Trump wrong about EU

Gordon L. Weil

President Donald Trump says the EU was “formed in order to screw the United States.”

This statement is both a gross misstatement and a demonstration of his ignorance of history.  It is either the result of intentionally distorting history or the sign of a seriously faulty memory. He insists on using his incorrect claim as the pretext for levying high tariffs on imports from Europe.

I am an eyewitness to the fact that Trump’s assertion is false.  I played a role in the relationship between the U.S. and the EU.

After World War II, leaders in the U.S., Britain, France and Germany agreed to seek ways to prevent yet another clash between Germany and France that could again lead to world war.  They were determined to find a formula that would make such a conflict impossible.

The solution was to intertwine the economies of Germany, France and other European countries so that they would be unable to develop an independent ability to build a war machine.  Even more important, the joint European undertaking would be based on democratic principles, with decisions being made in an organization that could, in many cases, overrule nationalistic action.

That formula worked.  Year by year, new forms of economic integration were adopted.  Eventually, a single market was created where goods and services and even workers could freely move.  As more nations joined, they established the world’s largest trading unit.   It operates along many of the same lines as the U.S. market.

American policy was consistently supportive of the Europeans’ efforts.  The emerging Europe would adopt the principles of democratic liberalism.  Not only could Europe refrain from conflict in which the U.S. would inevitably become entangled, but it could become a powerful ally in facing the aggressive policies of the Soviet Union.

Among Europe’s efforts to create unity was the establishment of a graduate school where the future leaders of the EU and its member countries could study, socialize and develop shared outlooks on common challenges.  As an American, I was selected to attend this school in the hope that I would represent American democratic values.

I would later become the sole American on the staff of the European Commission, the international body responsible for adopting continent-wide policies.  It was not difficult to explain to the American media the details of the new European decisions that were usually quite compatible with Washington’s policies.

The leadership of the State Department was favorable to the European effort and supportive in almost all cases.  I was able to serve as a non-diplomatic link between European and American leaders.

The high point came at a meeting between President Lyndon B. Johnson and Walter Hallstein, the president of the European Commission.  I was present with them in the White House Oval Office when they met to confirm their mutual interest in trans-Atlantic cooperation.  Clearly, Europe was not out to “screw” the U.S.

Of course, the U.S. and Europe would each promote their own economic interests, just as any country would.  Instead of going to war, they entered negotiations to find workable arrangements.  These talks took the form of the Kennedy Round of trade negotiations, named in honor of the late American president.

I became an American journalist, reporting to the Washington Post and other publications on the Kennedy Round and European unification. While the negotiations often focused on specific sectors, the goal was to find a balance of interests.  Each side should be able to end up with a deal that was beneficial to it.

The solution was to increase trans-Atlantic trade by lowering tariffs and non-tariff barriers.  In launching the negotiations, President Kennedy had recalled that “a rising tide lifts all boats.”  By lowering tariffs on both sides to increase trade, everybody could benefit.  The Kennedy Round succeeded.

This is the history that proves Trump wrong on both the facts and the policy.  The creation of the EU was not hostile to the U.S.  While the U.S. has a trade deficit today with the EU, the solution is more likely to be Kennedy’s “rising tide” than punching holes in the bottom of the boat. 

Democrats accept 'losers' label

 

Gordon L. Weil

Donald Trump likes to acclaim winners (often himself) and scorn losers.  If you are a “loser,” he holds you in contempt.

After last November’s elections, the Democrats were losers.  They saw control of the federal government go to President Trump, the Trump Republican Party in Congress and a Supreme Court majority openly sympathetic to him. 

Joe Biden led them to being losers.  The Democratic Party remained loyal to him and his policies when he should have stepped aside to allow the party to renew itself through primaries to choose younger leaders.   By clinging to the unrealistic belief that he was the only person who could defeat Trump, he was the Pied Piper who led the Democrats over the cliff.

Even worse, the Democrats see themselves as losers.  They haven’t recovered or developed a coherent response to Trump.  They cling to the hope of an eventual return to their policies as the American people come to see his flaws.  Perhaps, but meanwhile his “losers” label sticks.

They seem to accept it.  Their sign-waving in the face of a triumphant Trump at his speech to Congress was embarrassingly pathetic.   Their reaction to Trump’s extreme and ill-informed policies did not look like the response of a still powerful political party.  Opposition by Senate Democrats to the budget bill approving Trump’s actions was a more positive sign.

