Latest news with #checksandbalances
Malay Mail
19-07-2025
- Business
- Malay Mail
‘Frightening': How Trump is testing the limits of US presidential power like no modern leader before
WASHINGTON, July 20 — Donald Trump has spent six months testing the limits of his authority like no other modern US president, say analysts — browbeating Congress and the courts in a power grab that may come to define his second term. Since January, the Republican leader has repeatedly pushed to secure more power for himself, calling for judges to be axed, firing independent watchdogs and sidestepping the legislative process. Barbara Perry, a University of Virginia professor and an expert on the presidency, called Trump's successes in shattering the restraints on his office 'frightening.' 'All presidents have been subject to Congress's and the Supreme Court's checks on their power, as well as splits in their own political parties,' she said. 'Trump has faced almost none of these counterpoints in this second term.' It is all a far cry from his first stint in office, when Trump and his supporters believe he was hamstrung by investigations and 'deep state' officials seeking to frustrate his agenda. But those guardrails have looked brittle this time around as Trump has fired federal workers, dismantled government departments and sent military troops into the streets to quell protest. He has also sought to exert his influence well beyond traditional presidential reach, ruthlessly targeting universities and the press, and punishing law firms he believes have crossed him. Checks and balances The US system of checks and balances — the administration, the courts and Congress as equal but separate branches of government — is designed to ensure no one amasses too much power. But when it comes to Trump's agenda — whether ending diversity efforts and birthright citizenship or freezing foreign aid — he has largely dodged the hard work of shepherding bills through Congress. Policies have instead been enacted by presidential edict. Six months in, Trump has already announced more second-term executive orders than any American leader since Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s. He has even sought to bend the economy to his will, escalating attacks on the chief of the independent central bank in a bid to lower interest rates. Once a robust restraining force against presidential overreach, the Republican-led Congress has largely forsaken its oversight role, foregoing the investigations that previous presidents have faced. That has left the judiciary as the main gatekeeper. But Trump has managed partly to neuter the authority of the federal bench too, winning a Supreme Court opinion that mostly reduces the reach of judges' rulings to their own states. In his first term the high court made Trump immune from prosecution for actions taken as part of his official duties — no matter how criminal. And almost every time Trump has turned to the country's highest legal tribunal to rein in the lower courts in his second term, it has obliged. Sole authority His long shadow has extended far beyond Washington's institutions, pushing into private realms his predecessors avoided. Trump has picked fights with elite universities, prestigious law firms and the press — threatening funding or their ability to do business. The arts haven't escaped his clunking fist either, with the 79-year-old taking over the running of the Kennedy Center in Washington. Trump has claimed falsely that the US Constitution gives him the right to do whatever he wants as the ultimate authority over government activities. This so-called 'unitary executive theory' was pushed in the 'Project 2025' blueprint for government produced by Trump's right-wing allies during last year's election campaign. Although he disavowed 'Project 2025' after it became politically toxic, Trump's own platform made the same claims for expansive presidential powers. Pessimistic about the other branches' ability to hold the administration to account, the minority Democrats have largely been limited to handwringing in press conferences. Political strategist Andrew Koneschusky, a former senior Democratic Senate aide, believes the checks on Trump's authority may ultimately have to be political rather than legal or constitutional. He points to Trump's tanking polling numbers — especially on his signature issue of immigration following mass deportations of otherwise law-abiding undocumented migrants. 'It's not entirely comforting that politics and public opinion are the primary checks on his power,' Koneschusky said. 'It would be better to see Congress flex its muscle as a co-equal branch of government. But it's at least something.' — AFP
The Guardian
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
America's famed ‘checks-and-balances' governance system is failing
It has been said many times, but saying it appears to have no consequences: our system of checks and balances is failing. The US supreme court allowing the president effectively to abolish the Department of Education only reinforces this sense; Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, explicitly wrote that 'the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave' – but she did not explain how to counter the threat. The picture is complicated by the fact that what critics call 'the stranglehold the checks and balances narrative on the American political imagination' has prevented positive democratic change. Hence it is crucial to understand where the separation of powers itself needs to be kept in check and where it can play a democracy-reinforcing role. Most important, we need counterstrategies against the Trumpists' usurpation of what should remain separate