Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
I'm a Republican.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I'm a supporter of Donald Trump, but this is a
bipartisan problem. I don't care if the Republican, if the
president is a Republican or a Democrat. I don't want
to live under emergency rule. I don't want to live
where my representatives cannot speak.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
For me and have a check in balance on power.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
One person can make a mistake and guess whatffs are
a terrible mistake. They don't work, they will lead to
higher prices, they are a tax, and they have historically
been bad for our economy. But even if this were
something that was magic and it was going to be
a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow,
I wouldn't want to live under emergency rule.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
That's Senator Rampaul in the Senate Florida a couple of
days ago. In the US Constitution, in sixteenth Amendment, we say,
or we have Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes on incomes from whatever source, to ride without
appointment among the several states, and without regard to any
senses or a new If this is Congress's job, then
(01:02):
let's turn to Stephen Voss University of Kentucky Political science professor.
First of all, Stephen, thanks so much for joining us.
What's going on here? I mean we've got an emergency
or what's happening here, sir?
Speaker 3 (01:17):
So you know, in general, presidents have a lot of
authority in in emergency situations. Right, we might face foreign
policy threats, we may face security threats. The laws allow
presidents in emergencies to do a lot of things. But
that that ability has always just been sitting there, not
(01:37):
not abused, not not overused. And what we're seeing is
what happens when someone steps into that hazy area of uh,
you know, authority that Congress has has roughly granted the
president and just starts starts using it to change policy
on mass.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Have the Republicans made a mistake here? I mean they've
kind of had a chance to go around making laws
about some of the things that are being obliterated by
the president. You know, the Department of Education for example,
all these different things, the doge thing that's going on.
(02:18):
Congress doesn't have the boats to really change those laws.
Even though a lot of those things, all that money
is allocated that you know, with the USA and everything
else to be performing these other things. I'm not trying
to take a stance on that. I'm just saying, is
it too little, too late? Now? Is President Trump just
gonna make everything in executive order?
Speaker 3 (02:40):
All the things we're seeing are downstream from the polarization
in Congress and polarization in American politics. Presidents and for
that matter, governors have been exercising more and more authority
by themselves unilaterally, just because the legislative branch can't get
it together to stop them to you know, the either
(03:00):
the Democrats like what they're doing or the Republicans like
what they're doing, and they stop any efforts by our
elected legislators to grab back some authority. The whole system
is built on the assumption that members of Congress will mind,
will get angry if the president, and that state legislatures
(03:21):
will get angry if governors start seizing authority, and that's
just not what happens anymore.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
Yeah, well, that's what we're seeing more and more, I mean,
with the President Trump's Terraf plan. Now, this is from
the White House. President Trump is invoking his authority under
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in nineteen seventy seven
to address the national emergency posed by the large and
persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of
reciprocity in our trade relationships, and other harmful policies like
(03:50):
currency manipulation and exorbative value added taxes? Was that what
they meant when they wrote the sixteenth Amendment? And I
thought that was like in cases of war and those
kinds of things.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Yeah, so you know, probably what we're going to have
to see is some kind of greater precision from the
courts on what Congress presumably meant by an emergency. But
what Donald Trump's doing is just things that presidents haven't
at this scale, at least with the scope, tried to
do before. And so we're kind of an uncharted territory
(04:26):
up until the courts get to catch up.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Back to my original thought, and it's not that I
care per se about the impact on the United States
of per se. I'm just trying to find out where
the checks and ballances are when you eliminate positions with
private citizens doing this, when you go into agencies, when
(04:50):
you tear down the Department of Education, whatever the case
may be, with executive power, as I understood it, all
those monies and the reason that they're still going right
now is because a Congress for whatever reason made a
bill maybe six or eight years old, but that bill
still said that we're going to have a Department of Education.
(05:11):
Don't you have to do this with the promotion of
the Congress and the president together collectively as far as
passing legislation.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Right, So, these policies and these agencies are set up
by law. Congress passed them, and so far as a
president wants to give a new interpretation to those laws
Congress passed, there are two sources of recourse. Okay. Either
Congress can say no, no, no, that's not what we
meant pass a new law. But as we just discussed
a second ago, Congress usually won't do that to check
(05:43):
a president. Or you can go to the courts and argue,
this is not what the law meant, this is not
what Congress intended when they passed it. The president is
deviating from what the legislation, you know, the statute or
whatever actually says. Now, you know, it's unlikely we'll get help.