Possibly to avoid giving any potential presidential candidate an advantage, the party has not designated a spokesperson to take on Trump.  That has left the Democrats’ image in the hands of two leaders from Brooklyn, N.Y., Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

Neither of them has proved to be charismatic or capable of launching a sustained response to Trump.  Legislative leadership, more important inside the Washington Beltway than across the country, is not enough.  The Democrats should have a forceful, informed and younger person speak for them. 

Their voice need not be a member of Congress, but that person should be ready now.  Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg could fill the bill.

Clinton strategist and would-be Democratic wise man, James Carville, proposed that his party should “roll over and play dead.”  Do nothing and allow the Trump Republicans to self-destruct.  The Democrats could then pick up the pieces. That strategy says almost nothing about how they would reassemble those pieces.

The Democrats need a coherent and comprehensive answer to Trump. They should hold a mini-national convention to compensate for the lack of an open party process last year.  In reviving the party, the task of defining Democratic policies cannot be left to random pop-up leaders.

They risk being unable to agree.  They should recognize that a common goal – taming Trump – matters more than forcing their agendas into a hotly contested platform.  For their unifying message, they could adopt the motto, “the greatest good of the greatest number” and declare that equal respect for every person is an essential element of the greatest good. 

People should be treated as citizens of the country that is theirs and not as subjects of a presidential government that has taken control of the country.  The Democrats need to stress that the government serves the values, interests and needs of all people, not only those who voted for the latest presidential winner.

Their focus must be the congressional elections next year.  The president’s party usually loses seats at the midterm elections. That should cost the GOP control of the House.  But the Senate is a major challenge.  A majority is possible, but tough.  A veto-proof majority could only be obtained with some Republican senators. 

Getting GOP Senator Susan Collins to commit to independence from Trump should be the central element of next year’s campaign in Maine.  If she supports his excesses, her claim to being a moderate and not a Trumper could be exposed and make her vulnerable.

Trump threatens to unseat potential GOP dissenters, possibly exposing them to personal threats and attacks.  If public service means more than sitting in Congress, now is the time for the best leaders to take risks.  Otherwise, the political system may disappear beneath their feet, leaving little need for their public service.

The U.S. needs a functioning two-party system.  The parties have had sharply different views about good public policy, but have shared a commitment to the system.  The Republican Party is no longer the clear conservative voice; it is the Trump maga-phone.  The Democrats are drifting, leaderless and dispirited.

The Democrats should offer a political alternative to Trump that can win elections in a country that wants cooperation but cannot compromise.  They must lift the level of their politics above outbursts of frustration, bouts of depression, and disunity.  Otherwise, they will share responsibility with the GOP for the country’s decline.

 

 

American justice becoming pure politics

Gordon L. Weil

A group of state attorneys general, all Republicans, decide to go to federal court to block the actions of then President Biden.

A group of state attorneys general, all Democrats, decide to go to federal court to block the actions of President Trump.

They can go to a federal district court anywhere in the country and try to get the judge there to issue an injunction halting the president’s moves.  Better yet, they hope to convince a district judge, no matter how small or remote their jurisdiction, to make that injunction apply across the country. 

That’s often called a nationwide injunction.  Its prime characteristic is its effect on non-parties to the specific case that would be similarly affected by the president’s action.  These non-parties are usually the states that are still on the sidelines, which may be the president’s supporters.

In filing the case, the complaining states can select the district court where they will begin.  They look for a court where the likelihood of finding a judge favorable to them is the highest.  Judges may be selected at random for new cases, so the states look for the smallest pool with judges that share their politics or philosophy.

That’s called “judge shopping” or “forum shopping.”

For the Republicans, the desirable court may sit in Amarillo, Texas, or Fort Pierce, Florida. Each of those courtrooms has only one judge.  In Florida, it’s Aileen Cannon, who always does Trump’s bidding. 

For the Democrats, that may be the court, consisting of three judges, in Providence, Rhode Island.

Of course, the losing side will take an unfavorable district court decision to the Court of Appeals.  There, random selection of a panel of three judges does not assure approval of the district court ruling.  Still, the political orientation of a majority of the relevant appeals court judges may be similar to that of the district court judge.

