By Kelly Sloan | Contributing Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
There remains a great deal of amusement to be had at the expense of our friends on the left who continue, at D-Day-plus-one month, with eruptions of hysteria at the realization that more Americans preferred the specter of life under Donald Trump to that of one under Kamala Harris.
Disappointment is understandable; pointed criticism is good, even necessary to democratic hygiene in a free society, but here and there we see examples of feverishness bumping against the boundaries of madness, even among experienced journalists who ought to know better — or at least ought to possess the awareness to self-regulate.
Ruth Marcus’ job description tells you all you need to know about her ideological persuasions. She is a columnist and associate editor at the Washington Post, who also serves as deputy editorial page editor of the publication — and she is never shy about flaunting those persuasions well past the point of logic, which may explain her recent extended missive gaudily titled “Four ways Trump will undermine the authority of Congress”. A gifted writer, Marcus establishes her chilling premise right off the bat: “The President-elect is setting the stage for a vast, dangerous and unconstitutional expansion of Presidential power.” Good heavens, sounds frightening.
She continues, “These aren’t just bad policies… they are structural changes. And once these guardrails are demolished, restoring them will be nearly impossible, and the damage to the constitutional order might be irreparable.”
Now, the planted axiom there is that surely everyone is in favor of the continuation of constitutional guardrails and order, yes? Like I said, Ms. Marcus is a talented writer, and she has expressed a sentiment that is difficult to argue against; but one cannot help but wonder, after a moment’s reflection, if a) she actually believes that herself, and if so b) if her barrels are pointed in the right direction.
She carries on about four areas in which she feels President-elect Trump will transform the City on a Hill into a dystopian waste-land: 1) expanding recess appointments, 2) impounding appropriated funds, 3) curbing independent agencies, and 4) ”politicizing” the civil service. I know, I’m disappointed in the list, too. I was at least expecting something as exciting as repealing the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments, dissolution of the Senate, and lining Constitution Avenue with guillotines.
Now, concentration of executive authority is indeed something that troubles conservatives – including the Founders — and is, admittedly, something that Republicans have now and again found themselves a mite too comfortable with. But let’s take a cursory guided tour through Ms. Marcus’s fears:
Recess appointments. I agree, those should be avoided except in the rarest and most exceptional of cases, and the Senate should be permitted to exercise its constitutional authority. Marcus correctly brings up the Supreme Court case of NLRB v. Noel Canning which properly limited the abuse of recess appointments. Abused by whom? President Barack Obama.
Curbing the independent agencies? Yes, Trump might try and do that, and I for one wish him well; there is a role and a reason for certain agencies to maintain a measure of independence from the political day-workings of the government, but the mission creep that inheres in an ever-gestating federal bureaucracy has in several cases far outstripped those original, legitimate intentions. One recalls how the prehensile New Deal in the 1930s managed to interpret the commerce clause as authorizing federal government regulation of elevators – which, going up-and-down as they tend to do, have not, even in this fantastic, AI-powered age, adopted the ability to transport their occupants across state lines. Redirecting some aspects of governing authority from unelected agencies to an elected executive seems a rather far cry from establishing a dictatorship.
“Politicizing” the civil service. I wasn’t there when she wrote this, so cannot say for sure if she did so with a straight face or not, but if she truly believes that the bureaucracy is not already long since “politicized”, it betrays a naivety that is unbefitting a serious journalist. The Steele Dossier ought to have dispelled any of those fantasies.
What about impounding appropriated spending, i.e., refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress? This is maybe the closest she came to a valid critique – the Supreme Court will handle it appropriately. In any case, does anyone really think that the most pressing existential issue facing the Republic is an institution curb on spending?
So what about the constitutional orders and guardrails she didn’t mention? Marcus seems oddly unconcerned about efforts to replace the electoral college with a national popular vote; or to pack the Supreme Court (what about their independence?), or about President Biden’s repeated flouting of the law – and the Court – with his unconstitutional student-loan forgiveness nonsense. Progressives are strangely quiet about doing away with the filibuster now, since Democrats lost the Senate majority. These are all far more substantial risks to the structural soundness of our constitutional system. And that doesn’t even touch on the injury done to the rule of law and faith in the system by the senior Biden’s pardon of Hunter.
At the end of the day, it is refreshing to see Democrats like Ruth Marcus come around and share with conservatives a healthy skepticism of aggrandizement of executive power. Better late than never, I say. Though it would be helpful for the sake of illumination if they would turn the light of their newfound skepticism on the most egregious violators, which would involve first recognizing the beam in their own eyes.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.