Either major candidate, should he or she be elected, enters the presidency damaged, with massive amounts of distrust from their political opposition. But whereas Sec. Clinton engenders, really, only the distrust of Republicans (and a handful of so-called progressives), Mr. Trump will enter the presidency with massive distrust from a much-wider cross-section of his colleagues in Congress (in both houses).
And therein lies the silver lining… with Republicans, from leadership on downward, deeply concerned with the manner with which Donald Trump will execute his presidency, there is an opportunity for these Republicans to exert enormous pressure on the executive branch to rein in that branch’s power. Moreover, with Democrats nearly-united in opposition to Trump, there is even more of an opportunity to achieve what those distrustful of the unitary executive and executive branch overreach have been trying to do for nearly two decades: meaningful reform and reduction in the power of the President and his appointees—clear legislative language that prescribes precisely how laws are to be implemented, authoritative oversight of agency operations, and a real willingness to use budgetary tools to push back against executive branch mischief.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the interplay between Congress and a Clinton presidency. Should Republicans maintain control of Congress and Sec. Clinton gets elected president, the GOP cannot count on Democrats to work to rein executive branch power. And should the GOP lose control of Congress in 2016 or 2018, with a Clinton presidency we would see the same wholesale abrogation of responsibility that brought the American people massive expansions of executive branch power under Presidents George W. Bush (from 2001-2007) and Barack Obama (from 2009-2011).
It is a mind-boggling concept—the idea that choosing Donald Trump could lead to a fundamental return to the basic constitutional precepts upon which this nation was founded. But one has to recognize that this would be done in spite of the president—most likely without his support (if not his downright opposition). But that’s why the founders separated the powers of government, specifically to prevent one branch from getting too powerful, and, in doing so, to protect individual rights.
So yes… it is possible that a vote for Donald Trump could represent a vote for a return to the principles of individual liberty.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/07/rethinking-nevertrump-how-a-trump-presidency-could-result-in-limited-presidential-power/#ixzz4PRydm0gg
By Jerry Rogers, Vice President at the Institute for Liberty and Founder of Capitol Allies
Rep. Scott Garrett (R-NJ) calls on his colleagues to reform the CFPB
Dodd-Frank effectively gave the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unlimited regulatory power with little congressional oversight. The bureau’s budget is not subject to congressional appropriations—no power of the purse—because the Federal Reserve, not Congress, funds the agency. Given its independence from congressional scrutiny, the CFPB’s power to regulate is essentially a government license to destroy.
Dodd-Frank, however, specifically exempts auto lenders from the grasp of the unaccountable CFPB, but bureaucrats are going around the law and using lenders as agents of government to regulate auto dealers.
It’s time for Congress to reign in this rogue agency.
Andrew and Jerry were live from the Tea Party Patriots’ “Stop the Iran Deal” rally on Capitol Hill. They start off at the Hotel George, discussing the latest with Hillary’s email scandal and the latest “reboot” of her campaign. Then they break down the Iran deal, and discuss Democrat stalwart Leon Panetta’s op-ed voicing concerns with the deal–talking about the rule of law, and even tying it into the Kim Davis situation.
Then they go to the rally (where Andrew helped emcee) and interview… former Congressman Michele Bachmann, Matt Schlapp from the American Conserative Union, radio talk show host Mark Levin (interviewed, without introduction, by Jerry), Rep. Mo Brooks from Alabama, Rep. Lee Zeldin from New York, we get audio of Ted Cruz, and then Jerry and Andrew chat with a woman named Dierdre Flanagan, an Obama supporter, who tries to explain what the difference is between this “executive agreement” and a “treaty”.
The LangerCast … Join the conversation for civil society. Andrew Langer and I talk the Congressional CR-omnibus, CIA enhanced interrogations, Hands-off/Don’t Loot vs. Hands-up/Don’t Shoot, Van Halen and the 1986 music scene, Derek Jeter for Senate, choke-point politics, and much more.
Andrew Langer and Jerry Rogers break down the issues in a civil, yet spirited, conversation. On this episode of the LangerCast, Andrew and Jerry discuss the events in Ferguson, the Rule of Law, the president’s immigration action, crony capitalism, and much more. Click on the link to join the best political talk anywhere.