Politics play a strong role in the nomination of judges. Of course, a president will seek to name judges who share their political views.  Presidents traditionally rely on the input or approval of a state’s U.S. senators in making nominations in their states.

Decisions by Courts of Appeal are likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court, when they involve states disputing presidential powers. Even there, the political orientation of the justices and of the presidents who nominated them may give that highest court a political hue.

It has become usual to see the justices referred to as conservatives or liberals.  They may claim that they merely follow the law, but the law itself must be interpreted, and individual judgments may reflect a justice’s political views.

The Supreme Court is increasingly facing cases involving presidential or executive branch powers.  The public’s need for prompt action and executive pressure has led the conservative-dominated Court to use procedural orders, the so-called “shadow docket,” to make more rapid decisions. 

That process can often allow for rulings with little or no explanation of the Court’s reasoning.  In this situation, it may be influenced by the previous course of the case as it came through the judicial process. Conservative district court decisions, even if they must be modified, percolate upwards.

The Supreme Court has come to make many fewer rulings each session. At the same time, it has given itself an essential role in sorting out questions about the president’s powers.

Will the Court act along partisan lines or try to keep to the law as it has previously been understood?  Trump and his backers count on its ultimate approval of their new views.  Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed by Trump, voted against his position in a recent procedural order.  She has been the target of bitter attacks by Trump backers.  They have also called for the impeachment of district court judges who oppose Trump positions.

More district court judges are needed, but new slots have been blocked by partisan warfare.  While the presidential campaign was under way, House Republicans refused to approve badly needed new slots.  After Trump won, they voted for enlargement.  President Biden then vetoed the bill, and no new judgeships were created. 

This was a rare case of the Democrats playing by GOP rules.  But the judicial system suffered because of such partisan tussles. 

The conservative Supreme Court was tilted to the Republicans by Senate GOP maneuvers.  Yet Biden and the Democrats refused to consider enlarging the Court, when they could. 

All the attempts to influence the course of the American political system through judge shopping and nomination games may now have their effect on whether any real limits are placed on Trump’s broad assertion of control.

The last word may belong to judicial partisans as the president pushes his powers and Congress collapses.

 

 

 

 

U.S. leadership of the West ending

Gordon L. Weil

The U.S. is like a nation at war.

The federal government is on the attack, deploying the power of the American economy and military to force other nations, states, the media and even citizens to follow the orders of President Trump and his agents.

This brutal campaign would reshape the economy and transform the world order.  It might also replace the American democratic republic with an authoritarian regime.

The end of economic, political and military systems on which many have relied results from the abuse of the awesome powers that Congress has given the president in the naive belief that custom would limit his exercise of them.

The Declaration of Independence states that it was issued out of a “decent respect for the opinions of mankind.”  The actions of the president in the few weeks since his inauguration has shown no such decent respect for the opinions of anybody who differs or objects. 

It would take only a few people to bring the government back under constitutional control.  If even a small number of Republicans in Congress joined with the Democrats, they could pass veto-proof laws to recover from the president the overly broad emergency powers he exercises.  If not, the GOP will share responsibility for Trump’s excesses.

The election certainly produced an administration determined to break with the traditions developed since World War II.  Trump always claimed that was his intent.  But his electoral majority did not give him a blank check to destroy America’s place as world leader or its system of balanced government.

He has routinely abused the congressional grant of emergency authority to take sweeping actions on tariffs and other matters that normally should be handled by Congress.  He has embarked on raising tariffs on imports from virtually the entire world based on a disastrously incorrect understanding of economics. 

He sees normal trade relations as warfare. If purchases from another country exceed sales from the U.S. to that country, for him the net exchange amounts to an intentional and hostile attack on the U.S.  He uses tariffs to raise import prices, and believes foreign suppliers will pay them.  Revenues from tariffs will increase.  Higher import prices will create competitive conditions for U.S. industry, which will prosper.

Other countries have not produced favorable trade balances intending them as hostile acts against the U.S.  Their advantages may come from paying labor too little or damaging the environment.  Higher American tariffs won’t fix either of them, and Trump doesn’t seem to care anyway.

The ultimate absurdity of Trump’s trade policy is slapping high tariffs on imports from Canada, a hostile act that will damage its economy.  Why?  Under a deal Trump made, most trade both ways is duty free. The American trade deficit in goods is more than offset by surpluses in trade in services and investment flows.

