Thank you for joining us today. I have been a scholar here for almost 20 years. To summarize the overall argument and the theme of the book. And to secure the benefits of that energetics successor and describe the overall argument in the book. That is great writing. Thats a fair summary on the book when trump ran for president 2016 i was wary of him. He wasnt my first pack and one reason is because he is a populist land the constitution fears populist if you think of them like fdr or Andrew Jackson people who think they have the popular will behind them in the constitution is seen as an obstacle clearly to people like fdr so you thought trump would come into the office and find the constitution an obstacle to what he wanted to do but the last in half and four years of what i have seen is the opponents went to change constitutional changes like the Electoral College so between nine and 16 members that would be terrible for Judicial Independence for the rule of law. They dont want to support those special councils of the partisan and then jim comey decides with Global Warming. And a surprising defender the constitution and the institutions. And with those constitutional powers of which he has been so accuse so often so jumping to chapter two and to faithfully execute it what that means for President Trumps relationship and the conflict with james comey. And protecting the country and National Security and to enforce the law that was a very definition of tyranny. So one way i understand the Mueller Investigation it was almost a revolt of the Law Enforcement bureaucracy. Is also in the Justice Department that the revolt was the Headquarters Staff that jim comey ultimately against the elected leadership of the country and the person the American People chose to be in charge the constitution says that under that system President Trump has the right not just to fire jim comey been anyone involved because the Supreme Court has long said all those people are assistance to the president to perform his constitutional responsibility to take care that a lot of faithfully executed. And then to restore the traditional executive control of Law Enforcement because they all have to help the president to those that think the president should not be in full control of Law Enforcement and then to have the prosecutorial power scattered around a variety of offices. And with the independent counsel sometimes wolf comes to strike in sheeps clothing but this time it is disguised as a wolf. And the independent counsel also represents the pinnacle and the idea it was really interested in these issues. And the Public Policy questions was not about politics managerial issues. Even and prosecutions up to the experts. And the expert witness. And with direct quick political control that the founders of that have accepted that there were elected president that is in charge of Law Enforcement and call him responsible or accountable. If you have questions to submit for the q a portion and send them by email to the Program Director from social and constitutional studies. So on that point you were just elaborating thats a theme that doesnt just run to your discussion on Law Enforcement but then on the broader questions of bureaucracy and the president with the state department and conflicts with the National Intelligence apparatus and so on. Is not just limited to Law Enforcement bad broader challenge and the bureaucracy he is elected to lead. Not just trump fighting to win his battles that the conflict between two different versions of government and trump even he doesnt realize he is doing it but his own selfinterest causes him to bring us back to that limited idea of the government that they would be separate and not constantly fighting. And mike and they get over the separation of powers by creating this Administrative State . And with those expertise constantly be creating new laws. And with the 18 century the constitution trump interestingly and the they tried to channel the rational selfinterest and then to counteract transition. And then by that constant struggle more effectively than the bill of rights and the courts and that space that is left without government consumer individual liberties. So by channeling his interest like the free market and other h century idea from the 18 seventies. No president is supposed to be a constitutional scholar. And then you have the president when the ambition is channeled through the office the same way as the ambitions and members of congress are channeled into their offices. And thats the institutional values and those how they are achieved. The president s power to reverse thats where they have vast powers not just in the constitution but the panoply of statutes delegated powers to the administration over one century or more. The president is in a consequential policymaking position and therefore leave maximum space reach president to move forward after an election and reverse policies of the Previous Administration you write about that were both rich and how that has bumped up against the courts and that administration so tell us how thats to the Trump Administration. Thats a great point. But trying to explain one of the real limitations on the presidency but also the president s power is you dont think of it that way. When Congress Wants to repeal a law the Supreme Court once the decisions are reversed by others so to ask how does the president change policy . He just reverses what the last president did in the same way to issue an executive order or fire somebody a lot of the powers have to do with reversing what the last president did but then with trump it seems he really likes to use those powers his favorite headline is your fired. That is a reversal of the joint decision of the president in the senate he has terminated treaties pulled us out of the iran deal and the Global Warming accord and pulling us out and becoming somewhat obsolete the bilateral arms control treaties with soviet union and russia and you could say trumps favorite executive power of course to pardon but its interesting because i wouldve thought this would have been the obvious aspect of the executive power but the Supreme Court three weeks ago , i was astounded. They said no actually the president does have the immediate reversal power. I actually think doctor as a policy idea is a good idea but Immigration Law is under control of Congress Congress did not create the category of the dreamers with her parents to stay in the country the president has the power to execute so now to say will create a program just by not enforcing Immigration Law between anywhere in two and 6 Million People it seems President Trump has the power of reversal. What was remarkable the Supreme Court said you have to follow the administrative procedure act that could take between one and four years to undo president obamas decision even if he didnt use that. So one thing i have been asking and i started asking this in 2012 when obama issued that if its not in power of enforcement of the Supreme Court believes what it says then think of what President Trump can do it will take his successor two or three years he could radically change Immigration Law to say i will not force it against Computer Science or mathematics or for those who bring billions of dollars to american businesses. Just create his own daca program replace children or parents of children with stemmed agree or skills. I think the Supreme Court is wrong but i dont know why there has to be a constitutional law president ial power to limits trump although the Supreme Court should have a completely different will that only benefits other president s. Your argument comes back to the take care clause at one point he wrote the book before the court decided that case. But you wrote it with an eye to the case knowing it was on its way. Its not be the case they can force the president to continue to enforce the policies he believes to be and in fact is unconstitutional. So it is an argument from president ial duty empower. That is the