Trump and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025

[Nithavela]

I don't believe anything the failing NY Times published unless there is real incontrovertible proof from other sources.

Hasn't Trump coined the "failing New York Times" phrase during his first presidential candidacy?

 

[wing2000]

I read the piece and it's just a hit piece to stir up fear on Trump - who may or may NOT even be the nominee.

The Heritage Foundation has a plan...whether it be Trump or someone else...

"Project 2025"

Project 2025

With the Biden administration half over and with the immediate dangers inherent to one-party rule in Washington behind us for now, it’s past time to lay the groundwork for a White House more friendly to the right. For decades, as the left has continued its march through America’s institutions...

www.heritage.org

 

[wing2000]

That was a principle of *small-government* conservatism, but that era is gone and we now have large-government "conservatism", though you may find other labels more illustrative.

Conservatism is nearly dead in American politics.

 

[DaisyDay]

I knew this was a NYT slant when I saw the first few words. NO, correcting serious overreach is NOT being a dictator. Biden has been more dictatorial than Trump ever was, issuing mandates as to what new drug with no long term data one must take just to go to work, and transferring loans to taxpayers which he had ZERO authority to do, for just two examples.

I read the piece and it's just a hit piece to stir up fear on Trump - who may or may NOT even be the nominee.

Imagine how much worse it would be if even more power were concentrated in Biden's hands. Of course, Donald has made it crystal clear that if he ever gets into office again, he intends to stay there come hell or high water.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Hasn't Trump coined the "failing New York Times" phrase during his first presidential candidacy?

I think @Vambram may owe Trump nickle in royalties. (or does that phrase come from talk radio?)

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Conservatism is nearly dead in American politics.

This is very true. The majority of people don't want the conservative laws. And now Conservatives are trying to pass extreme Conservatives laws. That they can't obey. The moral belief should stay in Church.

 

[KCfromNC]

Shouldn't the proper, conservative, non-authoritarian response then be to reduce the president's power to mandate decisions best left to medical or economic experts?

This is kinda like asking if deficits matter.

The answer, of course, depends on whether the GOP controls the White House.

 

[Whyayeman]

Of course, Trump doesn't read history.

Correction. Trump doesn't read.

And yet he has learned this from somewhere. He is following the same pattern as Putin; a steady accumulation of powers to himself. Your founding fathers left England in part to escape from the tyranny of monarchy. Trump neither understands or cares about them or their republicanism.

Trump, it turns out, is a monarchist.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Also, check Trump's own site:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-liberating-america-from-bidens-regulatory-onslaught

President Trump will bring the independent regulatory agencies, such as the FCC and the FTC, back under Presidential authority, as the Constitution demands. No longer will unelected members of the Washington Swamp be allowed to act as the fourth branch of our Republic.

Interesting: When was it removed from Presidential authority and by whom?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Interesting: When was it removed from Presidential authority and by whom?

Never. That's how they were created.

FTC (1914): That a commission is hereby created and established, to be known as the Federal Trade Commission (hereinafter referred to as the commission), which shall be composed of five commissioners, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. Not more than three of the commissioners shall be members of the same political party.

FCC (1934): (a) The Federal Communications Commission (in this Act referred to as the “Commission”) shall be composed of five Commissioners appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one of whom the President shall designate as chairman.

Of course, it's disingenuous of Trump to talk about them being 'unelected' when they are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. He's certainly not arguing that they should become elected offices, just (I assume) that he should be able to fire them and appoint new ones.

 

[Whyayeman]

'...back under presidential authority, as the Constitution demands...'

Nothing is being brought back, since it was never there. This is reducing the power of the Senate and strengthening the power of the President. What in the Constitution 'demands' this? Nothing.

Two lies, right there.

 

[Always in His Presence]

FCC (1934): (a) The Federal Communications Commission (in this Act referred to as the “Commission”) shall be composed of five Commissioners appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, one of whom the President shall designate as chairman.

Sounds like they are under Presidential authority to me.

 

[Whyayeman]

Sounds like they are under Presidential authority to me.

It does sound that way, except for the involvement of the Senate. That is why Trump is not being truthful. There is no authority to reclaim. All it boils down to is to remove the Senate's endorsement from presidential appointments.

 

[Hank77]

It's no surprise that his response is not to spend some time learning how the system actually works, but to remove the guardrails.

I believe he has had much cleverer minds than his own helping him to figure it out.

 

[Always in His Presence]

It does sound that way, except for the involvement of the Senate. That is why Trump is not being truthful. There is no authority to reclaim. All it boils down to is to remove the Senate's endorsement from presidential appointments.

He is not stating that. you might assign motivation, but it is not in his words.

 

[Always in His Presence]

Of course, it's disingenuous of Trump to talk about them being 'unelected' when they are nominated by the President and approved by the Senate.

Well simple definitions are in play - elected means they were voted into office by the populace - appointed by the President - that is not the description of an elected official. Trump is correct, therefore not disingenuous.

 

[Whyayeman]

He is not stating that. you might assign motivation, but it is not in his words.

Of course it isn't, because he is lying.

My point remains: the only effect of the plan would be to concentrate power currently belonging to the Senate into the hands of the president. This is exactly how Putin went from being elected to President for life. Perhaps those 'cleverer minds than his own' had this in mind.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well simple definitions are in play - elected means they were voted into office by the populace - appointed by the President - that is not the description of an elected official. Trump is correct, therefore not disingenuous.

I didn't say he was incorrect about that fact. I said he was disingenuous. Unless his proposal is for the president to give up the power to appoint commissioners, and make them elected offices. But that doesn't seem to be what he's saying, since he wants them to be 'back' under presidential authority.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Sounds like they are under Presidential authority to me.

In the same fashion that the Supreme Court is. (That is both panels contain members appointed by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate.)

 

[Always in His Presence]

Of course it isn't, because he is lying.

My point remains: the only effect of the plan would be to concentrate power currently belonging to the Senate into the hands of the president. This is exactly how Putin went from being elected to President for life. Perhaps those 'cleverer minds than his own' had this in mind.

You assigning the motivation that he is supposedly lying is not provable, accurate, nor a good debate tactic.

In the same fashion that the Supreme Court is. (That is both panels contain members appointed by Presidents and confirmed by the Senate.)

No accurate at all - the Supreme Court is a co equal branch of Government - The FTC is no
The Supreme Court appointments are life time - the FTC is not

and so many other reasons the argument fails in my POV