A second-term president wielded sweeping powers including purging nearly 10% of the federal workforce, freezing congressionally appropriated funds, and deploying the National Guard to two U.S. cities to fight crime. Additional measures included unilaterally imposing broad tariffs on dozens of countries, pressuring universities and law firms, and removing members of independent federal agency boards. A hypothetical scenario imagines a Democratic president taking identical actions to test whether reactions would change based on party affiliation. The hypothetical provokes debate over whether such measures violate constitutional separation of powers, whether demanding stakes in private firms constitutes coercion, and whether partisan bias influences constitutional judgments.
Let's say a Democratic president had absolutely no respect for Congress, a coequal branch appropriating funds, right to determine tariff policy, Tarlov said. You'd be saying, What is this? This isn't what the Constitution wanted.' I would not say that, protested co-host Greg Gutfeld. Yes, you would, Tarlov insisted. No, I wouldn't, he replied. Then you're a bad constitutionalist, Tarlov shot back.
Let's say that a Democrat was deploying the National Guard to cities controlled by Republicans. Let's say that a Democratic president was shaking down private businesses and saying, Give me 10% of Intel, and maybe I'll make things more favorable.' That's not shaking down, Gutfeld claimed of Trump's successful angling for a 10% U.S. government stake in the tech giant. You're applying your bias to every one of these things. I am just giving you exactly what Donald Trump is doing, she said.
Collection
[
|
...
]