Presidents come and go

The powers of the presidency remain, and increase. Here’s one example of how it works – or how it fails:

“The Obama administration – perhaps anticipating a Hillary Clinton presidency – supported these changes. Now its outgoing public-diplomacy officials will have to hope that Mr. Trump …” — A big change to U.S. broadcasting is coming – and it’s one Putin might admire

This particular example is about management of the VOA, but it could be any number of other things.

It’s just barely possible that Obamacare will be repealed, though I don’t think that will really happen in practice. Maybe the Republicans will change it’s name; maybe they’ll pass a bill titled “repeal of Obamacare,” and President Trump will sign it. Maybe they’ll simply amend Obamacare to the advantage of different constituencies. Whatever they do, the powers of the federal government over doctors, nurses, and patients will remain, and grow.

Whatever powers we granted to President Obama will be used by President Trump. Whatever powers we grant to President Trump will be used by his successor. The founding fathers understood what people seem to have forgotten.


3 Replies to “Presidents come and go”

  1. “The founding fathers understood what people seem to have forgotten.” Bingo! The founding fathers built in checks, balances, and limitations so that no one branch of government would be too strong, and the government as a whole would be beholden to the people. Unfortunately, they failed to take into account human ingenuity and the way that power can accumulate year after year. Although, that might be exactly why Jefferson prescribed a revolution every few years.

    1. Yes. Though it does seem to be a flaw in the system that the government decides what the Constitution allows the government to do. Looking back, directly electing the senate was a bad idea.

      1. You know, I go back and forth on the direct election of the Senate issue. On the one hand, I see why it was set up for indirect election, but on the other I find that method to divorce the Senate too much from the people, actually making them less accountable. Perhaps a middle ground would be some additional qualifications. I’m not sure what those would/should/could be, but it might be a way of getting back to the original idea while still maintaining increased/direct accountability.

Comments are closed.