Biggest Issue even behind daca. But one thing that unifies the Roberts Court is the judicial supremacy it knows of the constitution means in its view is superior to that of the president or congress this would come as a shock to the founders if you look at the beginnings of the country. The president and congress resolve the major constitutional issues in the beginning. Not the Supreme Court. Think of the result of daca the president comes to office immediately says its unconstitutional. Is up to congress. He should say i will not enforce this on constitutional policy. Thats the only reason i need to and daca and now you can see the Supreme Court has ordered President Trump to keep enforcing and unconstitutional policy even the lower courts found it unconstitutional. It is quite remarkable with yet another example of the seizure of the political branches of their right to interpret the constitution. Its not partisan or conservative or liberal. All justices do this. I read a little bit after the book was coming out and you wrote more about in National Review but this seemed a consequence of the administrative procedure act which in and of itself is a broad overlay on executive power which raises challenging questions about the extent to which congress can legislate procedures or the course can enforce those legislative procedures. The way you describe this conflict between the Trump Administration and the Roberts Court, that brings me back to the earlier point of the branches having ambition and checks and balances, how do these play out with the ambitious president bumping up against an ambitious court . Its interesting this divides trumps critics that say the answer is add 60 justices to the court which i think would do a lot to undermine traditional rule of law and a proposal rejected famously when fdr tried to pack the court he failed on that but succeeded in his goal causing the court to switch course. What trump has been doing is the traditional approach gradually trying to change the direction of the court by putting new judges on he didnt say expanded to 11 or 12 people he just wants to replace the vacancies occurring with bread corset on Brent Cavanagh and Justice Gorsuch those who shared his ideology and its a remarkable thing President Trump is the first to issue a list of names and say i will only pick from this list of names and then to delegate that power to come up with the list to wellknown conservative groups like the Heritage Foundation and the federalist society. I dont know how he got shut out of that at aa one aei. He wanted to show a commitment to judicial ideology. But sometimes that goes unnoticed by the American People and with those originalists. Lawyers or judges who share based on the original understanding. So yes trump has had conflicts but he hasnt tried to do anything radical. At least since nixon if not the for it in the direction that he was and congress and the senate dont have to confirm any of these nominees but trump is at the benefit of republicans senate. This is a point you go in detail the way trump has a legacy with the judges he has appointed. Many are very young in a legacy to transform Supreme Court politics through the list not just saying judges like scalia or thomas but what comes to the Supreme Court nomination. Its interesting to see if the Current Campaign tries something similar or the future republican nominees do. Its not without cost . Against her to see on the certainty but it does create interesting Politics Around the list may be a temptation and for judges to get themselves on the list or other people on the list what is the longterm future for the Supreme Court list . The downside is you could treat judges like legislation was certain outcomes and then appoint people feel a certain way. And then we vote for people and there are plenty of people who say they will never vote for someone whos not in favor of roe v wade. We dont want judicial appointments as a bundled outcomes but that will interpret the law. But really the upside was because the unique nature. People forget how worried congress was him winning the nomination 21 25 percent of the people voted him only because of the Supreme Court issue. There was an open position the first a lot of conservatives who trusted senator cruise that he had to make that public commitment because he needed to show on those judicial issues. It might not be the case that you need a future candidate to have a history of to do Something Like that again i dont know if its good practice. Here is the short list the secretary of defense. Im not so sure thats a good idea because they need that flexibility. Turning into a coalition government. To say i wouldnt support you but secretary of education or something and that presidency the way we see. We expect the senate to play some sort of role as a silent check in the background. I suppose you want a president who comes to office with most of his big appointments with advice and consent be on the ballot box but there is something to be said making it clear what your administration will look like. George w. Bush not just knowing that colon powell is likely to be secretary of state is no small thing that had no experience on the global stage. I digress. And the clash of almost unlimited powers each has within itself powers that are not easy to check or that can have a big impact before they are checked he saw that with the house with impeachment and the house ability to impeach a president is pretty openended to have respect to pardons and commutations and so on. We touched on this in our discussion the prosecutorial discretion. How do we think of those powers without any real checks and balances how would be at the end of his term like every other president ial term . There are powers inherent they did not get any other outside branch a role. The judiciarys power for who wins or loses a case. And how to protect the National Security. And for the constitution to save us and to distribute and allocate those powers that then for example after the commutation of roger stone, nancy Pelosi Said Congress will pass a law to make sure that can happen in the future. Thats not possible. Congress cannot limit the power in that way the Supreme Court said so seven times before. So what is the limit on abuse . Dont you say president ial power is subject to impeachment cracks the president can be removed if the house and senate agree preventing that from becoming a partisan into all the framers that the removal bar very high at two thirds. Look at the founding debates they expected check on this abuse of power of politics. Talking about this reform policy President Trump reduces the troop presence in germany. And congress cannot command the troops that use their own constitutional powers and to set the size of the military incapability. Thats of the founder expected the Supreme Court which is everybodys preference. To say food gets to decide where they will be stationed. Going back to the madisonian idea of the branches checking each other with a greater balance has to be each power that has been given against each other to pursue their interest. They might fight and check each other but it isnt with correct and clear constitutional we say the supreme course one the Supreme Court will decide everything in the constitution will save us so thats why i argue trump is bringing us back with that original understanding to try to fight. And a lot of those powers they are subject to reversal the president has the power to reverse but there is a natural limitation the possibility of being reversed. And then to sort themselves out over time. Look at audience questions and if you minutes. You say in the closing part of the book with the eye toward the upcoming election that to make the case for another term the president has to use the constitution to advance is positive agenda looking ahead it can promote the affirmative policy agenda. Should of the book that trump uses that as a way to protect himself. One from the pandemic is the rejuvenation of t