The world’s greenhouse gas emissions have been on the decline for years now. Considering the effects of these gas emissions and impacts of climate change today, this is a huge step and can mean a lot in terms of the efforts to protect our planet. However, as the recent election has changed leading ideologies and sentiments toward a number of issues facing the US government (and the world as a whole), the efforts of ameliorating climate change could possibly be taking a step back. Many scholars argue that a main aspect to improving our environment is the realization that climate change is caused by humans, but can also be improved by humans. This was even a provision in the Kyoto Protocol that was established by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that committed its 83 signatories to internationally reducing greenhouse gas emissions by setting emission targets. President Elect Trump does not operate under this assumption, having claimed that the idea that climate change is caused by humans is a “hoax.” Under this rhetoric, the American public, or at least those that subscribe to the ideas that President Elect Trump promotes, have an excuse to put efforts of helping the environment on the backburner as well. Another pillar of Trump’s presidential election campaign were his promises to reverse the US’s commitment to the Paris Agreement, which over 190 countries adopted and commits them to reduce their carbon dioxide pollution emissions that continue to warm the planet. Without a US initiative on improving climate change, the chances of success of such agreements are reduced significantly. Because humans are a major contributor to climate change, US public opinion is very influential over the efforts at improving it. With a Trump presidency however, the American public and its opinions on climate change have strong potential for the efforts to digress.
Wednesday, December 07, 2016
On November 8th, for those unaware, the people of the United States elected Donald J. Trump to the Office of the President. A position often cited as the most powerful in the world. Setting aside the fact that President Elect Trump apparently lost the popular vote many of his detractors viewed his victory as a symptom of the American public’s depravity. Across the aisle many Americans, both among the political elites and the general electorate, find much to be desired in their new President Elect’s background. It would seem, then, that the American public has made a terrible mistake. Starting from the presumption that this is indeed the case we can proceed to placing the election of Mr. Trump into a broader context.
In a vacuum, Trump’s election victory seems bizarre, but when considered in a global context it is perfectly typical of modern democracies with free and fair elections. From 1950 onward many odd and unlikely candidates have found themselves on the political stage. In many cases these mavericks and atypical politicians found themselves carried to victory against all popular wisdom and remained popular in office despite incomprehensible deficiencies and, sometimes, outright madness.
Three interesting examples of how electorates select seemingly unqualified, rude and often criminal leaders, and maintain them in office election after election, are as follows;
Hugo Chavez | 2002-2013
President Hugo Chavez was an officer in the Venezuelan Army who, after deciding he didn’t like the way politics in his (mostly) democratic country were shaping up, attempted a coup. Chavez was not successful but was pardoned when a new administration took office. The people of Venezuela, rightly dissatisfied with the government, saw Chavez as a good candidate and he, a man who had tried to overthrow a freely elected government, was elected to the presidency by popular vote in 2002.
As President, Chavez enacted populist, quasi-socialist economic and political reforms. At first these reforms benefited a great many people but, due to gross mismanagement, Venezuela’s economy is now in a state of crisis. President Chavez attempted to alter the constitution to allow his perpetual presidency but died soon after. Chavez' worst crime may yet to be fully understood- he left his Vice president, Nicolas Maduro, in charge. It’s hard to imagine a world where a President Trump could run a country so thoroughly into the ground like Chavez did, even for an ardent Trump detractor.
Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki | 1999-2008
Mr. Mbeki served as president of South Africa for two terms from 1999 to 2008 and was elected in free and fair elections. Mr. Mbeki was an interesting man. President Mbeki’s greatest failing was his adamant belief that HIV and AIDs were not connected in the sense conventionally understood by modern science. Mbeki’s stance slowed delayed deployment of antivirals in state hospitals and contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of countrymen. Mbeki was eventually overruled by his cabinet. President Mbeki is also a defender of President Mugabe, a self-explanatory criticism. Mbeki’s administration repeatedly denied the growth of crime in South Africa and ignored electrical shortages until forced to implement energy rationing in 2008.
President Mbeki, despite his shortcomings, did seem genuinely interested in trying to help. Nevertheless, his stance on HIV/AIDs was criminally incompetent. President Mbeki was far from perfect, much like Trump, but he is also only the second most offensive example on this list.
