How Different Is Trump, Really?
You might not want Donald Trump for president, but you probably don’t want Liz Cheney either, judging by a recent piece in this newspaper. Checks and balances, she maintains, won’t work to contain Mr. Trump because he might have “allies" in Congress.
Uh huh. The need of a president to get voters to send him allies in Congress is a check and balance. Nor will courts constrain Mr.
Trump because he will dismiss their rulings apparently in much the way Americans dismiss the acquittal of O.J. Simpson. But saying and doing are different things.
A president can disagree all he wants with a ruling. Ms. Cheney, in our federal system of convoluted and dispersed powers, greatly exaggerates a president’s ability to proceed illegally without destruction raining down on his head both personally and politically.
The founders didn’t rely on the “responsible" persons Ms. Cheney cites by way of listing Republican colleagues who fail the responsible-person test. The founders relied on contending branches of government, competition, self-interest, freedom of speech and assembly.
Anyone can comfortably predict President Trump will commit “illegal or unconstitutional acts" because all presidents do and spend all day in court defending themselves. Example: Joe Biden’s cynical efforts to persuade young voters that he can erase their student debts. In the New York Times Matthew Schmitz, founder of Compact magazine, points out that Mr.
Read more on livemint.com
