Todays discussion is defender in chief Donald Trumps fight for president ial power. Thanks for joining us today. S. Im one of the oldest people on staff talking about a book, without the relationships i have asked aei. Lets jump into the book. You summarize the overall argument of the book that donald trump, quote, has returned to the frames original vision of the presidency, and office of unity, vigor and independence in securing the benefits of an energetic executive, trump may have done the nation his greatest service. Elaborate on that and describe the argument of the book. Guest that is great writing. I should have taken a third of the words out of that. One long sentence. A fair summary of the book. When trump ran for president i was wary of him. He wasnt my first pick for president and one reason i was wary of him is he is a populist in the constitution fears populists. Think about populism, fdr, Andrew Jackson and even abraham lincoln, people think they have popular will behind them in the constitution is often seen as an obstacle and so you would have thought donald trump would come into office and find the constitution a hindrance, an obstacle to what he wanted to do but instead the last 3 and a half, four years what i have seen is it is his opponents who wants to up and and change constitutional tradition and institution, his opponents wants to get rid of the elect oral college. His opponents want to pack the Supreme Court from 9 to 16 members which would be terrible for Judicial Independence and rule of law, support the idea of using special counsel and prosecutors to fight partisan political battles or support the idea of an independent bureaucracy like the fbi and gym comey who can decide who fits the office, not the voters or nationalize the economy and create a big Green New Deal in the service of Global Warming. Also trump is a surprising defender of the constitution because he turned out to be descending more often than fighting with traditional constitutional understandings, our institution, not to say he has changed the norms and politics of the office of the president. When it comes to constitutional powers he has not been the great destroyer of the constitution which he has been accused by his critics. Host in the opening chapter you talk to the conflict between donald trump and his critics, some of his opponents, begin with his election and the nature of electoral council. Chapter 2 you describe the president s duty to faithfully execute and what that means for Donald Trumps relationship with Law Enforcement, the case of his conflict with james comey. Guest the founders thought the two most important functions of the presidency, protecting the country, National Security and enforcing the law, wanted the president to be independence, the very definition of tier any. They understand the mueller investigation, almost a revolt of Law Enforcement bureaucracy. Used to be part of it in the bush administration, you had this revolt in the Headquarters Staff and gym comey against the elected leadership of the country and the person the American People chose to be in charge of Law Enforcement, the constitution said the president takes care, the laws are faithfully executed, donald trump has the right to fire not just gym comey that anyone involved in Law Enforcement, all these people are assistants to the president in performing his constitutional responsibility to take care the laws are faithfully executed. Rather than seeing a constitutional disaster in trump firing comey, the president restoring traditional executive control of Law Enforcement through power to remove anybody involved with prosecution or investigation because they are people who help the president in achieving that duty. Host the sort of issue Justice Scalia grappled with in his famous dissenter he said those who think the president shouldnt be in full control of Law Enforcement the only thing worse than that would be the president not having full control and having something as important as the prosecutorial power or Law Enforcement power, that are not accountable to the people. The independent counsel, he says sometimes a wolf comes in sheeps clothing but this time the wolf is described as a wolf. The bigger issue of political figure which a lot of people are interested in is the independent counsel represents the pinnacle of the idea of the Administrative State. This is Woodrow Wilsons idea, Teddy Roosevelts idea, really interested in these issues, Public Policy questions were not about politics, but scientific, managerial issues, even prosecution is up to the experts so you should create special counsels insulated and protected from politics so they can do professional jobs, expert functions. If the founders. And that president is in charge of Law Enforcement and we hold him responsible or her accountable at the next election. I want to tell the audience if you have questions you want to submit for the q and a portion you can send them in two ways, submit your questions on twitter, hashtag defender in chief or send them by email to the Program Director for department of social, cultural, constitutional studies. On the point you were just elaborating on political accountability of the president and the tension between that accountability and technical expertise, that is a theme that runs not just through your first chapter discussion on Law Enforcement but broader questions of bureaucracy and the president , conflict with the state department and conflicts with the National Intelligence apparatus of the country and so on not just limited to Law Enforcement but a broader challenge, the president and the bureaucracy that he is expected to lead. These are questions we are both interested in that expresses not just trump fighting to win his battles every day but express conflict between two Different Missions of government. Trump is trying to turn us back, may not realize he is doing it unconsciously doing it, but his own selfinterest causes him to bring us back to that more spartan limited idea the founders had the branches would be separate, they would cooperate all the time but constantly be fighting. That is how individual liberty results. This other vision, this profession vision of cooperation between the branches, why cant they get over, creating Administrative State which will be filled with permanent bureaucrats, constantly create new laws and adjudicating constantly growing and activating and government. Trump interestingly, pursuing his he saved his political hide. They try to channel the rational selfinterest. They were fighting each other, they counter ambition in the interest of the man. And the survivors struggle, and that is left without government, i dont know trump knows he is doing it, by channeling selfinterest. Part of the book is no president is supposed to be necessarily a constitutional scholar. I hope not. The last one we had was woodrow wilson. Host a president exercising in office and his ambition channels through that office and attached to the office the same way the ambitions say members of Congress Channel to their office, they will duke it out so to speak, politics and these institutional values. And they were in the constitution. And with a needle and maximum space reach president to move forward after an election and reversed policies of the previous administration. You write about that and we have both written a little bit about ways that bumped against the courts in this administration. Tell us up about the power. The stuff we found on this topic, tried to explain one of the limitations of the presidency but also the president s powers, we dont really think of it that way. Supreme court once positions were reversed were reversed by other Supreme Court decisions. How does a president change policy . The president reverses what the last president did the same way by executive order or firing when you look the formal powers of the president a lot of them have to do with focusing on what the last president did. Trump really likes to use those powers, his favorite tagline is you are fired. It is a reversal of a joint decision by the president of the senate who shall hold in office. He has terminated treaties, pulled us out of the iran deal, the paris Global Warming accord, pulling us out of becoming obsolete, bilateral arms control treaties, you could say trumps almost favorite executive power is pardoning, would have been an obvious aspect of executive power, the Supreme Court three weeks ago in the daca decision, the president doesnt have this immediate reversal power, it is a good idea. The constitution says Immigration Law is under the control of congress. Congress has not created a category for the dreamers or their parents, a person has a power to end the duty to faithfully execute. President obamas is under the daca program by not enforcing Immigration Laws, 2 to 6 million people. Donald trump on taking office, start enforcing those laws, what is remarkable i think, the Supreme Court, do you have to follow the administrative procedure act, 1 to 4 years to use, obamas decision even though president obama didnt use the administrative procedure act, using discretion, one thing i have been asking that i started in 2012, the power of not enforcement is true if the Supreme Court believes what it says. Think of what donald trump can do. Donald trump could radically change Immigration Law, i will not enforce Immigration Laws against Computer Science or mathematics from American University use. And american businesses, create his own daca program. Search for a place children and parents have children with stem degrees or assets or skills, i dont see why there should be a special constitutional law of president ial power that limits trump, the Supreme Court finding a completely rule the benefits other president s. Host your arguments comes back to the take care clause of the constitution. You wrote the book, you wrote it with an eye to that case and you said it cannot be the case the courts can force a president , in your book, cannot be the case the courts can force a president to enforce a policy he believes to be and in fact is unconstitutional. It is ultimately an argument for president ial duty and valor. Guest that is the bigger issue behind the daca issue, with the Roberts Court, it knows best what the constitution means, superior to that of the president or congress, but came as a shock to the founders when looking at the beginnings of the country. The president and congress resolve major constitutional issues in the beginning. If you think of the result of daca, immediately says that is unconstitutional, he is right about that, he should be able to say i am not going to enforce this constitutional policy. And you see what has happened, the Supreme Court ordered donald trump to keep enforcing unconstitutional policy, lower courts dont have unconstitutional too. Another example of this seizure from political branches, their right to interpret the constitution but it is not a partisan thing or liberal thing, all the justices love to do this. Host i wrote a little about this, in national review, this particular seem the consequence of administrative procedure act which in and of itself broad overlay on executive power raising challenging questions about the extent to which congress can legislate procedures upon the president or the courts can enforce those legislative procedures but describing a conflict between the Trump Administration and the Roberts Court brings me to an earlier point talking about the branches of having ambition, how should these moments play out when an ambitious president is bumping up against what may be an ambitious course of a sort . Guest this is something that divides trump from his critics, critics would say the answer is at 60 justices to the court if we dont like what it is doing which would undermine Judicial Independence and rule of law and the proposal that has been rejected in the past when fdr tried to pack the court to accept the new deal. Causing the court to switch course. What donald trump has been doing, a judicial approach which is gradually trying to change the direction of the court by putting new judges on, lets expand the Supreme Court to 11 or 12 people, replace the vacancies that occurred in this presidency with no jurisdiction, brett kavanaugh, takes people who are conservative and shared his judicial ideology, a remarkable thing, donald trump is the first to issue a list of names and say i will delegate the power to come up with the list 2 wellknown conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and federalist society. Dont know how we got shut out of that. Trumpeted that all publicly because he wanted to show a commitment to judicial ideology of a certain kind. No traffic on judges but still filled the lower courts, sometimes that goes unnoticed by the American People. He filled the lower courts with a lot of noncommitted originalists, very aggressive action publicly wellknown in their communities, lawyers and judges share a commitment to interpreting constitution based on its original understanding so trump has had conflicts with the courts but hasnt tried to do anything radical, he has followed was president s and at least nixon if not before, a gradual change in personnel, congress and the senate can oppose him, dont have to confirm any of these nominees if they dont want to but trump had the in a federal for a republican senate. Host this is a point you go on in detail the way donald trump has a long legacy both in the judges he has appointed especially because a lot of them are very very young and also the legacy of transforming Supreme Court politics through the list, laying down a marker in advance and committing not just to a certain kind of judge, or judges like scalia and thomas but naming names, it will be interesting to see if the president ial campaign try something similar. On this subject, does that approach the list, not without cost because on the one hand it elevates the issue and give certainty this a public they know what theyre getting with the president and Supreme Court nominees. On the other hand creating a list could create interesting Politics Around the list, to get above other people on the list, with the longterm future of Supreme Court lists. The downside is treat judges like legislation, certain outcomes, and what you are voting for is a. People who will vote a certain way. I saw senator holly apply this test from now on, and the democratic side, they will never vote for somebody not in favor of roe versus wade. You could say true judges like i dont know, a bundle of hopes with their outcomes, voting for people with a certain approach. On the downside, it is Donald Trumps unique nature. People might forget how important it was in his winning the nomination, 25 of people who voted for trump only voted for him because the Supreme Court issued, there was an open vacancy, he was in a dogfight with Todd Ted Cruz for the nomination, the solicitor general of texas was a constitutional conservative before, donald trump had to make that commitment to show that he could be trusted but it may not be the case you need any future candidates who have lengthy record for appointing judges and spoken unconstitutional issues. The short list for secretary of defense, i am not so sure that is a good idea because president s need that flexibility, dont want it you could turn it into a Coalition Government with interest in the party that we are not going to support you unless the secretary of education or something, something the framers would have worried about, a kind of Parliamentary Coalition that we see in western european countries. Host they expected the senate to play a role in federalist 76, silent check in the background. I suppose you want to president that should come to office, most of his big appointments, bring them to the senate with a real process to advise and consent and give those offices some legitimacy beyond that but something to be said for making clear to the voters what your administration will look like. Not just Vice President cheney as a running mate but colin powell likely to be secretary of state was no small thing for a president who didnt have any experience on the global stage but i digress. One of the challenges of politics you touch on in your book is the clash of almost unlimited powers. Each branch has within itself powers that are not easy to check, powers that at least have a big impact before they are checked. We saw that with the house with impeachment, regardless what happened with the Senate Impeachment trial the houses ability to impeach a president is pretty openended. At the same time the president has very openended powers with respect to pardons, commutations and so on. We touched on it in the discussion of prosecutorial power and prosecutorial discretion in that quote from the scalia about trusting this to the executive branch. How should we think of those powers the president can wield without any real check or balance especially that pardon power that has been in the news lately and will probably be in the news at the end of his term like it is at the end of every president ial term. Guest there are certain powers inherent in each branch which the framers did not give any other outside branch a rolling and perhaps we dont want them to. The judiciary decides cases, who wins or loses, congresss power to legislate, the executives power to choose who to prosecute or not prosecutor who to partner how to execute the law or protect the countrys National Security. When you see that in area after area people expect the constitution to save us, they think not only does the constitution distribute and allocate those powers but somehow the constitution is going to prevent abuse of those powers are powers we disagree with. After the pardon, commutation of roger stone nancy pelosi gave a lot of voice, congress will pass a law to make sure that cant happen in the future. That is not possible. Congress cant limit the pardon power in that way. What is the limit on abuse . President ial power ultimately is subject to impeachment, president can be removed if the house and senate agree, to prevent that becoming a partisan tool the framers set the removal bar very high but if you look at the founding, they expected a check on abuse of constitutional power in politics, suppose for example talking about foreignpolicy this week donald trump has been floating the idea of reducing the troop presence in germany or withdrawing troops from afghanistan and congress cant command the troops but they can use their unconstitutional prowess to pressure the president and attach spending conditions, they have the power to set the size of the military and its capabilities. That is what the founders expects, not taking it to be the Supreme Court which is everybodys preference these days or the constitution says who gets to decide where troops are stationed. I think what they thought going back to the madisonian idea of checking each other with a greater balance, that system has to work by using the powers they are given as you described to pursue their interests. They might fight and check each other. That is in the realm of politics, it is not going to be filled with correct and clear constitutional rules, something that today we just expect, the constitution will save us, the Supreme Court will decide everything. I dont think that is what the founders intended. I argue trump is bringing us back to the original understanding because he is vigorous about using the powers of his office to fight and frustrate congress. Host for a lot of those powers, most of them are subject to reversal, the president has the power to reverse but that means for each president there is natural limitation on himself, the possibility of being reversed so sometimes these things sort themselves out over time. I want to remind people we go to audience questions in a few minutes, you can send questions on twitter, hashtag the fender in iv by email to nicole. Pen aei. Org. You say in the closing part of the book with an eye towards the upcoming president ial election you say to make the case for another term donald trump will have to use the constitution more as a sword to advance his positive agenda looking at ways president ial power, executive administrative power and promote a policy agenda. What could donald trump do to help move those balls forward in the interest of reelection . Guest trump has been using the constitution as a shield to protect himself from attacks. What work could he do . One of the great successes until the pandemic came along was rejuvenation of the economy, faster rate of economic growth, consumer spending, investment, tax cuts had something to do with it, deregulation was an important aspect. The sometimes the administration use clumsy rules, to get a new regulation passed an agency has to get rid of another regulation. It might be 3 1 in practice. And effort to focus on relieving the burdens of government on the economy, trump has had a lot of success but hasnt been able to really take off the way it could with a sustained effort in a second term. Another thing you could see president ial power changing things would be in foreignpolicy which is one of the hardest parts of the book to write because constitutional authorities are at their height in foreignpolicy, hard to figure out what the trump doctrine was. Going from issue to issue, controversy to controversy. I thought there is something that connects, immigration, foreignpolicy, the desire to restore american sovereignty, that the United States is a normal nationstate, it controls and orders, decide who comes in and out of the country but also should pursue Rational National selfinterest and part of that means we cant afford to provide security for every place in the world but also taking seriously threats from other nationstates and trump has been using his constitutional powers to reorient security to take note of the rise of china. It is hard because we lived through it, how different our view of washington was of china 3 or 4 years ago. This has been a bipartisan effort that parties seem to agree in the president and congress agree, that is donald trump using constitutional powers. That another area where in a second term you would really see that, where trump could pursue an agenda how to contain and confront china. Not using going to war but using his powers of diplomacy to build alliances to contain china, address russia and iran. President s in a second term looked at such things, wont be that different. Host you mentioned his work on the economy and how it was interrupted by the covid19 outbreak. My last question, we watch donald trump and his administration cooperate with, sometimes clash with state and local government, cooperate with, sometimes clash with congress. How should we think about the experience we have gone through and what will come next in the covid19 struggle . What lessons does that teach us about donald trump and the constitutional presidency . Trump has been respectful of the constitution. It is not the president s powers that are at stake but the balance between federal and state governments we call federalism, not the separation of powers and the issue with the pandemic and the disorder we are seeing. The constitution creates a federal government of narrow, limited, a numerator did powers and the states exercise what we call the police power, the ones in charge of Public Health and safety, responding to a pandemic or civil disorder. The federal government can provide assistance, it can provide masks, money, research. The power of deciding whether everyone has to wear a mask or businesses should close and open, trump had a lot of people yelling at him, why dont you shut businesses down . Why dont you make everyone wear masks, he probably said thats not the federal governments job. We can support and guide but states have to be responsible. That could cripple his reelection because the flipside is the reopening of the economy is up to the states and his economic fate is in the hands of state governors like newsom or cuomo because they are the ones deciding how fast, the federal government cant force every business open in the country because the same goes with disorder. The federal government send troops to protect federal buildings, federal law about organized crime or guns or drugs but the federal government doesnt have a larger role with peace and safety unless hope it doesnt come to this, on the cities and states are incapable or unwilling to protect the Constitutional Rights of their citizens in maintaining law and order. In that limited area can the United States send Law Enforcement, troops into cities. Host what would qualify for that last category . Guest a hard question. You can look at historically how it happened, the rodney king riots in 1992, you can look at desegregation in riots that occur in the assassination of Martin Luther king and Bobby Kennedy will go further back, the reconstruction experience, Southern States step aside and let the ku klux klan attack freed slaves, and they criticized president grant and the ku klux klan act that was used to send federal troops to protect the Constitutional Rights of citizens when they decided. The courts have never weighed in really about what constitute sufficient grounds to send forces and it is a lesson out of the book. It is up to politics. We have a basis in the constitution when it is up to those branches, expect this is something the courts should decide for us. Host a question from paul taylor who writes anyone who runs for president has to have a big ego and trump is no different but his ego seems to make them remarkably resistant to changing his views to assuage the politically correct popular mood of the moment at least the mood among political, legal and media elites. Do you think a politically incorrect president like that is just what the modern presidency needs to restore the authority of the president and the overreaching and flawed responses by Donald Trumps critics serve to further highlight the need for president with full constitutional powers . Guest interesting question that connects the politics of the office whereas donald trump has been trying to fight to keep the presidency intact, return us to the presidency the founders had in mind, hard to figure out how that connects to the political aspect of the office. Im first to admit donald trump has done a lot to change the norms of the way president act, his approach to the media, the way he fights with individuals and even organizations, he cant restrain himself. Paul taylors quote, trump seems to think changing ones mind is a sign of weakness and sticking to consistent argument is a fine of strength. One thing, the constitution does make it possible for the president to switch grounds quickly because of his power of reversal. Used to be until the hard to lock in president ial policy. This one way ratchet that couldnt be easily changed if circumstances dictated. I do take pauls point about trump trying to be consistent. At the same time the founders wanted the president to be humble and quick to act. They saw the branch that was going to be more consistent, change of mindless. Congress passed a law, hard to undo a lot because of president ial veto and filibuster so it is hard for congress to undo what it does but the president , the branch the founders wanted to have certain quickness, nimbleness to respond to changing circumstances so i hope donald Trump Realizes yes, he should stick to his principles, keep his promises, the Supreme Court list, keeping his promise but the founders wanted the president and hope trump understands that to switch quickly and direction to change circumstances, the only branch they exist all the time to defend the country in the face of unexpected occurrences and changing circumstances. Host a president could go too quickly, the famous line from federalist 70 about energy and the executive, hamilton writes energy and executive is important for among other things steady administration of the law. Hamilton there and elsewhere, he did write about steadiness in administration within the executive branch, not just legislatures and courts having their own steadiness but the president would have an energy that would be applied steadily and is there risk donald trump if he changes too much or too often would undermine that virtue of the constitutional president . Guest excellent question. Was hamilton is talking about was the experience under the state constitution where the executive is chosen by congress, executives were hand selected by the legislature, little more than prime ministers or agents of congress and what they saw was the mutability, they associated that with the legislature, they wanted the executive to have a program. Alexander hamilton comes in as the first treasury secretary, has plans for this or that which goes to congress and persuades congress to enact. I do think hamilton has in mind energy and executives and part of it comes from a vision and a program and implementing it the president is not just a political dervish next question from the audience comes from connor dixon, what powers does the president have today that are outside the founding vision and he adds what are your thoughts on trumps the recent firing of several inspectors general . The question about president ial powers in the conversation of the presidency . The power of nonenforcement is outside the founders understanding of the office and this was first created by barack obama in the daca program. President s have always had a right not to enforce laws they felt were unconstitutional so Thomas Jefferson has the right to come in and say im not going to prosecute anybody under the sedition act because i think it violates the free speech clause and pardon people who are convicted. The lower courts and Congress Passed the law and john adams signed it, i dont think president s have the right that has been claimed recently to not enforce laws, he doesnt agree with the policy of congress. That is what the daca program was, the president said we should let more people into the country. Congresss Immigration Laws are too harsh. If you allow the president to not enforce laws selectively, youve given him a veto and second, you probably defeat congressional efforts to compromise about that issue, to do some sort of legislative deal by later coming on and saying im not going to enforce the law and dont agree with it anymore. Host the point about nonenforcement, president obama was announcing the daca policies, an article on the take care clause, many years ago. But one of the challenges, the president s ability is wrongful but the ability to simply not enforce laws, a proper constitutional check and balance to counteract that, an individual president limits his own ambition, policy on policy grounds, not having constitutional argument against it and living up to that duty. Guest criticisms of impeachment. And the president goes beyond executive power and create a new nonenforcement power in the only check congress has was to impeach them, it is worthy, a president who doesnt take care of the laws executed. The courts wants to hear cases, go prosecute that guy. They fund more officers, the decisions were made, which cases, i agree with you, only kind of check that occurs is within the executive branch or future presence. Host your thoughts on trumps firing and Inspector General. Guest it goes back to the more fundamental philosophical dispute for political, the president and congress hold them accountable for performance of agencies, should we instead have this kind of work, european model, technical experts, you want to shield them from politics and being influenced, there are new kinds of creatures, new kind of agencies with insulated powers. Why not let the branches experiments rather than be handicapped by 18thcentury separation of powers. Looking at it from that perspective and independent counsel and Inspector Generals, someone who works in the executive branch, and reported to congress and it is an effort to overcome the separation of powers rather than the traditional way the separation of powers would work is congresss job. It is called oversight, the independent counsel and Inspector General a way for congress to offload important responsibility onto these new entities but everything inspectors general do would be congresss job doing it constitutionally but dont want to do it politically because it is hard work and controversial and they dont want to take political accountability for it. Host third question from ryan, how do you think Donald Trumps approach to Foreign Policy might have longterm effects on constitutional norms and president ial power with regard to Foreign Policy and International Law, subject you have written about quite a lot of the years. Guest i havent thought of it. I was thinking how does a president achieve a Foreign Policy and how does trump achieve it . An interesting question how trump is going to have a longer effect on president ial power and Foreign Affairs and International Law but one thing you can see is he expresses this skepticism of international organizations, returning us to the Nineteenth Century idea of international politics, nations pursuing their rational selfinterest, not really trying to create these sort of treaties that legislate for the world and being more suspicious of International Bodies like not just the United Nations but also nato. You could say that misses out on a lot of opportunities for cooperation. One thing that would be interesting in a second term would be to see if donald trump can start to build new forms of cooperating with other countries, the United States needs allies including not just japan and south korea, the philippines, vietnam, some of these, india, countries the United States has never had any longterm alliance with. The commanderinchief power to build these kinds of alliances that are convenient for the issue but not creating permanent bureaucracy. That will be an interesting challenge. It was seen as an either or proposition. You are in favor of vast organizations with universal legislative power, against returning to chaos and anarchy the produce world war i and world war ii. Trying to figure out trumps constitutional powers to develop something in between, that would bring american means into line with its end which is the goal of strategy. From Research Assistant at aei. Going to the peanut gallery. How might trumps presidency help congress to reassert its own power . What could donald trump do to challenge congress to be a better version of congress . Great question. Donald trump has provoked Congress Already into using powers like impeachment, like these oversight hearings. May not have done it with any other president but maybe madison was wrong, but madison may have expected as the president does claim greater powers, push an agenda that would be naturally provoked congress to reassert itself but one thing madison anticipated was sometimes congress would rather delegate that to agencies, independent bodies and commission. The interesting thing is the Supreme Court is trying to prevent congress from doing that, with the cfpb, sorry, the cfpb or peekaboo or Something Like that, we will see a court that doesnt have independent commissions and bodies and that ultimately might lead congress to do its job. You talked about donald trump, the risk of going a bit overboard, the cfpb he is a very energetic president , sometimes takes out a pretty aggressive position and falls back to more of a negotiated position. There is always a risk that overreach will undermine the office. This is a point you touch on in the book with congress, the house, its approach to impeachment, with an executive branch you hearken back to president nixon and the fact that some of his own assertions of power undermine the office in the 1970s with the backlash of legislation and skepticism of president ial power. How can donald trump make sure to defend the constitution while not pushing power so aggressively that he undermines the office . The saying goes discretion is the better part of valor. A great way to come to the end of the hour. Studying the presidency, the president s powers depend on circumstance, for an attack on ward to justify the expanded powers the president can exercise, the commanderinchief power and you dont want someone claiming the powers of lincoln ring peace time and that was nixons mistake, he tried to claim president ial wartime powers but turned them on his domestic enemies. There was no domestic turmoil or threat. Lincoln or fdr i dont think the constitution can save us on that. That is what defines great president s and better president s from the poor ones, being able to adapt powers to the right circumstances, and and not realizing there is chaos in an emergency and president ial power are to be extended. That is an issue, not really constitutional law. Host thanks for your time. Weve been discussing john yoos new book defender in chief Donald Trumps fight for president ial power. Thanks for joining us. Thanks for the great questions, really appreciate it. Host in these times we are all socially distance keep an eye on aeis website, keep an eye on the constitution and other subjects aei scholars cover. That will be the end of this event, thanks for joining us. Here are the current bestselling nonfiction books according to Publishers Weekly. Topping the list is Donald Trumps niece mary trumps critical look at the president and the trump family and her book too much and never enough. After that in how to destroy america in three easy stepfather and political commentator ben schapiro argues americans are being divided over our history followed by jeopardy host alex trebeks memoir the answer is. How to be in antiracist, e brennan candy must choose america must choose to be antiracist in building a more equitable society. Looking at the bestselling nonfiction books according to Publishers Weekly is the room where it happened. Former National Security adviser john bolton looked back at his time in the Trump Administration. Most of these authors have appeared on booktv and you can watch them online, booktv. Org. Hello, everyone, welcome, thanks for joining us. We have folks coming into this call from philadelphia, chicago, the bronx, cape town, south africa, california, london, portland, oregon, jersey, minneapolis, florida, among other places around the world, thank you for being here. I am a writer