President Mbeki, despite his shortcomings, did seem genuinely interested in trying to help. Nevertheless, his stance on HIV/AIDs was criminally incompetent. President Mbeki was far from perfect, much like Trump, but he is also only the second most offensive example on this list.
Rodrigo Duterte | 2016-"current year"
President Duterte of the Philippines, elected only this year, has already earned himself a spot on the “worse than Trump” list by orchestrating the murder of thousands of persons supposedly involved in drug abuse and distribution. Duterte’s bizarre public speeches and seemingly incoherent foreign policy only help to further cement his position in stark contrast to a comparatively meek and mild Trump. If you happen to think Trump is bad, then remember- people regularly elect far worse candidates. Unlike President Mbeki of South Africa, President Duterte is actually actively trying to kill his countrymen extralegally.
These are not the worst examples of popularly elected leaders. Rather, this list encompasses a range of middling-bad leaders and, in the case of President Duterte, leaders whose legacies are not yet set but seem to be going downhill. So, while the knowledge that people make horrible decisions everywhere and in many contexts probably won’t make an American nervous about a Trump presidency feel any better, it should help put things into perspective. According to many, 2016 was a very bad year. To those people, I can only say- 2017 is a whole new year! That is not meant to be comforting either.
President-Elect Trump claims that he knows better than all of the generals, ambassadors, scholars, theorists, and other experts on almost every major issue. The exception is cyber, which should not be surprising for any 70-year-old man. However, all is not lost. His 10-year-old son is “very good with computers, it’s unbelievable”. If this sounds a little bit too harsh, it may be from my biased perspective. After all, by enrolling in the Patterson School, I set myself out from the general population as a wannabe foreign policy expert. From my perspective, to even get to the place to where I would have the unique privilege of being snubbed by the Donald would require at least a decade of exemplary service. What is that to say for the entry-level civil servant, the intelligence analyst on their first assignment, or a fresh Ph.D. just starting out at a public think tank? Just kidding, we’re instituting a hiring freeze, those jobs don’t exist. Now this attitude is not just my personal disdain for an administration set to scorn me and many other aspiring foreign policy professionals. In fact, it’s an opposition to the general opinion the brought Trump into office. That those who spend years studying public policy, national security, and foreign affairs know less about their fields than the average Chief Executive Officer. It is as if the specialized research and focus that is required to break into this field do not even matter. After all, the same skills that make you successful in business make you successful in nuclear policy, right? It would be okay if the attitude was the only thing that we had to contend with. That much is bearable. Even engineers have to take jokes about their profession as a whole, and try asking an IT contractor when the last time their clients tried to belittle their efforts was. Neither of these fields, however, as in danger of facing a hiring freeze by the main employer in their fields. It’s as if United Auto Workers just learned that the “Big Three” were no longer hiring, Toyota was leaving America, and German manufacturers were heading to Mexico. Outside of a personal economic incentive, this portends a future skills gap when these professionals are needed again. After all, the people that Trump does not need to brief him now will not get the necessary experience elsewhere (the supply on presidents is extremely limited) and agencies that lose personnel during a hiring freeze only to have to replace them all at once will be hurting in the long term with staffing issues. In conclusion, public opinion has picked a leader that will only hurt the country in the long run. The idea that skills in one area, such as neurosurgery, will transfer into something completely divergent and policy related is absurd. Government bodies that will face a hiring freeze will see an unbalanced labor pool at the bottom fighting for scant promotions. Professionals will be unable to get the necessary experience and ultimately the government will lose out.