He charges without evidence that Canada allows floods of illegal immigrants and fentanyl into the U.S.  People on both sides of the border are bewildered about his real intentions.

He wants Canada as the 51^st state.  Canada, with an economy the equal of Russia’s and composed of 10 state-like provinces, has no interest in national suicide. If Canadians remain unwilling, he would coerce them by using American economic power.  Is that what an aging American president sees as his historic achievement?

He would treat Canada as a mere satellite, and just as he does Ukraine, a nation invaded by and at war with Vladimir Putin’s Russia.  Trump wants to be a peacemaker, with an eye on the Nobel Prize.  No matter that he would sacrifice Ukraine’s land and security for his dealmaking with Putin, whose favor he clearly seeks.

European countries, which share Ukraine’s worries about future Russian aggression, get in Trump’s way.  They embrace President Zelenskyy.  It may have pained Trump to see him received at King Charles’ private residence, just after Trump had received a royal invitation for a state visit.

When a group of European leaders met in London to plan their help for Ukraine, Canada’s prime minister, having turned away from the U.S., was among them.  For the sake of making a deal, Trump is losing American leadership of the West.

The Europeans cling to the belief they need American backing to defend Ukraine and to pursue a lasting peace and not merely a headline.  They must gear up, but meanwhile they could rapidly deploy major support.  Britain once faced Hitler alone, while the original America First movement kept the U.S. neutral.  Europe now needs its own version of Winston Churchill.

In this column, I try to make fair judgments, pro and con, about Trump and the Democrats.  I will continue to do so.  Now, it is necessary to speak out about Trump as he becomes increasingly dangerous, even to the freedom of the press. 

Powerful president tests legal system

 

Gordon L. Weil

President Donald Trump singled out Maine Gov. Janet Mills to ask if she would comply with his executive order on transgender athletes.

“I will obey state and federal law,” she replied. 

“Well, I’m ...We are the federal law,” he told her.

 “See you in court,” she replied.

Trump concluded that he would win easily and taunted Mills, suggesting she has no future in politics.

Contrast Trump’s remarks with John Adams’ 1780 definition of the American republic as “a government of laws, not of men.”  Adams was later the second president.

Trump’s view follows his earlier statement that “Article II [of the Constitution] allows me to do whatever I want.”  The president is redefining his role.  If that holds, then check and balances among Congress, the president and the courts are dead. 

The avalanche of executive orders issued by Trump has raised at least two major issues, and both will inevitably end up in court. 

Has the president taken on powers that, under the Constitution, belong to Congress? 

Can the president selectively veto congressional spending by closing or reducing federal agencies or programs through forced staff cuts?

Trump may be encouraged by two factors.  First, he won the election.  His representatives claim that the majority vote victory gave him a mandate to carry out every promise or proposal he had made in the campaign.   This electoral endorsement would amount to a sweeping legislative act, making irrelevant both Congress and the courts.

The other support for Trump’s assertion of power comes from the Supreme Court decision in Trump v. U.S., issued last year.  The Chief Justice, on behalf of the Court, wrote, “the system of separated powers designed by the Framers has always demanded an energetic, independent Executive.”  The Court’s ruling implied that the president could defy Congress.

Presidential executive orders might amount to federal legislation that ordinarily would be under congressional control.  If Congress is dominated by the president’s allies, his solo lawmaking may go unchallenged.  Historically, limits on presidential lawmaking have resulted from the president’s need to compromise with a skeptical Congress, but that’s missing these days.

In the end, presidents may be lawmakers, but Trump is not the law.  The Supreme Court long ago made itself the judge of what the law is.  It can decide that, while Trump could issue an order, it cannot violate the Constitution or existing laws.  Mills implied that Maine could prevail in Court, possibly because Trump had ignored the powers that states lawfully retain.

Acting mostly through Elon Musk, who holds a temporary government position, the Trump administration has tried to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development and to terminate or reduce federal government programs.  These actions came swiftly, stunning both federal workers and the private sector.

Presidents may dismiss federal employees, provided they respect employee rights set by law or labor contracts.  Musk may be using his business practices to dismiss people under an approving president, but it is doubtful that the Court has yet allowed presidents to go as far with public employees as Musk demands.

These firings amount to an “item veto,” by which a president can block a portion of spending that has been ordered by law.  Trump is not alone among presidents in wanting to have this power.  This move is called rescission and for 50 years it has been banned by law.  President Bill Clinton tried it, and he was overruled.

