Military veterans can design their own headstones. In its final year, the administration is enacting some of its most ambitious rules, including limits on airborne silica at job sites , an overhaul of food labels to clarify nutritional information, and a measure making millions of workers eligible for overtime pay.
Obama, as Donald J. Trump has sharply criticized regulatory overreach and promised to undo many of the new rules. But executive power has expanded steadily under both Republican and Democratic presidents in recent decades, and both Mr. Trump and Hillary Clinton have promised to act in the service of their own goals.
The new rules built on the legislative victories Mr. Obama won during his first two years in office. But as Republicans increased their control of Capitol Hill, Mr. History may now judge the regulations to be one of Mr. At the least, his exercise of administrative power expanded and cemented a domestic legacy that now rivals Lyndon B.
In May, Mr. Obama was asked by a farmer in Elkhart, Ind. Obama responded. Business groups, also incensed, have challenged a number of new regulations in court, delaying them or preventing them from taking effect.
For US presidents, narcissism has a dark side
Obama entered office in January determined to make his mark by passing bold new laws, not by tinkering with rules. Rahm Emanuel, his first chief of staff, and other top aides mapped out an ambitious two-year agenda that included a health care overhaul, new banking laws, a remake of the federal student loan program, infrastructure spending and stricter limits on pollution. The new president had a skeptical streak when it came to the value of regulation, influenced by his friend Cass R.
Sunstein , a Harvard Law professor who had long argued that the government should more rigorously assess the benefits of new regulations. Obama liked that idea so much that he named Mr. Sunstein to lead the White House office that oversees rule-making. Sunstein in that role in mid He said Mr. But after eight years of a Republican administration, many Democrats were eager for the government to lean more forcefully on the levers of regulatory power, and officials within the federal bureaucracy felt emboldened.
The White House did resist some ideas. It shut down efforts by Lisa Jackson, Mr. But other rules were allowed to proceed. Kate Hanni, an advocate from Napa, Calif. The Bush administration put Ms. Hanni on a task force consisting mostly of airline executives, which concluded in the fall of — over her forceful and repeated objections — that the public was best served by allowing the airlines to make their own decisions. Weeks after the task force released its report, Ms. Hanni was invited to Washington in December to meet with Robert S.
Rivkin, the head of Mr. Democrats in Congress had introduced legislation to address the issue, but Mr. Rivkin asked Ms. Hanni if she would support new regulations instead. She would back anything enforceable, Ms. Hanni said. Over the course of the next nine months, Mr. Rivkin and his team of career regulators at the Department of Transportation developed rules prohibiting planes loaded with passengers from sitting on the tarmac for more than three hours.
In meetings with Ray LaHood, Mr. Sharon L.
Stanford experts on President Trump and the media
But Mr. LaHood had himself experienced long waits on the runway during frequent trips home to Illinois. His department, Mr. LaHood said in a recent interview, had a new sense of purpose, independent of any specific directive from the White House. He may prohibit all publication of Army or Navy movements, their strength and other matters, as he or his authorized officers shall order, in time of war; and all communication, trade and intercourse, by sea or land, with the rebels in case of civil war, or with a foreign belligerent nation, its Army or Navy, on pain of confiscation of property or martial punishment, of persons offending against such order, by virtue of the President's constitutional, power as Commander-in-Chief.
See above authorities. By the same authority, he may apply the lex talionis to rebels, or to a foreign enemy, in case of a confiscation, during war, of private property, debts or stocks, or injury to other private or public property, or wrongs to persons, according to his discretion, so as to obtain, by martial power, a just satisfaction, and prevent a repetition of such outrages.
In case of a foreign war or rebellion, his constitutional martial power authorizes him, as acts of war to cause a confiscation of rebel property, or the liberation of slaves belonging to a foreign enemy or to rebels, if deemed necessary to the suppression of an insurrection or to success in war, where the slaves are directly or indirectly employed to aid in feeding or assisting armed rebels or enemies, or where savages are enlisted to fight the battles of such rebels or enemies.
It is a question simply of military and constitutional discretion for the President to decide finally, and to act on as the exigencies of war may require. His conscience and judgment must determine when, and to what extent, martial shall supersede the civil power in war. Where martial law is declared over a State or District, or city, by a Commander acting for the President, no writ of habeas corpus or action lies to defeat or interfere with military measures to give it effect, and the civil law and ordinary administration are superseded so far as the President's military power extends.