The election of President-Elect Donald Trump will mark a new inflection point in the relationship between the executive branch and the legislative branch in the foreign policy realm. We are already feeling its shockwaves as the Obama administration shelves its last plan for cooperation with the Republican-dominated Congress: a last-ditch move to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership during the “lame duck” session between when old Congressmen waiting to start a new term or leave D.C. handed their seats off to their replacements. However, this is nothing compared to what we will see over the next four years. First of all, Trump is still nursing deep wounds between himself and Congressional leaders. After all, both Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan, leaders of the Senate and House respectively, admonished him during his campaign, and took a long pause before lukewarmly endorsing his campaign. These conflicts will continue into the new administration. All three know that they are fighting for their positions, not just as leaders of different bodies of government, but also for credibility and leadership of the Republican Party. One or more may even be jostled out of power by this competition. For example, if Speaker Ryan is perceived as losing too many public fights with Donald Trump when they disagree on policy, he will be asked to step down by Republican leader. On the other hand, if Donald Trump is accused of an impeachable offense during a time when Republicans dominate the legislature, he may wish that his relationship with the two Congressional leaders was warmer. There are many avenues for cooperation, all three wish to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Border security should also be a fairly innocuous task that can be used as red meat to Trump’s newfound base. Finally, Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee should face an easy confirmation hearing. From there, the tasks seem divergent. Already, McConnell has signaled opposition to President-Elect Trump’s plan to enact Congressional term limits. Furthermore, replacing the ACA invites the opportunity to clash on the many details of a comprehensive healthcare law. Donald Trump has also picked some controversial figures for his leadership team, in particular Senator Jeff Session, who has already failed one Senate confirmation hearing for the body that he is supposed to be appointed to lead, the Department of Justice. Finally, provoking frivolous conflicts abroad will ruffle many feathers among Republican lawmakers, anxious to keep their seats in the mid-term elections that typically favor the opposition party. Observers are in for a treat as a fight for the primacy of the Republican Party begins. Donald Trump comes in to this fight knowing that he might only have the support of his Republican colleagues on the surface level, but his colleagues know that their districts supported him, and that his political future may also be tied to theirs. This should make the conflict a more nuanced, rhetorical battle, but a crisis could escalate it into a slugfest.
Tuesday, December 06, 2016
Now that Donald Trump has won his unlikely bid for the White House, predicting his foreign policy has become the topic du jour, so it is only fitting that we give it a shot. What then will be the Trump Doctrine? Trump’s ideas on foreign policy can be summed up succinctly in his catch phrase “America First.” Trump campaigned against America’s powerful foreign policy community, which includes Democrats and Republicans. Trump has stated that these experts have failed and left America less safe. This was precisely the message many voters wanted to hear, and the president-elect now has the opportunity to change how the United States deploys its power around the world.
The President-elect has embraced some unorthodox ideas in foreign policy. Trump could be behaving like a typical politician by pandering to his base during the election only to pivot once in office. He has already walked back some of his more outlandish statements, and events he faces in office could change his plans. However, some of these pledges should be taken seriously as representative of Trump’s values. Trump has voiced opposition for NATO, stating that it is obsolete and expensive. He also said he would not pressure Turkey or other authoritarian allies about conducting purges of their political adversaries or cracking down on civil liberties. Trump wants to work with partners in the Middle East to eliminate ISIS and opposes nation-building abroad. More importantly, he plans to reset relations with Russia, while taking a harder line against China.
What will the Trump’s actions be like once in office? With a business-like approach, Trump will bring The Art of the Deal to foreign policy making. Using his acumen, Trump will approach every situation like one of his many business negotiations. Trump wants a military that he can use as a tool for enforcement on his own terms, not those of the global community or the foreign policy establishment. Those terms are often oriented to benefit his business. If there’s no clear benefit for the United States, Trump would prefer to stay on the sidelines. It appears, hopefully, that the Trump Doctrine will be a realist, transaction-based approach to international relations, using the military as a policing force for American economic interests - and by extension Trump’s - as a case of last resort.
According to John Mearsheimer, realism does not call for the United States to dominate the entire globe. Instead, realism is chiefly concerned with America’s position in the global balance of power. Instead of trying to garrison the world and spread democracy, the Trump administration should concentrate on maintaining the balance of power in the three regions that are vital to U.S. security: Europe, East Asia and the Persian Gulf.
Following realism, Trump should make a concerted effort to improve relations with Russia. Russia hardly has the power of the USSR and is not a serious threat to American interests. Instead, the two countries should be allies, as they have a common interest in combating terrorism and ending the Syrian conflict. Most importantly, the United States needs Russia to help contain a rising, more assertive China. Given the history of competition between Russia and China, and the long border they share, Moscow is likely to join in this effort once Washington abandons the misguided foreign policy that has driven it closer to Beijing.