powers. While pious talk of the founders' genius in establishing 'checks and balances' is part of US civil religion and constitutional folklore, the system in fact never functioned quite as intended. The framers had assumed that individuals would jealously guard the rights of the branches they occupied. Instead, the very thing that the founders dreaded as dangerous 'factions' – what we call political parties – emerged already by the end of the 18th century; and thereby also arose the possibility of unified party government. The other unexpected development was the increasing power of the presidency; the founders had always seen the legislature as the potential source of tyranny; instead, the second half of the 20th century saw the consolidation of an 'imperial presidency', whose powers have steadily increased as a result of various real (and often imagined) emergencies. Some jurists even blessed this development, going back to Hamilton's call for an energetic executive, and trusting that public opinion, rather than Congress or the courts, would prove an effective check on an otherwise 'unbound executive'. The dangers posed by unified party control and a strong presidency were long mitigated by the relative heterogeneity of parties in the US; internal dissent meant that Congress would often thwart an executive's agenda. Less obviously, Congress's creation of largely independent agencies, acting on the basis of expertise, as well as inspectors general within the executive itself established an internal system of checks. It also remains true, though, that, compared with democracies such as Germany and the UK, an opposition party in the US does not have many rights (such as chairing committees) or ways of holding a chief executive accountable (just imagine if Trump had to face a weekly prime minister's question time, rather than sycophantic Fox hosts). Most important, though, the executive itself tended to respect the powers of other branches. But Trump: not so much. In line with his governance model, of doing something plainly illegal and then seeing what happens, Trump is usurping powers reserved for the legislature. He uses money as he sees fit, not as Congress intended; he, not Congress, decides which departments are necessary. The tariff madness could be over if Congress called the bluff on a supposed 'emergency' which justifies Trump's capricious conduct of slapping countries with apparently random levies. The most egregious example is his recent threat vis-à-vis Brazil which has nothing to with trade deficits, but is meant to help his ideological ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro, escape a criminal trial for a coup attempt. Trump is also destroying the internal checks within the executive. Inspectors general have been fired; independent agencies are made subservient to the president – in line with the theory of a 'unified executive' long promoted by conservative jurists. The US supreme court, occupied to 67% by Maga has been blessing every power grab. As the legal scholar Steve Vladeck noted, the court has granted Trump relief in every single emergency application since early April, with seven decisions – like this week's on the Department of Education – coming with no explanation at all. If this were happening in other countries, one would plainly speak of a captured court, that is to say: one subordinated to the governing party. As commentators have pointed out, it is inconceivable that this court would simply rubber-stamp a decision by a President Mamdani to fire almost everyone at the Department of Homeland Security. Still, the main culprit is the Republican party in Congress. There is simply no credible version of 'conservatism' that justifies Trump's total concentration of power; and anyone with an ounce of understanding of the constitution would recognize the daily violations. This case can be made without buying into the separation of powers narrative criticized by the left (though what they aim at is less the existence of checks as such, but the empowerment of rural minorities in the Senate and the proliferation of veto points in the political system, such that powerful private interests can stop popular legislation). Paradoxically, Democrats should probably make Congress even more dysfunctional than it already is: use every procedural means to grind business to a halt and explain to the public that – completely contrary to the founders' anxieties – the emasculation of the legislature is causing democracy's demise (it never hurts to slip in such gendered language to provoke the Republican masculinists). Of course, one might question what role public opinion can really play as a check, and whether there's still such a thing at all given our fragmented media world: it never constrained the George W Bush administration's 'global war on terror' in the way that Hamilton's self-declared disciples had hoped. But it's still the best bet. After all, there is a reason why some jurists see 'we the people' as the fourth branch that ultimately makes the difference. Jan-Werner Müller is a Guardian US columnist and a professor of politics at Princeton University
The Guardian
16-07-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
America's famed ‘checks-and-balances' governance system is failing
