’s economic and political debate at the Mercatus Center last week. Though Hayek died in 1992, his insights are sorely needed today.
As Epstein made clear, Hayek was a passionate defender of the rule of law. Hayek understood that for a constitutional system to succeed in protecting those whom it governs, there must be both fair and neutral judges and laws that are coherent and understandable by normal citizens–not just lawyers and accountants. The movement away from these principles is where Hayek’s relevance is most-clearly seen today.
When PresidentBarack Obama chooses to enforce select portions of federal law, is he playing the part of chief executive or skirting around Congress and, by extension, the U.S.Constitution?
That’s the question House Republicans put forth in a House Judiciary Committee meeting Wednesday, stacking the witness panel with four fellow House GOP members and three law professors all too ready to deliver their thoughts on prosecutorial discretion, the notion that the chief executive can selectively enforce federal laws.
You can find the entire opinion piece here. You can also read a republished version of the piece by Fox News here.
If you’d like to speak with or book Yaël or any of our other Advocates, please contact Young Voices now.