Has Trump displayed a willingness to embrace realism so far? Looking at how his Cabinet is shaping tilts towards yes. Trump has nominated General Flynn as national security adviser, who has ties to Russia and sees ISIS as the world’s greatest threat. Trump named General “Mad Dog” Mattis to be the next Secretary of Defense. While Mattis may take a more hard line approach against Russia, he is a tough-minded realist focused less on politics and more on winning the fight, and someone who has qualms about Iran. At this point Trump’s pick for Secretary of State is still speculative. Picking an establishment figure like John Bolton or Mitt Romney would signal a tougher approach on Russia and a more interventionist, neoconservative foreign policy. Bob Corker or John Huntsman would signal a realist approach lies ahead. Kentucky’s own Senator Rand Paul has described Senator Corker as a foreign policy realist. Governor Huntsman, a fellow billionaire and graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, was once ambassador to China and Singapore. Huntsman could provide Trump with valuable foreign policy expertise that the President-elect is lacking.
Whoever he chooses, Trump will be wise to place America first. He may be right to push our allies to defend themselves, lest America be dragged into another foreign entanglement. As President, Trump and his cabinet will face many challenges in the years to come. These challenges will not only come from fighting ISIS and combating the spread of terrorism. Should the U.S. maintain its current course of demonizing Russia, then Russia and China could form an alliance. This would be a strategic mistake that Trump should avoid. Based on the current trajectory, war between the United States and China in the decades ahead is not just possible, but much more likely than recognized at the moment. Judging by the historical record, war is more likely than not. To avoid war, both sides will need to develop a common strategic narrative. Trump should pursue a guarded, long-term, realist foreign policy. If not, we may be trapped.
Both the House and the Senate recently passed legislation that would extend the Iran Sanctions Act for ten years, and President Obama is expected to sign it into law. The extension of this act does not automatically impose new sanctions. Rather, it extends the President’s ability to impose sanctions against Iran for the next decade. The US perspective is that continuing to give the president the authority to impose sanctions is a form of leverage against Iran. This leverage is important because there is, and always has been, a concern over Iran’s willingness to cooperate with the nuclear agreement. In January 2016, sanctions against Iran were lifted due to Iranian compliance with measures to curb its nuclear program. But critics of the deal are wary of Iran’s intentions and argue that the US is being too lenient in negotiating with Iran.
The issue here is Iran’s perception of the extension of the Iran Sanctions Act. Tehran considers it a breach of the Iran Nuclear Deal. Part of the agreement was that the US would not impose new sanctions on Iran as long as it adhered to the commitments outlined in the deal. Iran is interpreting the extension of the US President’s authority to impose sanctions for the next decade as a direct violation of the US’s part of the agreement. Iranian officials likely see this as the US preparing to impose sanctions in the future. However, US officials see it as keeping the option open to impose sanctions. The extension of the Iran Sanctions Act does not necessarily mean the US is planning to impose new sanctions on Iran. It does mean that US officials believe it is necessary to keep the option to impose sanctions open in the event that Iran defects from the agreement.
To sum it up, Iran does not need to “firmly respond” to this measure because it is not a violation of the agreement. It is understandable for Iran to feel slighted because the US does not particularly trust it to adhere to the nuclear deal. If a foreign power were to uphold its own leverage against the US after the US was convinced this leverage was gone, the US would similarly feel the need to respond. In this case, however, Iran should have expected the US to extend this authority into the future to maintain its leverage.
One of President Elect Donald Trump’s main selling points of his presidential campaign was his nationalist points of view and xenophobic sentiments, promising to build a wall on the Southern border between the United States and Mexico as well as to deport millions of undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. Putting aside the challenging physical logistics of such policies (the manpower and resources it would take to mobilize millions of people who have developed lives, jobs, families, etc. here in the US and to build a wall on the scale that Trump has discussed), the ability of Trump to receive backing from Congress on them is also called into question. Historically, US policies are met with the most success when there is effective power sharing between the Congress and the executive branch of government. But this is not an easy relationship to foster. Although the Republican party now has majority rule in the House of Representatives, the Senate, and is in control of the White House, suggesting the potential of a more cohesive relationship between the executive and Congress, President Elect Trump is not a normal politician. With his promises of very aggressive policy changes, inconsistencies in these promises, and his mere lack of knowledge on the working parts of the US government, Trump might damage this potential.
Trump’s immigration policy proposals have 5 main goals: more deportations, ending deportation protections, less entries, a wall, and a Muslim ban. How much support does Trump actually need from Congress to accomplish some of these goals?