It has been said many times, but saying it appears to have no consequences: our system of checks and balances is failing. The US supreme court allowing the president effectively to abolish the Department of Education only reinforces this sense; Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, explicitly wrote that 'the threat to our Constitution's separation of powers is grave' – but she did not explain how to counter the threat. The picture is complicated by the fact that what critics call 'the stranglehold the checks and balances narrative on the American political imagination' has prevented positive democratic change. Hence it is crucial to understand where the separation of powers itself needs to be kept in check and where it can play a democracy-reinforcing role. Most important, we need counterstrategies against the Trumpists' usurpation of what should remain separate powers. While pious talk of the founders' genius in establishing 'checks and balances' is part of US civil religion and constitutional folklore, the system in fact never functioned quite as intended. The framers had assumed that individuals would jealously guard the rights of the branches they occupied. Instead, the very thing that the founders dreaded as dangerous 'factions' – what we call political parties – emerged already by the end of the 18th century; and thereby also arose the possibility of unified party government. The other unexpected development was the increasing power of the presidency; the founders had always seen the legislature as the potential source of tyranny; instead, the second half of the 20th century saw the consolidation of an 'imperial presidency', whose powers have steadily increased as a result of various real (and often imagined) emergencies. Some jurists even blessed this development, going back to Hamilton's call for an energetic executive, and trusting that public opinion, rather than Congress or the courts, would prove an effective check on an otherwise 'unbound executive'. The dangers posed by unified party control and a strong presidency were long mitigated by the relative heterogeneity of parties in the US; internal dissent meant that Congress would often thwart an executive's agenda. Less obviously, Congress's creation of largely independent agencies, acting on the basis of expertise, as well as inspectors general within the executive itself established an internal system of checks. It also remains true, though, that, compared with democracies such as Germany and the UK, an opposition party in the US does not have many rights (such as chairing committees) or ways of holding a chief executive accountable (just imagine if Trump had to face a weekly prime minister's question time, rather than sycophantic Fox hosts). Most important, though, the executive itself tended to respect the powers of other branches. But Trump: not so much. In line with his governance model, of doing something plainly illegal and then seeing what happens, Trump is usurping powers reserved for the legislature. He uses money as he sees fit, not as Congress intended; he, not Congress, decides which departments are necessary. The tariff madness could be over if Congress called the bluff on a supposed 'emergency' which justifies Trump's capricious conduct of slapping countries with apparently random levies. The most egregious example is his recent threat vis-à-vis Brazil which has nothing to with trade deficits, but is meant to help his ideological ally, former president Jair Bolsonaro, escape a criminal trial for a coup attempt. Trump is also destroying the internal checks within the executive. Inspectors general have been fired; independent agencies are made subservient to the president – in line with the theory of a 'unified executive' long promoted by conservative jurists. The US supreme court, occupied to 67% by Maga has been blessing every power grab. As the legal scholar Steve Vladeck noted, the court has granted Trump relief in every single emergency application since early April, with seven decisions – like this week's on the Department of Education – coming with no explanation at all. If this were happening in other countries, one would plainly speak of a captured court, that is to say: one subordinated to the governing party. As commentators have pointed out, it is inconceivable that this court would simply rubber-stamp a decision by a President Mamdani to fire almost everyone at the Department of Homeland Security. Still, the main culprit is the Republican party in Congress. There is simply no credible version of 'conservatism' that justifies Trump's total concentration of power; and anyone with an ounce of understanding of the constitution would recognize the daily violations. This case can be made without buying into the separation of powers narrative criticized by the left (though what they aim at is less the existence of checks as such, but the empowerment of rural minorities in the Senate and the proliferation of veto points in the political system, such that powerful private interests can stop popular legislation). Paradoxically, Democrats should probably make Congress even more dysfunctional than it already is: use every procedural means to grind business to a halt and explain to the public that – completely contrary to the founders' anxieties – the emasculation of the legislature is causing democracy's demise (it never hurts to slip in such gendered language to provoke the Republican masculinists). Of course, one might question what role public opinion can really play as a check, and whether there's still such a thing at all given our fragmented media world: it never constrained the George W Bush administration's 'global war on terror' in the way that Hamilton's self-declared disciples had hoped. But it's still the best bet. After all, there is a reason why some jurists see 'we the people' as the fourth branch that ultimately makes the difference. Jan-Werner Müller is a Guardian US columnist and a professor of politics at Princeton University
Free Malaysia Today
11-07-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Abang Jo's govt has own checks and balances, says Sarawak minister
