Opinion - Surprise! Trump’s ‘Imperial Presidency’ Came From Liberals’ Disregard for the Constitution
The concept of the “imperial presidency” has been widely associated with former President Donald Trump, particularly due to his unconventional approach to executive power. However, it may come as a surprise to some that the roots of this phenomenon can be traced back to the actions of liberal lawmakers and administrations who, over decades, undermined constitutional limits on executive authority. These actions have, perhaps unintentionally, paved the way for Trump's expansive use of power.
For years, progressive politicians and judges have supported executive orders and unilateral actions that bypassed legislative oversight, especially in areas of immigration, climate change, and healthcare. Under the Obama administration, for instance, significant executive actions were taken on issues such as the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and the Paris Climate Agreement, both of which were achieved without full legislative approval. These decisions expanded the role of the presidency and set a precedent for future presidents to wield similar powers.
Trump, who came into office with a strong populist mandate, did not hesitate to continue, and in some cases, exceed, the boundaries set by his predecessors. His administration’s use of executive orders on issues ranging from immigration to trade tariffs further illustrated the growing power of the executive branch. Critics of Trump’s presidency argue that this consolidation of power is a threat to the balance of government envisioned by the Founding Fathers. Yet, much of the groundwork for this shift in power was laid long before Trump took office.
What many fail to acknowledge is that Trump's use of executive power was, in many ways, a logical extension of the practices that liberals had employed in the years prior. As progressives pushed for broader executive authority, they inadvertently normalized actions that could be exploited by future administrations, regardless of political ideology.
The “imperial presidency” is not just a problem created by one party, but a long-term trend that stems from a disregard for the Constitution's separation of powers. It is the result of political leaders on both sides of the aisle seeking quick solutions that bypass the legislative process, often at the expense of democratic checks and balances.
Moving forward, it is crucial for Americans to reconsider the role of executive power in shaping policy. Reasserting the constitutional limits on executive authority is essential for preserving the integrity of the republic. If Trump’s presidency has shown us anything, it is that unchecked presidential power is a dangerous precedent for any future leader, regardless of party affiliation.
Background Information
-
The “Imperial Presidency”: This term refers to the expansion of presidential powers, particularly through executive orders and other unilateral actions that bypass legislative processes.
-
Liberal Precedents: The rise of executive power in the U.S. can be traced back to actions by liberal administrations, particularly under President Obama, where significant executive orders were issued on immigration and climate policy.
-
Trump's Continuation of Executive Power: Trump’s presidency extended the use of executive orders and executive actions, notably in immigration and trade policies, continuing the precedent set by his predecessors.
-
Constitutional Concerns: Critics argue that these actions threaten the balance of powers set by the U.S. Constitution, which divides power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.
-
Bipartisan Issue: The expansion of executive power is seen as a bipartisan issue, as both liberal and conservative administrations have utilized executive power to achieve policy goals without waiting for congressional approval.
-
Future of Executive Power: The article argues for a reconsideration of how executive power is used and a return to constitutional limits to protect democratic governance.