1. Ending deportation protections
President Barack Obama enacted two legislations that protect the undocumented children and parents of immigrants from being immediately deported, known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Actions for Parent of Americans (DAPA). These legislations have authorized hundreds of thousands of immigrants to stay in the US and work temporarily. Although the recipients of deferred action might be the least likely targets for deportation since they are working and don’t have criminal records, President Elect Trump could very easily reverse these actions taken by President Obama, without much approval from Congress. Because President Obama issued these through an executive memorandum, Trump could simply issue one that reverses them.
2. More deportations, less entries, and a wall
It has been made clear through President Elect Trump’s presidential campaign that he would like to begin deporting more illegal immigrants, mainly ones with criminal records. Additionally, he would like to limit the amount of immigrants entering the country and to build a wall in order to help with this limiting of entries. In order to initiate these policies, Trump would need the help of Homeland Security’s border control agents and money. Trump would not need Congress approval to gain the help of already existing border control units, but if he would like more border control (which he most likely will if he plans on carrying out deportations on this scale), he will need Congress approval. He will also need Congress approval for the financials that his wall would require. Although Trump has claimed that he will make Mexico pay for the wall, he will not be able to force them to pay for it and he will unlikely receive the amounts of money he needs to build his wall. Especially considering the billions of dollars American taxpayers contribute to border security already.
3. A Muslim ban and less refugees
Although the Immigration and Nationality Act allows for certain groups of immigrants or certain specific individual immigrants to be barred from entering the US, the provision has never been used in the way that Trump proposes it be used. Banning all Muslims from entering the US would likely cause large uproar and a lot of legal pressure from civil rights groups. In order to gain congressional approval on this policy proposal, Trump would most likely have to put a terrorist spin on it, instead of using a religious framework.
To sum it up, Trump doesn't necessarily need congressional approval for the rhetoric that he wants to create, and really has already created. However, he will need congressional approval for financing some of the projects that are encompassed in his immigration policies. He is more likely to gain such approvals now that the Republican party has majorities both in Congress and Senate, but because of his abnormal political climate, there's no telling how Congress will react.
He’s been called the “Mad Dog”. He’s been called a “warrior monk”. A sagely old warrior known for his shoot from the cuff remarks and no nonsense attitude, General James Mattis is revered amongst service members. A highly successful career military officer reflects all of the right values to lead our military, what’s not to love? Well, here are five reasons that Mattis was the wrong pick.1) You don’t choose from the system to fix the system. It is no secret that the Defense Department is broken. The enormous bureaucracy is running rampant with fraud, waste, and abuse. Only this morning I was reading an article highlighting the nearly quarter of the defense budget spent on overhead. Throw in the recent hugely expensive, yet surprisingly underwhelming defense projects (F-35, LCS, etc), and you soon see just how large this problem is. Sure, he can navigate the defense department, but can you teach an old dog new tricks?
2) He’s likely to feud with the administration. This one may have some positive policy ramifications, but a marriage built on dissent is likely to result in resentment, dissatisfaction, and divorce. How long before the “Mad Dog” tells Trump where he can shove it?
3) He’s too close to the troops. The relationship between the military and its civilian leadership is one of balance. Everyone has his or her lane of responsibility. A military leader is concerned for the troops. A civilian leader is worried about policy. One is focused on which wars the President wants to fight, which decisions the President wants to make. The other is focused on the fight and on the troops. What comes of this relationship is, in a perfect world, top down decision-making and bottom up refinement. When you get used to playing one role, adopting the other becomes more difficult.
4) If you need a waiver to do it, it probably shouldn’t be your first choice. There is a reason why officers must be civilians for seven years before they can become the Secretary of Defense. Not only are the jobs fundamentally different (and often directly opposed to one another), but they represent the principle of civilian control of the military. This is a founding principle of our republic, and should be respected.
5) There will, potentially, be three generals filling prominent cabinet roles in Trump’s administration. LTG Flynn is his pick for National Security Advisor, GEN Mattis for Defense, and GEN Petraeus is a finalist for Secretary of State. Three career military officers, all well read, well educated, and highly competent, but also all with similar road maps. The field of cabinet secretaries is already lacking in diversity in other ways, professional pedigree needn’t be another.
