Congress is unable to stop Trump

Given a choice between upholding the U.S. Constitution, which they have sworn to "preserve, protect and defend," or surrendering Congress' authority to a man determined to secure autocratic power over the entire federal government, Republicans in Congress chose the latter this week.

President Donald Trump will veto the resolution that overrules the president's declaration of a national emergency, and the GOP, which has surrendered its identity and traditions to a man who seeks only his own grandizement and unquestioned authority, will allow that veto to stand.

Both Trump and GOP members of Congress are looking only to the 2020 elections, which they are determined to win, even if the Constitution is shredded in their single-minded determination to remain in power. Nowhere has this determination been more obvious than in the flip-flop of Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Tillis initially vowed to vote for the resolution countering Trump's emergency authority, reminding the public, correctly, that Congress, not the president, has the authority to appropriate money. But threatened with a primary opponent and an angry Trump contingent of voters, Tillis cowardly switched sides and voted against the resolution.

Tillis (and other Republicans in Congress) knew that they had condemned then-President Barack Obama for using presidential orders to set policies. Their outrage disappeared when Trump used the same sort of authority to appropriate federal funds. Obama had acted when Congress failed to pass immigration reform; he established DACA (Delayed Action on Childhood Arrivals) to protect immigrants who had arrived as small children. Obama's DACA went beyond the usual discretion the executive branch has in deciding how to handle prosecutions but did not directly contradict Congress' funding authority. Trump plans to shift federal spending to do what Congress refused to do, spend billions of dollars on a border wall many consider wasteful and ineffective. Obama acted where Congress had not. Trump does him one better, acting contrary to Congress' clear decision against more border wall spending.

The silence you hear in 2019 is the lack of outrage by GOP members who claim to be conservative and believers in the Constitution. They make it clear that they hold Trump in greater esteem than they hold the Constitution, and their vow to "preserve, protect and defend" the Constitution is a blatant lie.

In the great scheme of things, a few billion dollars for a border wall is not a make-or-break issue. What matters is not the border wall; it is the principle that we abide by the Constitution. If Trump can steal Congress' responsibility to appropriate federal funds, what more can he do? Declare martial law to disallow voting by Democrats? Declare the 2020 election fraudulent and proclaim himself the winner? Refuse to leave office after being rejected by a majority of voters? Dissolve Congress? Eliminate the Supreme Court? Only the Constitution stands in his way, but Congress and the public must protect the Constitution.

When elected officials sworn to protect and defend the Constitution no longer care, Trump's powers are infinite, and democracy is dead.

Lawsuit nibbles away at presidential authority

Thursday's Supreme Court decision might mark a pivot point in the Obama presidency, and in presidential policies in general. The court's ruling was limited but made it clear that presidential appointments cannot be made without Senate approval except in very limited circumstances. The Constitution's allowance for "recess appointments" without Senatorial concurrence seem quaint in the 21st century's instantaneous communications and rapid travel. In 1789, Congress met for only a few months a year and was in recess for much of the year.

Recess appointments is only one issue that riles congressional Republicans. They also complain that the president has only selectively enforced laws and has even rewritten laws to suit his needs. The Affordable Care Act's provisions are just one example of how the president has ignored, omitted or altered provisions of laws passed by Congress.

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner has announced that the House will sue the president for failing to carry out laws passed by Congress, which the Constitution requires him to do. The fact that this lawsuit will likely drag on through the 2016 elections is an indication that the case is based more on politics than on constitutional integrity.

The Constitution includes a remedy for a president who fails to do his job — impeachment. Failing to carry out the constitutional requirements of his office should qualify as a "high crimes and misdemeanors." The fact that only a few right-wing yahoos in Congress are proposing articles of impeachment indicates that Congress is not all that serious about retaining the powers granted by the Constitution and about demanding that the executive branch not usurp Congress' constitutional powers.

It is entirely possible, however, that private citizens might bring suit to overturn a presidential action, as in Thursday's decision. If the unanimous recess appointments decision is predictive, the Supreme Court might just undo what the president has done of his own accord.