Right. It’s the “any” and “hired in the last two terms” bit that’s worrysome. Dismissing people in a politically-appointed policymaking position or who are posted “at the pleasure of the president” is normal(*). Treating GS scale employment as “at will” is not. This is reversion to the 1800s. And a threat to the GS employees that he’ll demand unquestioning obedience to whatever order is issued no matter how wrong.
(*and what does he do with those who hold the posts for a fixed time term?)
Please don’t think for even a millisecond that I’m defending him or condoning his actions/words. I’m not, in any way, shape, or form. My main point was that replacing people from the old administration is nothing new.
What has he claimed he’d do about libel and abortion? ETA: Never mind. I didn’t see that the linked article in the OP covers this.
You had to dig up a dead horse so you could beat it? Obama himself wrote it off as fatigue like the day after he said it. Nobody who isn’t delusional thinks Obama really believes there are 57 states.
While I agree with the OP on most of these items, let’s keep in mind that presidential candidates routinely promise to do things beyond their constitutional authority. And as far as the abortion issue goes, Trump hasn’t actually proposed anything. He just said he thought women should be punished (which he later recanted and said it should just be the doctors). There are also several items in that article that rest on the idea that “implementing policy X would likely result in civil rights violations”. Perhaps. But that does not mean the policy itself, like mass deportations, is unconstitutional.
No. Treaties are “The law of the land.” A President can no more (legally) brush aside a treaty than he can fire the Vice President, arrest the Chief Justice, or have the Army fire tanks into the Capitol.
On the other hand, it’s been done. Ronald Reagan unilaterally dismissed U.S. obligations under the World Court treaty. Congress didn’t even hold hearings.