Mac will john, thank you for taking this opportunity to discuss your new book. I am delighted by the opportunity to have some questions about it. I reddit a few days ago. Had a little bit of time to prepare for this interview. I want to start because he wrote a peace in 2017 that unloaded pretty strong on President Trump for various overreaches for the exercise of executive powers. Now youre presenting him as a defender of the traditional Constitution Order regarding president ial powers. I want to ask you what changed your view . How did you move from where you were before to what you have presented in your new book . Guest thanks for inviting me to it come on with you. And really looking forward to this conversation. As you know ive been an admirer of your work on executive privilege, this should be a lot of fun. I started out wary of President Trump. I was not a supporter of his and the 2016 election. And the thing that worried me as he was a populist. In the constitution seems designed to stop populists. Its barely antidemocratic in natures in ways like the senat senate, the judicial review in the Electoral College by the presence of the states is an important part of the constitution. So i was worried when trump came in as a populist who wants to achieve and agenda that he feels he received a mandate for the strain against or even go beyond the constitutional restraints of his power. And i was worried at the beginning he was doing that with things like the travel ban, threats to build a border wall without congressional approval. And in my early peace i urge them to try to use president ial powers primarily for National Security and foreign to fan a jet affairs at their height. In in Domestic Affairs his role was to enforce the law work with congress get legislation passed. I think what happened since 2016 to today. I found his critics have become the ones who i think of gone too far in trying to stretch the constitution. Because i think trump is so array just and they have it launched attack after attack on his legitimacy. Trumps critics for example have talked about getting rid of the Electoral College. Who have talked about packing the Supreme Court. Who wanted to return us to a world with permanent statutory protected independent councils. Which criminalize our politics. I think that has less trump is using the constitution more as a shield. Hes using the constitution to pursue his own self interest. But that leaves the field of relying on more traditional interpretations of the constitution. So either intentionally or unintentionally he has become more of the defender of the traditional constitution. With a number of topics you cover hear from pardons, executive orders, the border wall, the impeachment process i want to try to go through some of these and get your take on the president s exercise of executive authority in these areas. I with impeachment the present did not yield he did not apologize but you also dont hold him blameless for how he handled the controversy of phone call for the ukraine matter altogether. With his defensive constitutionalism if hes defending his constitution in a situation that never should have happened in the first place. I think he does in the sense that it reaffirms at least in my mind how the constitution intends us to feel with executive misconduct or abuse of power. And even though as you save may beat trump created the problem in the first place by his unconventional approach to Foreign Policy or even as some people claim his admixture of the Public Interest with his own private political interests, the deeper constitutional question i thought was how does the constitution try to constrain executives . And i thought it really does it in two ways. The election process i think is foremost in terms of the framers in view how you constrain an executive. And you elects congressional majorities to oppose him. And you eventually get him out of office. I thought the mistake that occurred here was the impeachment was being used for activity which fell short of the constitutional standard. I am not one, as i explain i am not when he thanks impeachment requires a crime. I think high crimes and misdemeanors does include abuse of executive power. But it has to be a serious one. And it seems to me the kinds of accusations that were being levied against President Trump are really designed for the electoral process. It wasnt one of those serious levels of treason or sears entrance series bribery the kind where the king of france had been paying off the king of england during the 17th century bird thats what the framers had in mind. I think you can see that in the founders requirement that the senate get to two thirds before it actually would remove a president. Even though it put impeachment in the hands of a simple majority of wanting to make it difficult to remove a president through impeachment. And that would then funnel the kinds of fighting we saw take place people should be funneled into the electoral process. Let me go back deeper into some of the circumstances that led to that. The president likes to talk a lot about the deep state of officials when you give him some defense of the book. Did not accept the legitimacy of the 2016 election. And in the president s view, they have acted to try to undermine a duly elected president. I asked that you address the complicated issue of the royalties of people who swore an oath to the constitution not to the branch of government or to the president. And have an obligation to honor that oath by bringing to the attention of authorities whether its internal oversight or committees in congress, potentially illegal or unethical behavior. I think this issues arises twice, not just impeachment but also the russian collision investigation. On raises a deeper philosophical fear about government. Again i am not claiming trump is thinking deeply about political theory. Think the pursuit of his rational self interest hes advancing the greater constitutional good which is more tied to the 18th century constitution. This is what he described against it away whether its the fbi, jim comey, that staff, or members of the Foreign Service and the permanent National Security council staff, i dont think of it as a deep state of think the phrase actually comes from turkey, the turkish bureaucracy. Think of it more as a progressive era bureaucracy. Most are technical or scientific or professional. And they want to delegate power of those decisions to the experts. You want to insulate them but reduce. This is very much Woodrow Wilsons thought and had a great impact when