This is a Factual Question.
During the Trump Administration, quite a lot of things that were “norms” but not “laws” were said to have been violated.
Between 2020 and today, has Congress passed any Acts that would clean any of this?
I’m aware of the Electoral Count Reform Act. Are there any others?
Near the end of his first term Trump issued an executive order referred to as Schedule F. In it he wanted to re-designate civil servants (most of the people working for the government) as political appointees. Civil servants have some job protections. Political appointees have none and can be fired at whim.
President Biden rescinded it shortly after he became president and then the Office of Personnel Management issued a rule that the president cannot reclassify government employees for an arbitrary reason.
Trump will likely ignore that, make a new rule or go to court over it if he has to (which he likely would win).
ETA: For the congress side of the OP I believe Trump’s move would violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) codified in 5 U.S.C. §§ 551–559. (Not 100% sure about that though…I read about this recently but can’t find it now so…grain of salt.)
Since the election I’ve received political call-to-action texts about something called the “No Kings Act” that the Ds are trying to get through Congress right now.
I know nothing else about it, but that name ought to give enough to Google with. And also ought to give every sane American pause that sensible pols are naming an act that.
It appears to be a legislative attempt to nullify Trump v. US, I.e. “the presidential immunity ruling”.
Well-intentioned. Probably not going to pass, because the Democratic leadership is more interested in norms and decorum than preserving democracy. Not sure it would stand up in court anyway.
Hard to imagine how an act of congress would override something that’s been justified with the constitution.
I’m surprised that there have been no calls for constitutional amendments to rescind that immunity. If like the two-term-limit amendment it contained language that it only applies to future presidents, I would imagine even Republican legislatures would be OK with that too. (More of a longer term solution)
I’m sure there are other issues to address, such as requiring the senate to address all presidential nominees within the same session, that may have a harder time passing.
Probably not going to pass, whatever the Democratic leadership does, because the Republicans control the House.
Have you looked at the process for passing a constitutional amendment?
Do you think there’s a hope in hell to get such a thing passed in the current state of the country?
That process is the only thing standing between us and a third Trump term. Other than KFC and hamberders.
In which case we’re screwed. Because there’s no way that process will work right now, or any time during at least the last decade; and there’s no sense in the world for blaming the Democrats for not doing the impossible.
It’s been a very long time since an amendment passed Congress - the last was the 26th (lowering voting age to 18) which was proposed by congress and ratified by the states in 1971.
The 27th Amendment (laws affecting Congressional salaries cannot take effect until the next Congress) was ratified in 1992 but had been proposed in 1789 along with the amendments which became the Bill of Rights. Did not require modern Congress to approve.
Ahem.
The first significant measure that comes to my mind that passed in these past 4 years and is related to preventing repeats of things from the first term is the 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act, that tightens the EV count process to reduce instances of fake-elector slates, make it less easy for votes to be objected, and reiterate the VP’s role is to certify the count is right as recorded, not to prevent or change how it’s being recorded.
Probably not going to pass as the House has a GOP majority.
Right.
It might be an interesting topic, but I was thinking the other day that we’ll probably never see a constitutional amendment in our lifetime. When was the last generation of Americans that never saw an amendment?
Speak for yourself. Four amendments (23rd-26th) have been proposed and ratified in my lifetime, although I only (barely) aware of the 26th at the time it was ratified.
There were two amendments proposed but not ratified: the Equal Rights Amendment (I certainly remember that acrimonious debate over that one) and the DC Voting Rights Amendment (can you imagine such an amendment giving DC two senators getting out of congress today?).
If we go by proposal date (when Congress passes the amendment) of successful amendments (that lets us ignore the 27th Amendment, which in the grand scheme of things is relative trivial) then it has been 52 years since the 26th Amendment. It was almost 64 years between the 12th and the 13th amendments, so certainly a lot of people back then didn’t see an amendment in their lifetime.
So yeah, you guys who haven’t been alive for a successful amendment get the hell off my lawn.
More factually to the OP, I don’t believe any actual put-a-leash-on-the-President legislation was moved forward. The razor-thin Senate majority prevented that in the 117th Congress (filibuster) and split houses definitely did so in the 118th.
So things like preventing a return of Schedule F or putting limits on who can be appointed to what, etc. just lingered.
(I notice a number of Republicans had been pitching legislation to tighten down on how National Emergency Declarations work, and requiring explicit congressional approval past a certain duration (it even got some D cosponsors) and it has gone nowhere.)
To be fair, the Dems really did not have a majority in reality, given Manchin’s and Sinema’s obtuseness. They would not have been able to rescind the Senate filibuster if they tried.
The current house is right back where they started in 2022, possibly more split. Gaetz has resigned now (when they had 218 and leading in 2) and several others (although also safe Republican seats) are tapped for cabinet positions, so the house should be pretty shakey for a while. (How long does a special election take? When does a nominated cabinet minister have to resign?)
As I said, like the amnedment limiting Presidential terms (which dd not apply to the sitting president at the time) I would expect any amendment rescinding immunity to pass if it excluded the current president. After all, Republican states have as much to fear if a Democrat gets in charge of Seal Team 6. I doubt any other Republican after him can claim a following invoking fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, an almost fanatical devotion to the president.
A few election cycles ago, I’d have agreed with you.
But I suspect that now they figure they’re never going to let a Democrat win again; and they’re going to want immunity for whoever Trump appoints as his successor – or Trump will demand they vote against it, because all Trump cares about is his lifetime and he’s expecting to manage to stay in the presidency for at least a third term.
It could be far worse, since iirc trump was talking about pulling another two House members for his cabinet, etc, and so their current 2 seat (likely 4 seat ) edge will be down to 1 seat.