It's unlikely we'll get help from Congress on this, because
you know, the Republicans more or less backwar President Trump's doing.
(06:07):
The courts are really the only recourse in the short
term until we can elect a new Congress.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
But haven't presidents done. I mean, we've seen this happen.
The Biden administration, tons of executive orders, but the difference
was he couldn't get the money. For example, with student loans.
Biden three times said we're going to you know, raise
student loans, and there were three times that Congress said, well,
were you going to get the money? I mean, so,
so there were there was the purse there, right, And
(06:35):
and that's that's the way it's supposed to work if
you're gonna have executive boarders. Obama had executive boards. It
all started with FDR. Really, he had more executive orders
than any other president.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Yeah, although if you look at the executive orders that
FDR signed, a lot of them didn't do very much.
They're they're related either to World War two or to
rather narrow land management type things. Uh So, when you know,
when we see FDR's executive orders, it's the story. Truman
had a lot of them too, you know, Barack Obama
(07:06):
had many fewer. He preferred not to use executive orders.
He liked these other things called proclamations or memoranda. But
you know, if you're talking about scope of policy change.
Barack Obama didn't get the high numbers, but he did
a lot, and Donald Trump in his first term did
a lot. Joe Biden did a lot. This has been
the trend is as the legislative branch that's polarized and gridlocked,
(07:29):
our executives are doing more and more. Donald Trump's just
taking it to yet another level.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Well, George W. Bush executive order to go to war,
I mean really, Congress didn't really pass.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
That, that's right, and he and you know, Bush happened
to like these things called signing statements, so instead of
executive orders, he'd attach a statement to a law when
he signed it, that kind of, you know, altered how
it was going to be interpreted. They used different gimmicks
depending on which president is. But the trend has been
the same. It is presidents and governors are just doing
(08:01):
a lot more without waiting for our elected legislators to
give them authorization to do the things they're doing.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
All right. A final question, and that is this, if
the executive branch, not just President Trump. We've pointed out
some other presidents just continue to have executive orders with
policies we don't like. How are we going to have
a government. You know who, what worker goes into a
job saying, you know what, I might get fired in
four years nobody. You're not going to have a Supreme
(08:26):
I mean the Supreme Court. You're not going to have
a Department of anything. You're not going to have a CIA.
You're not gonna have an FBI, You're not gonna have
a Department of Justice. I mean, this gets to be
absurd at some point.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Yeah, at some point, we're going to have another president,
and the voters in essence have a choice. Right, do
they want to go from a Republican who's using this
power to make massive changes, or and replace that person
with a Democrat who's going to come in and say, goodie,
our turn and start doing the same thing in a
different direction. Or are we going to look for a
leader who says enough is enough, we need a return
(08:59):
to normalcy. I'm going to go back to the way
presidents used to behave and that's that's ultimately where this
gets results.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Congress have to has to stop being cowards and go
and be a Congress and take over the things that
they're supposed to be doing here.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
You know, if we see serious economic consequences from what's
happening right now. I think you'll hear a different tune
from those Republicans who want to keep their jobs. Right now.
Donald Trump's popular, pretty popular, especially with their their constituents,
and they're not ready to stand up and fight him yet.
But you watch what happens if public opinion turns. Those
members of Congress will fall off.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
In three months when those tariffs really start hitting. I'm
beginning to wonder what if it's going to put us
our taste in Americas. I just just thinking out loud.
Appreciate your time, Steven, Thank you.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Yeah, good talking, doctor Stephen.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Voss UK polysci professor here kentek aas Morning News. We're
late for a break. We're gonna have some traffic right now.
I'm a Republican.
Speaker 2 (00:01):
I'm a supporter of Donald Trump, but this is a
bipartisan problem. I don't care if the Republican, if the
president is a Republican or a Democrat. I don't want
to live under emergency rule. I don't want to live
where my representatives cannot speak.
