On a recent edition of ABC News This Week, host George Stephanopoulos abruptly ended an interview with US Sen. JD Vance (R-OH), because Vance wouldn’t take a knee to the idea that the Executive Branch bureaucracy has autonomy outside the pleasure of the President of the United States and that rulings by the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) can never be challenged or subverted. Both notions are ridiculous.
In the past, when being interviewed, I have stated emphatically that the biggest mistake of Donald Trump’s presidency was that he didn’t either outright fire or at least relieve of duty and reassign all of the upper- and mid-level political appointments at the Department of Justice, The US Treasury, the Pentagon, and the US State Department. That delinquency came back to damage Trump’s ability to achieve many things during his presidency and set the stage for the Deep State bureaucratic political opposition plaguing his current presidential run.
Each civil servant in the federal bureaucracy serves at the pleasure of the President of the United States because the president is the ipso facto Executive Branch. He is elected by the citizens to execute the tasks of the federal government and to do so per the letter of the law. Each employee of the Federal government works for the president, and just like any other employer, when a subordinate fails to execute his or her duties, or if they usurp the authority thereof, they are and should be subject to termination.
But Stephanopoulos – a former Senior Advisor to President Bill Clinton, challenged Vance on the president’s authority to terminate civil servants for their failure to execute presidential policy when, in fact, that is what any federal employee is employed to do. And Stephanopoulos did so with incredulous arrogance as if to insist that the Deep State bureaucracy has a constitutional authority to exist unilaterally outside of the President’s prerogative; independent from presidential and legislated policy.
To Stephanopoulos’s contention that a SCOTUS decision can never be challenged or subverted, I was shocked that Vance didn’t point out the usurpations of SCOTUS rulings currently taking place under the Biden administration. SCOTUS ruled, in no uncertain terms, that the Executive Branch did not have the authority to forgive student loans, yet – to this day – the Biden administration continues to use taxpayer dollars to forgive student loans that were issued in good faith and with the expectation that they would be repaid. The power of the purse is exclusively reserved for the US House of Representatives. So with each loan forgiven, there is a violation of the separation of powers.
SCOTUS also ruled that race could not be used in determining college admissions. Yet the Biden administration is pursuing the ability to use race-based admissions criteria at West Point, again defying the High Court.
And as for fidelity to the Constitution? We need to look no further than Biden’s abuse of the Take Care Clause.
The Take Care Clause in the United States Constitution, found in Article II, Section 3 states, “[the president] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, meaning the president is obligated to execute the laws enacted by Congress and to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed. It emphasizes the president’s duty to enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of their alignment with the president’s personal views or policies.
That certainly doesn’t sound like what’s happening on our country’s Southern border, does it?
Then we should look at every non-legislated regulation coming out of the cabinet-level departments and agencies. The very act of Congress allowing the Executive Branch to craft ipso facto law through the establishment of non-legislated regulatory power is unconstitutional and SCOTUS has ruled as much in a case against the EPA. Yet the regulatory tyranny of the Executive Branch reigns on.
Further, Biden’s abuse of the Executive order is clear and defined. There are specific criteria that need to be met to ensure a balance of power and accountability before a Chief Executive is allowed to issue an Executive Order.
The foremost criterion for a president to issue an Executive Order is a clear constitutional authority. Executive Orders cannot exceed the president's constitutional authority or infringe upon the powers reserved for other branches of government.
A president must also base Executive Orders on existing legislation or statutes so that they align with the laws enacted by Congress, ensuring that the president's actions are consistent with the legislative framework.
The criteria for addressing issues related to national security or emergencies involve a genuine and imminent threat to the nation, necessitating swift action and honest transparency about the circumstances and their justifications.
And this is where Vance should have slammed into Stephanopoulos’s argument with a tank. Executive Orders can also be used to streamline and improve the efficiency of government operations. Therefore Trump would have had every right and constitutional authority to reorganize agencies, streamline procedures, or eliminate redundancies.
Before an Executive Order is issued, the president has a constitutional obligation to consider the potential benefits and drawbacks of the order for the general welfare of the population. Did Biden check this box when he issued his EO on student loan forgiveness? Didn’t he consider many in our nation would see the move of using taxpayer dollars to pay off loans for doctors and lawyers as an act of income redistribution and thievery?
Lastly, the criteria for using the power of Executive Order mandates that any EO has a limited scope, focusing on specific issues rather than attempting to legislate broadly. A president must avoid using orders to circumvent the legislative process and should reserve them for situations where swift action is necessary.
How are diversity, equity, and inclusion in military academy admissions policies a matter of immediacy and/or national security? For that matter, why do student loans qualify for any EO action?
In matters like this, it is the insistence of the insister that is the most egregious element. Just because Stephanopoulos wants something to be so doesn’t mean he has the right to use his position in the media to deceive the public. And just because he wants to play the media gotcha game with a member of the opposition party doesn’t mean he gets to ignore the facts of the matter.
Stephanopoulos is doing both here and illustrates why the American people find mainstream media operatives lower than whale shit.
Now, my segment on America’s Third Watch, as broadcast coast-to-coast on the Salem and Genesis Communications Networks.
Take Back Your Mind...Think For Yourself...Support Independent Journalism
George Stephanopoulos Exposes His Partisan Constitutional Illiteracy