Elections

Like Trump, Democratic Candidates Struggle to Stay within Constitutional Boundaries

Sen. Elizabeth Warren speaks during the Democratic presidential debate in Houston, Texas, September 12, 2019. (Mike Blake/Reuters)
One of the reasons our politics are so ugly is that politicians and activists insist the impossible is not only possible, but easy.

It’s exhausting being both a conservative and a critic of President Trump. When I aim my pen at the White House, many of my comrades on the right go nuts. And readers who love it when I go after Trump turn into a cage full of poo-flinging monkeys when I turn my attention to the Democrats.

So let me try to head things off at the pass and say that, yes, the president is inexcusably contemptuous of constitutional norms and the basic processes of our system. He is transparently ignorant on these matters, possessing a thumbless grasp of basic civics.

With that out of the way, I have a question: What is Elizabeth Warren’s excuse? Or Kamala Harris’? Or Bernie Sanders’? Or Beto O’Rourke’s?

Take Warren. She was a Harvard law professor and prizes her reputation as a very serious policy wonk. And yet vast swathes of her proposed agenda are either illegal or unconstitutional. For instance, she has vowed to implement a total ban on fracking once she’s elected. The only problem: The president doesn’t have that power. Congress passed a law in 2005 giving wide latitude to states to allow fracking. The Obama administration tried to circumvent the Energy Policy Act — in a far less audacious way than Warren’s plan — and the courts slapped it down. In short, Warren is promising something illegal.

Warren’s wealth tax is almost surely unconstitutional. So is her plan for creating a national statutory right for abortion. As National Review’s David French (a former Ivy League law professor as well) recently detailed:

Time and time again, the pattern is the same. She’ll push regulatory authority beyond the statutory limit. She’ll push statutory authority beyond the constitutional limit. In so doing, she’d represent the next stage in imperial presidential evolution — reaching beyond both President Obama and President Trump, two men who have had their own problems staying within their constitutional boundaries.

But forget about the legal and constitutional niceties and just focus on the politically possible. Like President Trump, most of the Democratic contenders say they want to get rid of the legislative filibuster, making Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell a more responsible steward of the constitutional order. And nearly all of the radical proposals they support — from gun control to “Medicare for All” to the Green New Deal — are politically impossible without doing so (and probably impossible even without the filibuster). But no one explains how they could accomplish such a repeal.

To his credit, Sanders doesn’t want to get rid of the filibuster. He just claims he could socialize medicine through the budget reconciliation process. He can’t.

Then there’s math. Nearly all of the grandiose plans to socialize medicine and fight climate change would require massive tax hikes. But Warren, who won’t say she’ll raise taxes on the middle class, insists that the rich can pay for it all. They can’t. You could literally (and unconstitutionally) confiscate all of the wealth of the top 1 percent and it wouldn’t cover the Green New Deal alone by some estimates.

A majority of Americans are concerned about climate change. But when the issue moves from virtue-signaling to actually paying for it, they blanch (as Australian voters recently did). According to polls, a majority of Americans are unwilling to spend more than $24 a year on electricity to combat climate change.

Indeed, I think virtue-signaling explains much of what is going on. None of these sweeping promises have any chance of surviving contact with Congress, never mind the voters. But that’s beside the point. The Democratic primary is an emotive contest to prove who cares the most.

Last week, when Joe Biden noted, rightly, that sweeping gun bans by executive order would be unconstitutional, Kamala Harris replied, “I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, ‘No, we can’t,’ let’s say, ‘Yes, we can.’” When she was done giggling at her own quip, she didn’t provide an argument; she demagogued on the issue by pointing to the victims of gun violence, in much the same way President Trump uses the victims of criminals who are in the country illegally to support his constitutionally dubious border plans.

One of the reasons our politics are so ugly is that politicians and activists insist the impossible is not only possible, but easy. When the inevitable failure materializes, the same politicians blame it on nefarious special interests and a rigged system. This in turn leads not just to more cynicism but a desire for leaders who will tear down everything, the Constitution be damned. That’s how we got Trump, and that’s how we got this execrable field of virtue-signaling Democrats.

© 2019 Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Most Popular

Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More
Law & the Courts

The March for Life Is a March for Truth

Pro-lifers are marching today, as they do every year, to commemorate a great evil that was done in January 1973 and to express solidarity with its innocent victims. The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade eliminated legal protections for unborn children in all 50 states, and did so without any ... Read More

A Nation of Barbers

It seems almost inevitable that long hair is unwelcome at Barbers Hill High School. There’s a touch of aptronymic poetry in Texas public-school dress-code disputes. When I was in school in the 1980s, at the height of the Satanism panic, the local school-district superintendent circulated a list of ... Read More

A Nation of Barbers

It seems almost inevitable that long hair is unwelcome at Barbers Hill High School. There’s a touch of aptronymic poetry in Texas public-school dress-code disputes. When I was in school in the 1980s, at the height of the Satanism panic, the local school-district superintendent circulated a list of ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
Law & the Courts

Clarence Thomas Speaks

Those who know Justice Clarence Thomas say that any perception of him as dour or phlegmatic couldn't be more off-base. He's a charming, gracious, jovial man, full of bonhomie and easy with a laugh, or so I'm told by people who know him well. On summer breaks he likes to roam around the country in an RV and stay ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More
U.S.

Nadler’s Folly

Jerry Nadler must have missed the day in law school where they teach you about persuasion. The House Democrat made a critical error early in the trial of President Trump. He didn’t just say that Republican senators, who voted to begin the proceedings without calling witnesses, were part of a cover-up. He said ... Read More