Speaker 1 (00:15):
For me and have a check in balance on power.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
One person can make a mistake and guess whatffs are
a terrible mistake. They don't work, they will lead to
higher prices, they are a tax, and they have historically
been bad for our economy. But even if this were
something that was magic and it was going to be
a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow,
I wouldn't want to live under emergency rule.
Speaker 1 (00:41):
That's Senator Rampaul in the Senate Florida a couple of
days ago. In the US Constitution, in sixteenth Amendment, we say,
or we have Congress shall have power to lay and
collect taxes on incomes from whatever source, to ride without
appointment among the several states, and without regard to any
senses or a new If this is Congress's job, then
(01:02):
let's turn to Stephen Voss University of Kentucky Political science professor.
First of all, Stephen, thanks so much for joining us.
What's going on here? I mean we've got an emergency
or what's happening here, sir?
Speaker 3 (01:17):
So you know, in general, presidents have a lot of
authority in in emergency situations. Right, we might face foreign
policy threats, we may face security threats. The laws allow
presidents in emergencies to do a lot of things. But
that that ability has always just been sitting there, not
(01:37):
not abused, not not overused. And what we're seeing is
what happens when someone steps into that hazy area of uh,
you know, authority that Congress has has roughly granted the
president and just starts starts using it to change policy
on mass.
Speaker 1 (01:56):
Have the Republicans made a mistake here? I mean they've
kind of had a chance to go around making laws
about some of the things that are being obliterated by
the president. You know, the Department of Education for example,
all these different things, the doge thing that's going on.
(02:18):
Congress doesn't have the boats to really change those laws.
Even though a lot of those things, all that money
is allocated that you know, with the USA and everything
else to be performing these other things. I'm not trying
to take a stance on that. I'm just saying, is
it too little, too late? Now? Is President Trump just
gonna make everything in executive order?
Speaker 3 (02:40):
All the things we're seeing are downstream from the polarization
in Congress and polarization in American politics. Presidents and for
that matter, governors have been exercising more and more authority
by themselves unilaterally, just because the legislative branch can't get
it together to stop them to you know, the either
(03:00):
the Democrats like what they're doing or the Republicans like
what they're doing, and they stop any efforts by our
elected legislators to grab back some authority. The whole system
is built on the assumption that members of Congress will mind,
will get angry if the president, and that state legislatures
(03:21):
will get angry if governors start seizing authority, and that's
just not what happens anymore.
Speaker 1 (03:27):
Yeah, well, that's what we're seeing more and more, I mean,
with the President Trump's Terraf plan. Now, this is from
the White House. President Trump is invoking his authority under
the International Emergency Economic Powers Act in nineteen seventy seven
to address the national emergency posed by the large and
persistent trade deficit that is driven by the absence of
reciprocity in our trade relationships, and other harmful policies like
(03:50):
currency manipulation and exorbative value added taxes? Was that what
they meant when they wrote the sixteenth Amendment? And I
thought that was like in cases of war and those
kinds of things.
Speaker 3 (04:04):
Yeah, so you know, probably what we're going to have
to see is some kind of greater precision from the
courts on what Congress presumably meant by an emergency. But
what Donald Trump's doing is just things that presidents haven't
at this scale, at least with the scope, tried to
do before. And so we're kind of an uncharted territory
(04:26):
up until the courts get to catch up.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
Back to my original thought, and it's not that I
care per se about the impact on the United States
of per se. I'm just trying to find out where
the checks and ballances are when you eliminate positions with
private citizens doing this, when you go into agencies, when
(04:50):
you tear down the Department of Education, whatever the case
may be, with executive power, as I understood it, all
those monies and the reason that they're still going right
now is because a Congress for whatever reason made a
bill maybe six or eight years old, but that bill
still said that we're going to have a Department of Education.
(05:11):
Don't you have to do this with the promotion of
the Congress and the president together collectively as far as
passing legislation.