see that in the fbi trump i think embodies more to be the 18th century of what the executive branch is about. He is the only one charged with executive power enforcing the laws. Everyone in the executive branch sits enforcing the laws, are doing it about the president. The bureaucracy is responsive to the president many to hold him accountable for her accountable through politics. What happened in the impeachment and the russian collusion you have the permanent experts for Foreign Service. The fbi the president was unfit for office its unfit, its not really their job. And congress doesnt have the right and of course theyre going to gather some math i dont think impeachment was off i dont think in patient would run other than people think oh the president misused his powers prayed a lot of those witnesses would be from the executive branch. May its a standard the house and some members were using as high and misdemeanors were not high enough. While those with impeachment were much more appropriate for oversight hearings, write out for spending cuts, the usual tools that congress uses to fight with the executive branch prayed and ultimately putting it before the voters. So we will do this november. That will be when we vote this november. I think that is the better solution. When you talk a lot about executive power and prerogatives and trump defending party want to go to some of the different powers of presidency here. Starting with executive orders , of course the president has the authority to reverse actions for earlier executive orders. But im just hundred signing executive orders president ial leadership . We have a President Joe Biden next year i would guess hes going to reverse a really large number of executive orders. Is there more of a legacy for a president to engage in a traditional process of negotiation, building consensus, eating compromise with congress has a greater deal of permanency rather than just issuing willynilly large numbers of executive orders and saying i did a lot of things . I think that is a great point, mark. The book approach in exactly the way you did i think thats quite right. Guess the way i think of it was at the president has this power of reversal. I think that was something new he can do unilaterally. What they can do reversing with alaska did with the last woman did. Its interesting, you are quite right if the president only operates executive orders, his leaving his accomplishments with reversals with the new president coming in. Only to affect statutory change to give it a kind of long Lasting Legacy impermanence. So i quite agree with you. Yes President Trump, naturally there going to turn to executive orders so long as the constitution says prayed so long as the president s have that power to quickly and immediately reverse any use of unilateral power by the predecessors. With the deck cases surprise me a book i thought it would come out the other way and then i went through all the implications that would occur if they didnt allow President Trump to reverse the doctoral program. Lets take a contemporary look at this issue. Can the president issued an executive order to prohibit evictions as he said recently . That he might like to do even though it was congress that approved a temporary moratorium. But that be an appropriate use of an executive order . Or should the president simply work through the lawmaking process here as well . Let me add to that tik tok. Can the president issue in executive order banning tik tok . [laughter] sure lots of parents want the president to have that power. [laughter] whats really interesting. I think this power that president obama creates in daca for the first time its like creating by not fully enforcing the law. Those programs that has its limits. I havent cited that closely. By restraining its own processor torys going to affect people. It is going to be any kind of addiction, waivers at the federal government is expanding its power by i dont know taxing spending for conditional spending when the states except pandemic relief money. But it is not the same thing. Also i would say that tik tok, that to me is more the traditional use of the executive orders that come. Either in use of inherited executive power. They can also be, and the more common executive order is the execution of some delegated power from congress. As you know, congress has given a huge amount of power to the executive branch to regulate International Economics for National Security reasons. Already i believe there have been National Emergencies declared for sanctions purposes declared china and businesses, a lot of the companies investigation by the fbi. So President Trump fans tik tok, that actually teaming seems constitutionally straightforward is just an exercise of that 1977 law that gives Congress Gave the president to sanction national companies, transactions for national securities. If the president , President Trump or tried to do unilaterally without any congressional, though be very difficult question. I dont think without congress the the president has sanction power. Let me turn to another contemporary issue. And to be fair to the authorized no, you are not writing during a pandemic like with all books, was published in late july. I was looking at citations i think the last was cited in february of this year. Guest guilty as charged. There is some lag time there. But i think its a good topic to bring up with regard to the exercise of executive power, right . Because this is absolutely the biggest challenge of president ial leadership of our time. None of us expected this challenge. The challenges at home dont seem toward the unprecedented. When that is what happiness particular case. It came from abroad. Will yeah. So it was it became a domestic crisis, right . The president has an obligation to establish that in this country. You had this before the pandemic so you did not have a chance for the manuscript to approach the president s leadership. But i went to ask you to apply it in a sense. You have defended trump as a strong and vigorous leader. Where was that leader during the outbreak when he said effectively, to the states youre on your own for the federal government is not a shipping. [inaudible] when the governors were pleading for some help getting protective equipment, and also in a new edition of this book you cannot ignore the pandemic as a new chapter. Right . Your president ial powers. What are you going to say and that next addition when you discuss the pandemic in this president s leadership . The chapter i wish i could have written after the deadline. