Mac will john, thank you for taking this opportunity to discuss your new book. I am delighted by the opportunity to have some questions about it. I reddit a few days ago. Had a little bit of time to prepare for this interview. I want to start because he wrote a peace in 2017 that unloaded pretty strong on President Trump for various overreaches for the exercise of executive powers. Now youre presenting him as a defender of the traditional Constitution Order regarding president ial powers. I want to ask you what changed your view . How did you move from where you were before to what you have presented in your new book . Guest thanks for inviting me to it come on with you. And really looking forward to this conversation. As you know ive been an admirer of your work on executive privilege, this should be a lot of fun. I started out wary of President Trump. I was not a supporter of his and the 2016 election. And the thing that worried me as he was a populist. In the constitution seems designed to stop populists. Its barely antidemocratic in natures in ways like the senat senate, the judicial review in the Electoral College by the presence of the states is an important part of the constitution. So i was worried when trump came in as a populist who wants to achieve and agenda that he feels he received a mandate for the strain against or even go beyond the constitutional restraints of his power. And i was worried at the beginning he was doing that with things like the travel ban, threats to build a border wall without congressional approval. And in my early peace i urge them to try to use president ial powers primarily for National Security and foreign to fan a jet affairs at their height. In in Domestic Affairs his role was to enforce the law work with congress get legislation passed. I think what happened since 2016 to today. I found his critics have become the ones who i think of gone too far in trying to stretch the constitution. Because i think trump is so array just and they have it launched attack after attack on his legitimacy. Trumps critics for example have talked about getting rid of the Electoral College. Who have talked about packing the Supreme Court. Who wanted to return us to a world with permanent statutory protected independent councils. Which criminalize our politics. I think that has less trump is using the constitution more as a shield. Hes using the constitution to pursue his own self interest. But that leaves the field of relying on more traditional interpretations of the constitution. So either intentionally or unintentionally he has become more of the defender of the traditional constitution. With a number of topics you cover hear from pardons, executive orders, the border wall, the impeachment process i want to try to go through some of these and get your take on the president s exercise of executive authority in these areas. I with impeachment the present did not yield he did not apologize but you also dont hold him blameless for how he handled the controversy of phone call for the ukraine matter altogether. With his defensive constitutionalism if hes defending his constitution in a situation that never should have happened in the first place. I think he does in the sense that it reaffirms at least in my mind how the constitution intends us to feel with executive misconduct or abuse of power. And even though as you save may beat trump created the problem in the first place by his unconventional approach to Foreign Policy or even as some people claim his admixture of the Public Interest with his own private political interests, the deeper constitutional question i thought was how does the constitution try to constrain executives . And i thought it really does it in two ways. The election process i think is foremost in terms of the framers in view how you constrain an executive. And you elects congressional majorities to oppose him. And you eventually get him out of office. I thought the mistake that occurred here was the impeachment was being used for activity which fell short of the constitutional standard. I am not one, as i explain i am not when he thanks impeachment requires a crime. I think high crimes and misdemeanors does include abuse of executive power. But it has to be a serious one. And it seems to me the kinds of accusations that were being levied against President Trump are really designed for the electoral process. It wasnt one of those serious levels of treason or sears entrance series bribery the kind where the king of france had been paying off the king of england during the 17th century bird thats what the framers had in mind. I think you can see that in the founders requirement that the senate get to two thirds before it actually would remove a president. Even though it put impeachment in the hands of a simple majority of wanting to make it difficult to remove a president through impeachment. And that would then funnel the kinds of fighting we saw take place people should be funneled into the electoral process. Let me go back deeper into some of the circumstances that led to that. The president likes to talk a lot about the deep state of officials when you give him some defense of the book. Did not accept the legitimacy of the 2016 election. And in the president s view, they have acted to try to undermine a duly elected president. I asked that you address the complicated issue of the royalties of people who swore an oath to the constitution not to the branch of government or to the president. And have an obligation to honor that oath by bringing to the attention of authorities whether its internal oversight or committees in congress, potentially illegal or unethical behavior. I think this issues arises twice, not just impeachment but also the russian collision investigation. On raises a deeper philosophical fear about government. Again i am not claiming trump is thinking deeply about political theory. Think the pursuit of his rational self interest hes advancing the greater constitutional good which is more tied to the 18th century constitution. This is what he described against it away whether its the fbi, jim comey, that staff, or members of the Foreign Service and the permanent National Security council staff, i dont think of it as a deep state of think the phrase actually comes from turkey, the turkish bureaucracy. Think of it more as a progressive era bureaucracy. Most are technical or scientific or professional. And they want to delegate power of those decisions to the experts. You want to insulate them but reduce. This is very much Woodrow Wilsons thought and had a great impact when see that in the fbi trump i think embodies more to be the 18th century of what the executive branch is about. He is the only one charged with executive power enforcing the laws. Everyone in the executive branch sits enforcing the laws, are doing it about the president. The bureaucracy is responsive to the president many to hold him accountable for her accountable through politics. What happened in the impeachment and the russian collusion you have the permanent experts for Foreign Service. The fbi the president was unfit for office its unfit, its not really their job. And congress doesnt have the right and of course theyre going to gather some math i dont think impeachment was off i dont think in patient would run other than people think oh the president misused his powers prayed a lot of those witnesses would be from the executive branch. May its a standard the house and some members were using as high and misdemeanors were not high enough. While those with impeachment were much more appropriate for oversight hearings, write out for spending cuts, the usual tools that congress uses to fight with the executive branch prayed and ultimately putting it before the voters. So we will do this november. That will be when we vote this november. I think that is the better solution. When you talk a lot about executive power and prerogatives and trump defending party want to go to some of the different powers of presidency here. Starting with executive orders , of course the president has the authority to reverse actions for earlier executive orders. But im just hundred signing executive orders president ial leadership . We have a President Joe Biden next year i would guess hes going to reverse a really large number of executive orders. Is there more of a legacy for a president to engage in a traditional process of negotiation, building consensus, eating compromise with congress has a greater deal of permanency rather than just issuing willynilly large numbers of executive orders and saying i did a lot of things . I think that is a great point, mark. The book approach in exactly the way you did i think thats quite right. Guess the way i think of it was at the president has this power of reversal. I think that was something new he can do unilaterally. What they can do reversing with alaska did with the last woman did. Its interesting, you are quite right if the president only operates executive orders, his leaving his accomplishments with reversals with the new president coming in. Only to affect statutory change to give it a kind of long Lasting Legacy impermanence. So i quite agree with you. Yes President Trump, naturally there going to turn to executive orders so long as the constitution says prayed so long as the president s have that power to quickly and immediately reverse any use of unilateral power by the predecessors. With the deck cases surprise me a book i thought it would come out the other way and then i went through all the implications that would occur if they didnt allow President Trump to reverse the doctoral program. Lets take a contemporary look at this issue. Can the president issued an executive order to prohibit evictions as he said recently . That he might like to do even though it was congress that approved a temporary moratorium. But that be an appropriate use of an executive order . Or should the president simply work through the lawmaking process here as well . Let me add to that tik tok. Can the president issue in executive order banning tik tok . [laughter] sure lots of parents want the president to have that power. [laughter] whats really interesting. I think this power that president obama creates in daca for the first time its like creating by not fully enforcing the law. Those programs that has its limits. I havent cited that closely. By restraining its own processor torys going to affect people. It is going to be any kind of addiction, waivers at the federal government is expanding its power by i dont know taxing spending for conditional spending when the states except pandemic relief money. But it is not the same thing. Also i would say that tik tok, that to me is more the traditional use of the executive orders that come. Either in use of inherited executive power. They can also be, and the more common executive order is the execution of some delegated power from congress. As you know, congress has given a huge amount of power to the executive branch to regulate International Economics for National Security reasons. Already i believe there have been National Emergencies declared for sanctions purposes declared china and businesses, a lot of the companies investigation by the fbi. So President Trump fans tik tok, that actually teaming seems constitutionally straightforward is just an exercise of that 1977 law that gives Congress Gave the president to sanction national companies, transactions for national securities. If the president , President Trump or tried to do unilaterally without any congressional, though be very difficult question. I dont think without congress the the president has sanction power. Let me turn to another contemporary issue. And to be fair to the authorized no, you are not writing during a pandemic like with all books, was published in late july. I was looking at citations i think the last was cited in february of this year. Guest guilty as charged. There is some lag time there. But i think its a good topic to bring up with regard to the exercise of executive power, right . Because this is absolutely the biggest challenge of president ial leadership of our time. None of us expected this challenge. The challenges at home dont seem toward the unprecedented. When that is what happiness particular case. It came from abroad. Will yeah. So it was it became a domestic crisis, right . The president has an obligation to establish that in this country. You had this before the pandemic so you did not have a chance for the manuscript to approach the president s leadership. But i went to ask you to apply it in a sense. You have defended trump as a strong and vigorous leader. Where was that leader during the outbreak when he said effectively, to the states youre on your own for the federal government is not a shipping. [inaudible] when the governors were pleading for some help getting protective equipment, and also in a new edition of this book you cannot ignore the pandemic as a new chapter. Right . Your president ial powers. What are you going to say and that next addition when you discuss the pandemic in this president s leadership . The chapter i wish i could have written after the deadline. Getting a manuscript in which wraps up nicely with the end of impeachment. During has presidency things keep happening it would consume a whole presidency over and over again. It is interesting. Is an odd thing people are criticizing trumper being a dictator, and there within a month people are saying where she doing more . I think its not really the separation of powers its a problem of federalism, constitution mrs. Where are may be gone along with my thesis is trump actually has been respecting federalism limits on his powers but even to his own political detriment. The populace and him im sure once to set closing dates and reopening dates. And want to set standards for social distancing. But the constitution doesnt give that power. The constitutions was limited enumerated powers. We have all along had the understanding that Public Health and safety is primarily a state and local issue. In the federal government can come in as support. But the frontline, trench warfare of it fighting a pandemic or a disorder is always going to be a city, state, local authorities. So the government has been doing what its supposed to do it can provide money to the states. I can provide equipment and personnel and resources. I can fund a vaccine, it can Fund Technical research, it can spread information. But the federal government doesnt really have the people. Doesnt really have the actual mechanisms of government to take care of a nationwide pandemic. You think about how many people do they even have . How could they enforce a pandemic social distancing system . The entire fbi, entire workforce is smaller than the new york police department. The real agencies of government, the real arm of public power in this kind of spread pandemic has to come from the state and local. Think the president who is not conscious of the constitutional limits of the power would try to go beyond that. To his political detriment is stayed within his boundaries. Is it a fair question to ask can you imagine fdr in a situation like this, this is for the states. We are not a shipping clerk. I think thats a bother so many people. They expect the president to be big and powerful and authoritative. And how difficult is it to say wear a mask . [laughter] which is what he couldve done. Misses why the founders created the presidency. Why even have an independent executive branch . Why not have a westminster parliamentary system where the chief executive is really just the leader of the majority part party. Ththe president will be nancy pelosi right now. It is because they wanted a branch of the government to act quickly and swiftly in a time of emergency and unforeseen circumstances. So we expect president s to do that. Open gets easier to do that we have an enemy who is attacking or a natural disaster. Someplace where the president can either use their own constitutional powers or invoke legislation that provides that emergency power. But it seems to me, Something Like a pandemic is outside the grass with the national government. Is just too large of a problem. Too systematic. It is such a great social problem. It affects everybody. The cant really we could say please wear a mask. Please say socially distant. But he cant the president or the federal government can really create the law and enforce it. To make you wear a mask. Make estate 6 feet away from each of the paid maybe this is an indictment of the federal system itself . That we are not terribly well suited for handling this type of crisis. A look nonetheless at some of the other federal systems, germany and australia for example. Candidate were they done a lot better than we have. His or something inherent to the system but what is to the situation were in right now the pandemic . The president really was constraining the tools that he had available to solve the problem though it was solved in some other democracy. Biden or Hillary Clinton wouldve been all that different than what we have now. This because there is a restraint on the president and on the federal government. You raise really interesting point about comparing it to the performance of other federal systems. I think our system is a little different in that we have so many state governments. Germany and australia, they dont have 50 different state governments. But its also true image of kinda make a small argument about this and that trump is appointing justices to the bench a big believer in federalism twopart so he has been kind of put in pushing the federalism revolution thats been going on since reagan i think. You are right. I think the federal system as you point out is slow. If you figure out the right policies and why do you have to go through 56 to do it. I think the state system we will get the right answer right away. Are we to make affirmative mistake the traditional allows for experimentation, adaptation to local circumstances. The deeper constitutional with the federal system like ours is deeply suspicious of human nature. And it is not easily assume that you or me or any experts are going to get the right answer right away. So if you cant, then why would you give any government to oppose it immediately on the country . And so you could say yes thats also going to meet our system is slow, chaotic, and may be more prone to make mistakes by omission, by failing to act. Although we are going to make a lot of mistakes by omission. By making the wrong choice either. On the federal issues that came up earlier and continues as a sanctuary cities on the president s threat to federal funds for most localities. Do you care to comment on that as a reflection of trumps view of federalism and how it jives with what you said is deep respect for the institutions of the state and local levels to have their own atomic undoing with issues . Its interesting. And its important to separate the political rhetoric from i think the constitutional action actions. And, he doesnt actually try to compel state and local officers to do the federal governments bidding. As you know Supreme Court is issued a series called anti commandeering decisions within the state and local theyre not within the executive branch. To the president can tell them how to enforce federal law pretty cant remove governors. Cordis said state offices of their own government, they dont enforce law. They dont have to cooperate with century city sprays of the court has suggested though that this comes out of the obamacare cases if anything the federal government can try to use bribery to get officers to cooperate with federal whether its Drug Enforcement or whatever subject. And to me, ive known trump attacks the mayors comes time no to actually moving state policy and the federal direction he seems to rely on the traditional tools. But if you dont cooperate with me, im not going to give you so much money as we did before. The court said is okay in the obamacare case of songs is not a huge amount of money. The amount of the Trump Administration is not been that high. Trump hasnt really tried to order governors or order mayors to follow his program. In fact think for the most part state, state of california here, city and state have become sanctuary cities and states in opposition to trump. Policies and nothing is really happened to them. Okay pray let me change the subject. The border wall. Controversial uses among the most how did he get paid for the wall when he did not do the full appropriation from congress that he had requested what is the basis for the president s authority by congresses power of the purse . I think critics for the border wall his critics on both sides of the iop both sides of the aisle at think voted to try to override the decision. To me its the claim of executive power. To me what happened was Congress Gave the president quite a bit of power and trump is using it as past president s have. He declared a National Emergency which is recognized is a National Emergencies act. Once or is a National Emergency there is a another law that says the president can transfer money between building accounts essentially. The interesting constitutional question is really a statutory question. Can the president declare National Emergency with border immigration . Is that the kind of National Emergency that congress had in mind . Weve had, maybe a National Emergency was more like cuba, but not a specific event. Or specific entity rather than a problem. Immigration is more like a problem i admit. On the other hand, past president s have done the same. So sometimes i feel like people make arguments against trump that they did not make with past president s. For example, president reagan declared a National Emergency when export laws expired. He decided to emergency if i cant resident obama declared a National Emergency of the swine flu. So president s have already in the past uses National Emergency. People say well does that mean the President Biden could have a National Emergency of a Climate Change itself . It seems to me when you look at how president s have used this power, and how congress has repeatedly not tried to divide, youd say maybe its possible to define what emergency is beforehand. So yesterday going be a lot more flexibility for the next president to say will you said emigration of the border will i say Climate Change. Host right so is that the danger there, john, president s create a presumption of legality . You said past president s have done similar things. What is really the standing in our constitution of law with precedent that themselves dont really have established standing in any language of the constitution itself for the evolution of constitutional of judicial decisions . Guest i dont know how you think about this mark, i think about it differently paid when founders put executive power in the cause of tuition, this is really, i think its more by Alexander Hamiltons writings they had in mind the energy, unity, speed, they wanted to face emergencies and crises. But they also left it somewhat undefined because this is something they struggled over. Well hamilton talked about this. How do you design a government to handle everything that is going to come at it that you dont even know about. If you knew about it in advance you could write a detailed statute to prepare and handle i it. The president is supposed to be there to declare National Emergency. Maybe they could circumscribe it by written laws. Because you dont know what its going to be. So how do you check that . Do you then create possibly the presence will slowly expand their powers over time . To fill the coffers of these accounts, keep recognizing something these emergency separations of course they dont have to have essentially say were not going to view whether this is a National Emergency in the statute. I think what they expected was that if there is going to be a limits, its going to be congress. Congress was pretty clear pretty said they expected to counteract ambition. We expect each of the branches to user constitutional powers to fight. The president s will slowly seek to expand their power because they are going to be more circumstances and a growing country that people demand them to have like you said people are demanding more from people handle the pandemic wasnt doing more about the pandemic . Natural is going to want to expand his powers to address that. Subbing has been going on for a hundred years, kind of a hydraulic political pressure on the government. The main check on this morph of powers going to have to come from congress, fighting back against it. I think congress has ample powers to pull the rug out from under a president who goes too far. The border wall for example, Congress Just is not transfer me to the border wall seems like members of congress dont want to take stands on these difficult questions. They would rather just blame the president for the mishandling of the pandemic. Were going too far with disorder in the streets. Using Emergency Powers rather than congress stopping and support the situation. That comes out poorly on them as if it goes wrong of me have reelection. Host are you comfortable with the president living from the Border Defense for the border wall. The president makes the argument iran the election, i won, i have a mandate paid a lot of president say that course. And congress did not give me the appropriation i asked for prints im going to find other sources to fulfill my promise. Goes to your point, mark, about start up with the permanence versus the nature of executive power. Trump did that for one year he can invoke the National Emergencies act for there is a statute that allows transfer. But after that one year he gets it from congress for that is the only way to have longterm, longlasting funding. If Congress Wants to stop him its interesting how Congress Acts but they have a power to stop the present is by doing nothing. If they do nothing the counseling it refilled with money every year. And they continue to do so. So think that executive is more congress has a lot of tools they choose not to use them because they think they dont want to be political, yet let the president got to spend the money and take all the heat if its a bad idea. Host let me turn to the 8m uf. Would you address the use of military force affected by congress in the wake of 911. And you say this president ial authority extended to president obama and trump. Nearly two decades after the initial authorization with the original terrorist organization effectively eliminated, under these military authorizations end . In other words do we consider the war on terrorism no one endless war that gives the president the seemingly Limitless Authority . Is there an endgame here we say this is not needed anymore can be withdrawn . Systemic again i think this is more a question of whether congress is living up to his own duties rather than the president s. I was involved back when it works in the Bush Administration on drafting that statute. This was a question that came u up. I actually made an argument at that time on behalf of the Justice Department similar to what is making with you. These 911 attacks were so unprecedented and our history. Maybe at the history of other countries, but our history. We didnt know at that time what attacks thered be in the futur future, and so we didnt drafted congress and passed the draft that had that kind of limit to it. But it could have. Congress could have passed the statute with a sunset phase. They were thinking about they talked about but they chose not to. And if you go back and look at past declarations of war or authorizations to use military force they dont have that either. I think in particular this is something that came up with vietnam. That resolution did not have a sunset date. Congress correct it when they passed a lot of cut off all funding for vietnam. By the time 911 think its safe to say congress understands the issue know about whether to put a sunset day at and they chose not to. I dont think again i dont think it is a claim of president s exclaiming their constitutional power to far when congress did and then being Congress Continues to provide the money for those military operations. I think from political accountability standard, congress again always has the ability to cut off executive initiatives to rob them of that permanence you are asking about, simply by not refilling the coffers every year for the things they oppose. And at the one hand you have members of congress complaining that the a. M. Uf. But at the same time they are happy to keep funding the very expensive military operations, this is iraq, syria, potentially iran, afghanistan. So who is really a constitutional fault here . Rights. To do you think congress should end the au mf . If they want to. I dont think its necessary. This is part of the chapters on trump and Foreign Policy. Maybe the most difficult to write. I was like what is the trump doctrine . Its got to be more than selling pingpong even if they are billiard ball pingpong there still to explain why they are acting the way they do. On the things to back from trump everyday crisis in fighting what is the larger motivation . This is different and interesting in the relationship between the president and executive Legislature Foreign affairs of war. Which is weve got a president is trying to reduce deployments abroad. Trying to reduce from places. Terminating some agreements and congress is actually one that wants to stay. They dont want to pull out of escada gas end, the didnt want to pull out of syria for they wanted to say these paris accor accord. To me this actually showed the president does have those powers and Foreign Policy let, lease i thought he always did because Congress Really was the primary branch. There really were the only branch that could turn on keion. For a war. And how can the president do all of these things on the flipside on the negative . Can you terminate these agreements without congress . That shows to me anyway the president really did have that discussion all along. It really was just people upset about the president using it to get us in obligations but not get us out of them. Host let me turn to another topic for this a lot of areas we say the president has the ultimate authority to act as he did. Even though critics complained of course. I would like to get at the issue of the president s constitutional based right to do something as opposed to should he have done it. So truck for example could take the country out of international agreements. But was it wise to do so . Arguable, people on different sides of different cases. Some of the pardons he issued. Just what about the huge amount of criticisms on whether they were appropriate. The constitutional power that the president possesses is absolutes in this area. Im asking the question just because he can do it. Because he does so in the face of challenges for many in the party establishment. From the Foreign Policy establishment. Opposition leaders and congress. That what really makes them a great defender of constitutional the founding principles of our republic . Guest no. Not at all. You as a political scientist are far better judge of should he rather than can he question. I do think whether trump successful as a president in your sense of should he enacted these policies is a very different question than whether President Trump is defending the proper prerogatives of the president. It might be an ironic thing. Maybe all of these fights were more to the successor and the officers say to joe biden. Enjoy the fruits of these battles that trump is fighting to be the next president. Because now the restoration of Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy and so on, on the next president will really be able to use us to achieve policy. I have to say im it kind of the argument in this book on another book i wrote about ten years ag ago, we are talking about is whether we judge whether president is great. Its not whether they use their president ial power its a harder question its tied up and executive power. Did you use those powers in the right circumstances . Did the president . I think this is a difference between a buchanan and a lincol lincoln. And i hope there relays were not tying up pat buchanan for navy pat buchanan was president , who knows. [laughter] its James Buchanan and abraham lincoln. Thats unforeseen emergency or crisis which is secession buchanan, he just chooses not to use his president ial power. He says this is for congress to solve and ask congress to study. Congress appointed a special commission. And they didnt come up with any answer. Lincoln comes up and he says we have these essentially Emergency Powers under the take care clause, the executive power clause, im going to energetically meets the problem, the challenge of secession. And there he used, lincoln understood the circumstance with the matching response with executive power. If you use those at the wrong time there would be two ways like buchanan is a great emergency and you do nothing. Maybe thats what they say about trump of the pandemic. Are there is no great challenge and you still invoke to those that can lead to catastrophe. Thats what happened to nixon. We are in a period of regular politics. He thought everything was a National Security emergency. Insofar that he thought he could surveilled using counterintelligence powers the democratic party. So that application of constitutional power to circumstance which will determine to me whether a president is successful. A mistake on the pardon issue here. The president has issued candidly some very controversial pardons, no doubt about that. What is troubling to some traditionalists is that hes worked outside the traditional screening process of the office of the attorney and the department of justice. I would argue clearly it is constitutional for him to do that. The article two pardon is absolute. There is nothing that says he has to go through traditional screening process. I think that process there exists for the purpose of trying to protect the president from issuing ill advised pardons. As the president wise to go it alone in circumstances like this and not go through the traditional framework as part of the justice before considering pardons . I thought against roger stone was ill advised. I think if you were to pardon. [inaudible] special counsel investigation it would be unfortunate with power because she states absolute we have which gives sole responsibility to the president alone. I think the effort is inspired by the Progressive Movement in government last century the beginning of the last century, to professionalize everything. And almost expresses the idea there is a technical way to decide between good pardons and bad pardons. A think to the founders it seen as thats an inherently political decision. And we will just judge whether it is right or wrong with the voters vote on trump rather than say oh theres a professionally great answer. So as a lawyer i would say i dont think rogers deserving of a pardon. He broke the law common but i dont think it is really a legally correct or incorrect answer. I think its a political decision that the president makes that we have to hold him accountable for. In elections for it and i think it was a bad decision. Host lets talk about the institutional prerogatives of the legislative branch. Your talk a lot about the executive power in the president s authority. The president s right to pardons were talking about. That you have acknowledge the president had the absolute rights, and i agree with you there. But what about the impeachment power from the house which you say is very high standard. Famously gerald ford once said the standard for impeachment is whatever the majority the house as it is, right . Itll be by consensus of the house of representatives. I think he wanted to impeach a Supreme Court justice, douglas maybe . [laughter] not a good idea. [laughter] so. Were talk about nixon . [laughter] when he was in congress he actually advocated for the impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court justice. It didnt go anywhere. Guest one thing i argue in my book as we have been maybe is even accelerating where this idea that the Supreme Court with the constitution and has a supremacy over the branches is getting more and more favor. In the court itself is done more and more things to try to reinforce that. And i do think there is some truth, not to the standard set out. But at least to the idea that the other branches get to interpret the constitution too. And what comes to the definition of what is a high crimes and misdemeanors, the house really does interpret, but so does the senate when they choose to acquit. I dont think ford was right though that means whatever the house think spirit or whatever the senate thanks. I think that is just located which institution decides. But even the house and the senate then have to apply their goodfaith, best efforts they wanted a think high crimes and misdemeanors actually means rather than saying we can just use it to impeach president s from the other political party. I think theyll be a good test of why ford is wrong. What if democrats in Congress Just said we interpret high crimes and misdemeanors so flexibly we can basically remove any president who just happens to come from the other party. Mole uses same standard with democratic president s. They say this not really your job under the constitution. At least with the founders clearly do is to create an independent president. The impeachment powers kind of a parliamentary system where congress is using it to control the president because they did believe the power to remove the power to control. And with two thirds requirement. Even talking to the president im not going to ask you to violate any confidences there. You are actually the expert not me on executive privilege. You tell me what i am allowed to talk about. [laughter] the president s entitled to the candor of advice for those inside and outside the white house. Ill stand by you on that one. But anyway, are there areas where the president has acted unilaterally when they give advice im asking just in general about the person to step back and try to build a consensus through Public Opinion and congress to get things done. The very issue that drew me to the white houses attention. So i thought before the Supreme Court issued the last month and a half ago, that president s responsibility to the constitution says to make sure its executed. I think that means president s all the laws at desmond then force them all equally. Because president s have a discretion theyve long recognized were to throw resources for bringing cases for Greater Public benefit. We dont necessarily want to have federal officers chasing down every Single Person who is any little bit of marijuana and their pocket. On the other hand, i dont think that means that president s could say im going to set enforcement of this law to zero. And i think that is what president obama did with decca. So back in 2012 i criticize the decision and expansion. I sympathize. I believe President Trump he also says i would like a deal to work out a deal for children who are brought here in violation of immigration laws but through no fault of their own. Or to parents who have children and the parents are not here legally. But i also think the constitution only gives that power to congress. And so i would have said until the Supreme Court opinion came out a month and a half ago, President Trump was correct to say i dont have any power to create that program for it and got to enforce immigration laws even if i dont like it because that is the policy choice the constitution grants to congress. And their comments said the better solution for immigration i think, and i would like to actually see immigration levels lifted by two times. The only way you get it settled is you get a settled permanent solution. Something thats not going to be unstable because presence income ago and change back and forth. Set out a new visa category. Set at new numbers on the deck a program fear that person youre never really sure whether your status is legal because Congress Never made a decision about that. So one president could always take it away. Sue and ive just been message he got about four minutes left john. Oh my god. If its a short answer will think of another question for you. What president in history most resemble executive powers . I want to hear your answer. I think about this a lot. He reminds me a lot of Andrew Jackson. And i will explain why. The thing that surprised comes all the back to the original seed which is why pros try in the first place. He was a populace. Jackson was the first populace. His campaign very similar to trump. Boston bread, harvard educated conducting diplomacy with his parents when he was 13 years ol old, speaks so many languages but you could not create a better character of the government elite jet elites, quincy adams. Jacksons a populace he has the roughandtumble new frontier population in america that essentially overthrown the new england elites. And jackson, you would expect to try to overthrow everything because he is a populace. But in the end he relies on to impeach him too. They came up essential. Did the sensor Andrew Jackson for his efforts to defeat the bank . Its interesting when he invokes the cause edition he issues this long what is seen as the time as an outrageous defense of his actions. You rely on my executive power, my power over Law Enforcement as a defense to what i did. I took fire pretty fired cabinet secretaries like the treasury secretary. He was money on the bank of the United States to state banks. I said i have constitution i dont trump go down historically like Andrew Jackson did. And have the disruptor of the political order. Removal of Law Enforcement. Particular even before trump came up with the signature line, and a jackson signature line should have been youre fired. [laughter] who do you think he most resembles . Thats a tough question. President trump is an evolution of the american president in the modern era toward the vast expansion of unilateral independent powers. Ive been critical of some president s in the past, democrats and republicans for the overreach of executive powers. Diane of trump as well for you and i come down a little differently. Some of these topics would make for good conversation. But again, not having an easy time really having who that would be. He is absolutely unique. And a lexicon of american president s. So john ive just been given the one minute warning by think this really wraps up the program at this point. I really enjoyed the conversation for you and i have known each other for a good many years going back to the conference in the 19 90s i think of Minnesota Law School where he first met. So congratulations on your success in your books and your latest one, i will look forward to future conversations together. Mark thank you very much for reading the book and really engaging with some very hard questions. I really enjoyed it. And i hope cspan will let me interview you when you come out to your next new book. I hope to i am ready. Thank you john. Thank you mark. This program is available as a podcast. All after Words Program can be viewed on our website booktv. Or booktv. Org. Recently counterinsurgency expert david trayce the threat americas face since the fall of the soviet union. In this portion of the program the dragons and the snakes. The title comes from jim woolsey the game for the cia director. Thank you for pointing that out. And incredibly impressive guy but if you read his testimony, when he was going to his confirmation hearing in 1993 he was asked, the cold war just ended what you think be the threat environment that America Needs to face in the postcold war. He said were slaying goliath a large dragon. Talk with the soviet union. But now we find ourselves in a jungle filled with the variety of poisonous snakes. And in many ways the dragon was easy to keep track of. And he goes on to lay out this incredibly detailed vision of weak states, failing states and nonstate actors which i am calling the stakes. And suggest that adversaries are not going to be a big deal for the meet immediate future which im calling dragons. All i am suggesting is we have had a period of about nearly 30 years since his testimony were adversaries have adapted and evolved. And i am trying to sort of trace the history of how that happened and where they are now. To watch the rest of this event what visit our website booktv. Org. Search for the title of his book the dragons and the snakes using the box at the top of the page. we are honored to be hosting Maya Schenwar and vicki law, the authors of the new book, prison by any other name. They will lead a conversation with two brooklyn based activists about investing in education, jobs
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.