Just as Republican state attorneys-general brought cases against Biden policies, Democratic AGs are now lodging many legal challenges to Trump.  The courts have begun acting and mostly trying to stick to the law. That means both Trump and his opponents can win procedural points, but the full story has just begun to be written.

Former Maine AG and Harvard Law School lecturer James Tierney claims that the state AGs play “a vital role” in challenging the president.  But, he says, they know that “Donald Trump is the President of the United States.  They are not going to sue their way out of it.”  Plus, congressional Republicans can continue to allow Trump unchecked power.

Trump’s treatment by the same Supreme Court that accepted his assertion of power will be the most important test. Will it impose any limits on his actions and Musk’s?  If it approves his moves and appears partisan, a constitutional crisis caused by his view of presidential power will have arrived.

If it overrules Trump, some of his supporters say the president should ignore unfavorable court decisions.  He should rely on the almost unlimited power given him by the voters in 2024.  If he disobeys the courts, that would also bring the ultimate crisis.

James Harrington, a British philosopher, wrote in 1656: “The empire of laws is concerned with right; the empire of men, with power.”  Which do American voters want?

 

Presidents’ Day missed the point; George Washington ignored

 

Gordon L. Weil

Presidents set precedents.  Or break them.

At this time of year, we celebrate Presidents’ Day, but officially it is Washington’s Birthday in honor of George Washington.  The abandonment of a patriotic memorial for a bland, commercial holiday leads me each year to write a column to recall the greatest president. 

As the first president, Washington understood that he would establish precedents and practices that could influence American history, perhaps for centuries. Having been offered the chance to be king, he chose instead to focus on developing democracy.  Asked to pick his title, the general selected “Mr. President.”

Today, many of his precedents continue, though they increasingly face challenges, not the least from Donald Trump, his latest successor.

The most well-known of Washington’s precedents was limiting his service to two terms.  Established in 1797 and only once challenged, this custom was enshrined in the Constitution.  It was a simple and direct statement that the U.S. wants no king.  Democracy is a greater good than the leadership of any person.  

When King George III, the British monarch who lost America, learned that Washington would voluntarily give up the presidency, he said, “If he does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Upon leaving office, Washington set the precedent of an orderly transfer of power to his successor.  He understood that popular confidence in the American system of government depends on its reliable continuity.  Not only do elections have consequences, but consequences deserve respect.  That’s the fabric of the system.

Washington had chaired the negotiations on the Constitution, making him not only preeminent among the Framers, but an expert of the balance of powers within the federal government and between the federal government and the states.  He respected the leading role of Congress in making the laws, while emphasizing his own role as the chief executive.

He made it clear that he was in charge.  Executive orders began with him, but he did not use them as a substitute for legislation. He sent his own proposals to Congress, and he used the veto power.  He respected Congress and delivered the first State of the Union address in person.

In naming the heads of the executive departments and his Supreme Court appointments, he applied two standards.  Those named had to have shown high competence, and they should have already acquired a public reputation that would give them popular respect.

He saw the Court as the final judge of check and balances and believed that the justices had to be people of the highest standing with voters and have impeccable reputations.

Washington did not demand personal loyalty, though undoubtedly he received it.  He did require commitment to the constitutional system.  After all, he was leading the government of the United States not the government of George Washington.

Washington created the Cabinet.  The heads of departments would form a group of people to discuss proposed policies with him and one another.  There was no doubt that he would make the final decisions, but he did not let his self-esteem, as modest as he was, get in the way of listening to competing opinions.  He listened more than he talked.

The Cabinet was led by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, who were continually at odds, giving the president conflicting advice, which is just what he wanted. The key issue was the size and role of the federal government.

Washington favored a strong government, which he saw as necessary for the U.S. to prevent local uprisings.  He also favored the expansion westward of the country.  Jefferson sought an agrarian nation with weak federal powers and modest aspirations and quit the Cabinet.  As the third president, he ultimately adopted Washington’s views.

In his historic role, Washington wanted to conduct himself in ways that set a standard for his successors.  He remained open to contact with the public.  He met with foreign representatives both to impress upon them the growing power of the U.S. and to gain information from them.  Not surprisingly, the ex-general was the most active commander-in-chief in American history.

