Spork : I have an equal dislike of both parties and have stated on these forums multiple times that I think the Biden administration spent 4 years gaslighting the American public on inflation, immigration, health etc. I've been an adult since the GWB presidency and I have never seen such brazen authoritarian acts as I've seen under Trump's second term. He unilaterally imposed global tariffs on the entire world without legislative approval, and then called Barrett and Gorsuch "embarrassing" to their families after they dared rule against him. Mark Kelly was accused of sedition and treason for quoting the UCMJ - and judge has also ruled against that action as well. He deployed the US military to Los Angeles (among other cities) that was also shot down by the courts. The transfer of power Trump has orchestrated both from the states to the federal government (i.e. SAVE act) and from the legislature to the executive branch should concern everything. I guess the question would be this... what authoritarian act would he have to do before you drew a line in the sand. Because if it hasn't happened yet, not sure that line is ever going to exist.
@petronoluem :
Yes, it is accurate that Trump tested the limits of his authority, fully expecting the Supreme Court would be the arbiter of the outcome. Throughout my adult life I have understood that the United States is a constitutional republic with regular elections that install decision makers who will bring new tests to constitutional validity.
Yes, it is also true that Trump first tested the Constitutionality of his tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
I had zero confidence that it would be upheld, which is why I pulled 6 digits out of the markets in January (still haven't put it back in - waiting for market confidence on Iran). I expected a significant market adjustment but when the court finally ruled against that method of imposing tariffs, the market barely blinked. Those who read the text of the ruling understood why.
Most of us learned that the Courts ruled he went too far under one law, not that presidents can never impose tariffs. Presidents do have some tariff authority under existing trade laws. After the ruling, Trump promptly invoked another law to temporarily impose a global tariff, which is legal but limited in duration unless Congress approves more permanent action. Many of the tariff actions also led to mutually agreeable trade deals between nations (2 party consent).
Trump's public criticisms are childish and immature, but constitutionally protected. I'm not prone to protesting over speech, but I'll support any effort to maintain our freedom of speech.
Mark Kelly was accurate in his statements. The problem with humans is they interpret statements from their own point of view. Many military officials interpreted the message under the context of the timing as encouraging insubordination, and undermining military discipline. Trump did his usual exaggeration by labeling it seditious behavior, just as he had been accused of previously.
The legal process was followed. A grand jury found insufficient evidence to proceed with a criminal charge. Kelly was successful in filing an injunction while the Pentagon's review remains underway. It's not pretty, but these are examples of how a constitutional republic functions.
It is rare when States refuse to protect federal officers enforcing federal laws. This is why it has rarely been tested. It needed to be. The courts ruled that the National Guard could not be deployed by the President under those circumstances (acting in a law enforcement role). It is worth noting that the court upheld the deployment of national guard in States without a Governor's support if limited to protecting federal property. Trump was still able to nationalize troops in those states, but in a limited role.
But there was a precedent for Trump's actions. Eisenhower federalized the national guard when Arkansas's Governor tried to block school integration. The Court supported it. It was an example of federal troops enforcing federal law against the wishes of State authorities. Kennedy sent federal troops to enforce federal law in Mississippi in the 60s, against the Governor's wishes. His successor also sent federal troops to Detroit to serve in roles beyond the Governor's requests.
When the Supreme Court overturned Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, he found another legal method of doing it (similar to the Trump tariff issue). It would have been hypocritical of me to be opposed to that legal response and not support the next President to also try a different legal path when overruled.
That sets up the answer to your final question:
what authoritarian act would he have to do before you drew a line in the sand.
We have to be principled on the issue. If we tolerate Presidents finding another legal path to achieve their objectives, we should give the same grace to others. Once they completely disregard the rule of law after legal processes have been exhausted, that's a clear line in the sand. Another clear line in the sand would be the type of civilian suppression we see in true authoritarian nations.
My goal is to be consistent with every President but I also admit I'm guilty of looking the other way when Obama initiated a targeted drone strike against a US citizen in Yemen while engaged in a war against a foreign enemy without Congress declaring it a war. But we all understood the justification. National/global security issues are routinely treated differently.
FASTLANE:
This "Fastlane" discussion may cover sensitive, inflammatory, or controversial topics.
See Fastlane guidelines »