Private property, for military reasons, may, in war, be occupied for forts or bulwarks, or be destroyed. It is within this constitutional power of the President. John Yoo:  This is a good question. First, I completely agree that if Barr or Trump refused to release the report, and Congress can effectively try to reconstruct the report They could bring all the same witnesses that Barr had testify and ask them basically the same questions, and they could try to, yeah, as you say, get other people who are involved in investigation to testify.
I think it's always been the practice that the President and the executive branch have claimed the right to block former executive branch officials from testifying about matters which are privileged.
When Can the President Claim Executive Privilege? - National Constitution Center
The interesting question is more what would happen if someone defies it? For example, Jim Comey has testified repeatedly in Congress on matters which actually would fall within the direct communication privilege between the President. He's testified about things, actually, that he and Trump talked about.
Then he's also testified and spoken in public a lot about internal FBI and Justice Department discussions and consideration about whether to prosecute and who to investigate. These are all the matters that really are the core of the executive privilege. But if Trump tried to stop him, yeah, the question is what sanction could Trump pursue or the Trump administration or Justice Department pursue against him? He could probably pursue someone for leaking classified information, but I assume that the Mueller report would be scrubbed of all that.
I don't actually know if Mueller showed up in a hearing and just brought a copy of the report with them and handed it over to Congress even though it might violate the privilege. I don't know what the executive branch could actually do to him in terms of a sanction to stop him. Jeffrey Rosen:  Picking up on that, Steve, are there any other forms in which Mueller might try to release information about the investigation where Trump could invoke executive privilege to block testimony, interviews, and so forth, either by Mueller or by anyone else?
Steve Vladeck:  I think as, as John points out, I think we have plenty of evidence of former government employees testifying about matters that ought to have come within one of these privileges. Jeff, I think it's important to stress, we're all fixated, for obvious reasons, on the indictments that the Special Counsel has obtained to date and might still obtain going forward and the ultimate recommendations he may or may not make to Congress with regard to the President.
I think it's worth keeping in mind that this investigation started as a counterintelligence investigation, not a criminal investigation. The reason why that matters, at least to me Jeff, is because separate from the report that Special Counsel Mueller has to file with the Attorney General under 28 CFR The Special Counsel's presumably also going to have to report to the intelligence committees about the findings of the counterintelligence investigation.
I think I mention that because John mentioned the specter of potentially having classified information and national security secrets. I think that's the one place where you would see the strongest, I think, possibility of any opportunity on the part of the executive branch to actually prevent testimony from happening.
Yet I do think that it is quite clear that Mueller is going to have to report in some form to the intelligence committees, even if behind closed doors. I just I can't imagine a court holding that executive privilege would allow the President to stop the Special Counsel from voluntarily complying with a subpoena from a House Intelligence Committee to testify behind closed doors on a matter within the scope of an investigation he carried out pursuant to the executive branch's own regulations.
I just think a court's going to be very reluctant. John mentioned earlier that courts are reluctant to get in the middle of these disputes in the first place, and I think especially where you have an individual who voluntarily wants to go before Congress and talk to them. It's going to be really unlikely, in my view, even if the privilege might abstractly protect the content of what the witness is testifying to that the courts would allow the President to use the privilege as a sword in almost any guise. The real lever for the privilege, historically, has been in blocking involuntary disclosures of documents.
Where the executive branch doesn't want to comply with it, where the recipient of a subpoena doesn't want to comply, where the individual question does want to comply, whether the material might be privileged or not. Unless, as John says, it's a violation of the Espionage Act for disclosing national security secrets, I just don't see the President successfully stopping it. Jeffrey Rosen:  Okay, if I hear you right, both of you have suggested that it would be hard successfully to invoke executive privilege to block voluntary testimony.
Let's talk about involuntary testimony. Imagine the Congress in a house obstruction of justice inquiry or another inquiry subpoenaed Presidential Records such as notes from the President Helsinki meetings with President Putin. John, you've suggested that a subpoena for that information would not be justified, there's no justification that Congress or another branch can throw up which would allow the overcome of the privilege in this kind of case. And this invocation of executive privilege, you said, would be like stabbing a dagger into the presidency.
- Mössbauer Spectroscopy Applied to Magnetism and Materials Science.
- Social Studies: Regions (Scott Foresman Social Studies);
- Getting Started with Julia Programming!
- Zero to Infinity - The Foundations of Physics?
- Getting the Most from Instagram;
Tell us why you believe that to be the case?