Speaker 3 (05:21):
Right, So, these policies and these agencies are set up
by law. Congress passed them, and so far as a
president wants to give a new interpretation to those laws
Congress passed, there are two sources of recourse. Okay. Either
Congress can say no, no, no, that's not what we
meant pass a new law. But as we just discussed
a second ago, Congress usually won't do that to check
(05:43):
a president. Or you can go to the courts and argue,
this is not what the law meant, this is not
what Congress intended when they passed it. The president is
deviating from what the legislation, you know, the statute or
whatever actually says. Now, you know, it's unlikely we'll get help.
It's unlikely we'll get help from Congress on this, because
you know, the Republicans more or less backwar President Trump's doing.
(06:07):
The courts are really the only recourse in the short
term until we can elect a new Congress.
Speaker 1 (06:13):
But haven't presidents done. I mean, we've seen this happen.
The Biden administration, tons of executive orders, but the difference
was he couldn't get the money. For example, with student loans.
Biden three times said we're going to you know, raise
student loans, and there were three times that Congress said, well,
were you going to get the money? I mean, so,
so there were there was the purse there, right, And
(06:35):
and that's that's the way it's supposed to work if
you're gonna have executive boarders. Obama had executive boards. It
all started with FDR. Really, he had more executive orders
than any other president.
Speaker 3 (06:45):
Yeah, although if you look at the executive orders that
FDR signed, a lot of them didn't do very much.
They're they're related either to World War two or to
rather narrow land management type things. Uh So, when you know,
when we see FDR's executive orders, it's the story. Truman
had a lot of them too, you know, Barack Obama
(07:06):
had many fewer. He preferred not to use executive orders.
He liked these other things called proclamations or memoranda. But
you know, if you're talking about scope of policy change.
Barack Obama didn't get the high numbers, but he did
a lot, and Donald Trump in his first term did
a lot. Joe Biden did a lot. This has been
the trend is as the legislative branch that's polarized and gridlocked,
(07:29):
our executives are doing more and more. Donald Trump's just
taking it to yet another level.
Speaker 1 (07:34):
Well, George W. Bush executive order to go to war,
I mean really, Congress didn't really pass.
Speaker 3 (07:39):
That, that's right, and he and you know, Bush happened
to like these things called signing statements, so instead of
executive orders, he'd attach a statement to a law when
he signed it, that kind of, you know, altered how
it was going to be interpreted. They used different gimmicks
depending on which president is. But the trend has been
the same. It is presidents and governors are just doing
(08:01):
a lot more without waiting for our elected legislators to
give them authorization to do the things they're doing.
Speaker 1 (08:06):
All right. A final question, and that is this, if
the executive branch, not just President Trump. We've pointed out
some other presidents just continue to have executive orders with
policies we don't like. How are we going to have
a government. You know who, what worker goes into a
job saying, you know what, I might get fired in
four years nobody. You're not going to have a Supreme
(08:26):
I mean the Supreme Court. You're not going to have
a Department of anything. You're not going to have a CIA.
You're not gonna have an FBI, You're not gonna have
a Department of Justice. I mean, this gets to be
absurd at some point.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
Yeah, at some point, we're going to have another president,
and the voters in essence have a choice. Right, do
they want to go from a Republican who's using this
power to make massive changes, or and replace that person
with a Democrat who's going to come in and say, goodie,
our turn and start doing the same thing in a
different direction. Or are we going to look for a
leader who says enough is enough, we need a return
(08:59):
to normalcy. I'm going to go back to the way
presidents used to behave and that's that's ultimately where this
gets results.
Speaker 1 (09:06):
Congress have to has to stop being cowards and go
and be a Congress and take over the things that
they're supposed to be doing here.
Speaker 3 (09:15):
You know, if we see serious economic consequences from what's
happening right now. I think you'll hear a different tune
from those Republicans who want to keep their jobs. Right now.
Donald Trump's popular, pretty popular, especially with their their constituents,
and they're not ready to stand up and fight him yet.
But you watch what happens if public opinion turns. Those
members of Congress will fall off.
Speaker 1 (09:36):
In three months when those tariffs really start hitting. I'm
beginning to wonder what if it's going to put us
our taste in Americas. I just just thinking out loud.
Appreciate your time, Steven, Thank you.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
Yeah, good talking, doctor Stephen.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Voss UK polysci professor here kentek aas Morning News. We're
late for a break. We're gonna have some traffic right now.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!