Only two assemblymen sit in the Sarawak state assembly's opposition bench—DAP's Chong Chieng Jen (Pandungan) and Violent Yong (Pending). (Bernama pic) KUCHING : A Sarawak minister has assured that Abang Johari Openg's state administration maintains adequate checks and balances despite concerns about the lack of a strong opposition in the state assembly. State tourism, creative industry and performing arts minister Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah said the Sarawak government is taking active steps to promote transparency and accountability, despite ruling coalition Gabungan Parti Sarawak holding a super majority in the state assembly. 'Checks and balances are at the core (of the administration),' he told FMT in an interview. Only two of 82 state assemblymen sit as opposition members in the state assembly—Chong Chieng Jen (Pandungan) and Violent Yong (Pending), both of DAP. Karim, also the Parti Pesaka Bumiputera Bersatu's information chief, said Sarawak has various mechanisms to monitor government integrity, including an ombudsman unit, reputed to be the only unit in the country. He, however, refused to be drawn into a discussion about allegations of widespread cronyism and abuse of power dating back to the era of former Sarawak chief minister Abdul Taib Mahmud. 'Taib's era is over,' he said in reply. He said those involved in any wrongdoing should be held accountable, but added that it was up to enforcement agencies to take action. Better quality assemblymen Abdul Karim Rahman Hamzah. Karim said the state assembly has evolved in terms of quality and maturity, with backbenchers playing a vital role in keeping the government in check. He said that in the past those who stood in elections were 'not really academically qualified', but a majority of the state's current assemblymen comprised doctors, lawyers and graduates in other fields. Karim, a lawyer, said today's elected representatives were more inclined to challenge authority, breaking from past norms of unquestioning loyalty. 'Through the years, I have observed, that they are becoming more vocal. You don't see (them) supporting (a policy) blindly,' the Asajaya assemblyman, first elected in 2001, said. Karim added that although there were only two opposition members in the 82-seat assembly, the backbenchers understood their role and would speak up when necessary. 'It might be different, but these backbenchers know when they need to criticise.' From logging to green development Karim said the state has turned its focus to sustainable development and clean energy, moving away from environmentally harmful practices like logging. 'I believe (we're heading) in the right direction. We have moved away from not very good industries like logging. Now, we are protective of our forest. The state government is moving into clean energy and away from fossil (fuels).' He cited the Rainforest World Music Festival, which has run for over two decades, as an example of eco-conscious initiatives in the state, as well as the decision to ban the sale of turtle eggs in markets. Karim also said Sarawak has made significant strides in sanitation and waste disposal since the 1970s. He said the era of 'flying toilets'—which saw people use plastic bags to collect and discard excreta into the river—is now over, thanks to the installation of proper sanitation facilities. 'That means there has been success in changing the mindset of people.' On urban planning, he said Kuching was expanding horizontally rather than through high-rise development, pointing to the fact that there are no high-rise buildings in the capital.
Free Malaysia Today
10-07-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Don't politicise appointment of top judges, says palace
Istana Negara said the appointment of top judges is an important national matter that must be handled carefully. PETALING JAYA : Istana Negara has urged all parties against politicising the appointment of judges to top judicial positions, following complaints by some over delays in the appointments. In a statement, the palace said the appointment of top judges is an important national matter that must be handled carefully, with integrity and in line with the Federal Constitution. It said Article 122B of the Federal Constitution clearly states that these appointments are made by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the advice of the prime minister. 'This clearly reflects the principle of checks and balances within the country's judicial system,' it said in a statement. Istana Negara said the Judicial Appointments Commission Act 2009 only outlined the process of selecting candidates for judicial appointments, while the authority to advise the king was solely the prime minister's. 'Appointments under the Federal Constitution must be handled lawfully so that the exercise of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong's powers is not politicised by anyone.' Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli and several other PKR MPs had called for a royal commission of inquiry (RCI) and a parliamentary committee hearing following the delays in the appointment of top judicial positions, including that of the chief justice. Chief Judge of Malaya Hasnah Hashim is serving as acting chief justice following the retirement of Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat. Federal Court judge Zabariah Yusof meanwhile is the acting Court of Appeal president after Abang Iskandar Abang Hashim's retirement last week. The Attorney-General's Chambers previously rebuffed Rafizi's call for an RCI, saying the matter was proceeding in accordance with the Federal Constitution, and that any suggestion of a crisis was unfounded.