So there you have it. It doesn’t matter, the pick has been made. His confirmation fight probably won’t be overly contentious, and I’m sure that GEN Mattis will make an excellent SECDEF. Do I wish there was an outside-the-system type with some creative ideas on DoD reform? Sure, but then again, I also believed in Santa until I was 14.
Monday, December 05, 2016
Can Congress "Trump" Trump
When our forefathers created the constitution, they feared the concentration of power in one entity. They created a system of check and balances by weaving the separation of powers into our Constitution through the creation of the executive, judiciary and congressional branches. With Donald Trump winning the Presidency some people fear Trump will hurt our foreign policy and national security interests abroad. Since Congress was created to, impart, check the Executive’s power, it makes sense that Congress could stop him, but can Congress actually hinder Trump’s plans? In all actuality, Congress can do little to prevent Trump from ideas such as building a wall or placing ground troops in Syria. Below are listed possible ways that Congress can attempt to trump Trump’s policies and these checks’ effectiveness. The effectiveness takes into consideration the actual impact as well as the probability that Congress will use these powers.
1. War Powers Resolution of 1973- Low Effectiveness: Congress passed the War Powers Resolution after the Vietnam War with the aim to check the President’s ability to send troops into armed conflict. The Resolution demands the President must seek Congressional approval of committing ground forces into armed conflicted after 60 days of deployment. However, the executive branch feels this Resolution is an over-step on Congress’s part and never follows it. President Clinton refused to ask Congress for the bombing campaigns in former Yugoslavia and President Obama never asked for permission for his bombing campaigns in Libya. There is hope, though, that putting thousands of troops on the ground may force Congress to attempt to invoke this right, but the President could just ignore Congress’s demand.
2. Impeachment High Effectiveness: Congress can impeach the President based on former or present illegal charges on the President. The United States Congress can try any high-ranking government official. The House calls for the investigation and the Senate convicts. In the past, Congress began the impeachment process for only three Presidents: Nixon, Andrew Johnson, and Bill Clinton. However, the Senate convicted none. Since this act is rarely used and no one President actually ever convicted, it is high unlikely Congress will go this far with President Trump.
3. Congressional Investigations- Medium Effectiveness: Congress reserves the right to formally investigate any action or situation taken by the U.S. government and its officials. If Donald Trump decides to take any disproving actions, like helping Russia bombers in Syria, not helping an NATO ally consequences, or commits a security violation that has detrimental, Congress can began an investigation. Due to how the Iran-Contra investigation hurt Reagan's Administration and the Benghazi investigation damaged Hillary Clinton’s chances at presidency, the President-elect may think twice about overstepping Congress’s opinion in fear of an investigation.
4. Power of the Purse- Low to Medium Effectiveness: The Constitution places the appropriation of money into Congress’s pocket. This means all the money for Trump’s plans must come from Congress, and Congress can decide to not fund Trump’s endeavors. It is highly unlikely to this nations focus on military and Industrial Military Complex that Congress would ever cut military funding, but Congress may cut funding for some of Trump’s other projects. For example, after the latest START treaty, Congress floated around a bill that would essentially not allow any congressional funding to be used for the new START bill, which would make the bill ineffective. Congress can use the threat of hurting Trumps pet projects like building a wall to get Trump to listen more.
5. Stalling Senate Confirmations High Effectiveness: The Senate must approve most of Donald Trump’s cabinet, Supreme Court Justice, Attorney General, and Ambassador positions. The Senate stalled appointments this in the past, such as President Obama’s Supreme Court Justice and Cuban Ambassador picks. By not allowing or stalling certain confirmations, Congress can put a wrench in Donald Trump’s agendas regarding his appointees and the policies they were going to help him push through, such as throwing away the Iran Deal. However, since the Republicans hold the majority in the Senate, it isunlikely they will go against Trump by stalling confirmations.
Though there are currently only miniscule to checks Trump’s power, there have been rumblings in the past by Congress to attempt to pass more legislation to check the President’s power. One such case rumbling is repealing the War Powers Act and replacing it with a more stringent act that would give Congress more of a say in deploying forcers. Congress could build on this idea to pass more laws to check Trumps power. But, the question then is “are we willing to give Congress all that extra power and throw-off the balance of power just to protect ourselves from Trump?”