Possibly possessing the highest net worth in the country at the time, he did not flaunt his wealth. He put his business affairs entirely aside while he held office. Despite his international standing, surprising for the head of a new country, he avoided making claims to have special skills or talents.

Much of this history is forgotten.  To be sure, a state, a city, counties, and avenues are named for him, but he has become a two-dimensional figure, the portrait on the dollar bill.

Presidents’ Day has obscured the attention that Washington deserves.  What he did for the country could continue to serve as a model for his successors, if we took the trouble to remember.

 

Is Trump breaking the law?

 

Gordon L. Weil

“He violates international law.”  “It’s unconstitutional.”  “It’s against the law.”

That has become the usual response of opponents of new Trump-Musk public policies.  President Trump is accused of actions violating the laws he dislikes. Federal courts are already dealing with legal challenges to the Trump political whirlwind.  What are his chances of prevailing?

As for international law, it grows out of treaties and similar agreements among nations or their commonly observed customs.  Other than losers in war, countries seldom have international laws imposed on them without their consent. International law is somewhere between the law of the jungle and traditional national law.

An agreement like the U.S.-Canada-Mexico trade treaty or the NATO pact committing the U.S. to defend others create international law.  If the U.S. moves against other parties’ understandings of those accords, there’s no international court authorized to decide if it acted lawfully.  There’s a slim chance that a complaint might come before a U.S. court.

Enforcement of international law is mainly left to the other countries affected. They may accept a U.S. move, retaliate or simply quit the agreement.  Both sides may suffer from any of these actions.  If Canada or Mexico cannot afford to oppose Trump’s tariffs that override the trade accord, they may have to let him amend it unilaterally.

The U.S. has historically opposed international courts that could hold it accountable.  International law usually means whatever the American government says it does. If it can’t be held legally accountable, the greatest risk is that other nations will lose trust in the U.S.  If Trump doesn’t care, he could conclude the U.S. is immune from international law.

Under the American legal system, his actions can be judged to see if they are in line with the Constitution or federal law.  The final decision is up to the courts, and the federal government, the states and the people are supposed to abide by their rulings. 

What if the president and the executive branch use powers not given to them by the Constitution or Congress or, even more seriously, openly violate the law?  In the recent case of Trump v. the United States, the Supreme Court closed the door on any legal charges against a president except for a purely personal act.  And it gave itself the power to decide what is purely personal. 

That leaves the only potentially effective way to determine if a president has violated the Constitution or laws entirely in the hands of the courts and, ultimately, the Supreme Court.  If the Court finds a violation of law, the president is expected to comply, and government officials need not follow an illegal order.

Trump has raised some major matters that will undergo court tests.  The Supreme Court previously ruled that anybody born in the U.S., except children of foreign diplomats, is a citizen, but Trump has tried to block that rule for the children of illegal residents or visitors.  He may hope that Republican judicial appointees will back him, but so far that’s not happening.

Trump and Elon Musk are closing federal agencies, created and funded by Congress, by depleting or suspending their personnel. The Supreme Court has previously found that presidents cannot refuse to spend appropriated funds or operate agencies simply because they disagree with the law.  

Vice President JD Vance, trained as a lawyer, rejects court control. He maintains that judges should not overturn the “executive’s legitimate power.”

Trump-Musk might receive a negative court order and simply ignore it.  That’s what one federal judge has already found.

If Trump succeeds, possibly helped by judges he put on the bench, it’s questionable if there are any limits on what he may do.  The Court has already moved to overrule Congress and allow the “unitary” presidency, potentially giving Trump power over the regulatory agencies Congress created. 

Trump and the Supreme Court limit Congress, originally intended to be the leading federal institution.  The last remaining legal obstacle would be for Congress to impeach and convict him. With Republican majorities in both houses, that won’t happen. No president has ever been convicted.

The president is trying to transform the government.  He halts the application of some existing laws and governs by executive order, relying on what he sees as approval by the voters of his campaign promises.  If Vance is correct, the courts are political, not legal, agencies and cannot object.  

At stake now is more than the fate of any agency, program or personnel.  If neither Congress nor the Supreme Court limits the actions of the president, then nothing Trump does would be illegal.

Will the balance of powers among the three branches of the federal government survive or have the people chosen to abandon the checks and balances that the Constitution created in favor of an all-powerful president?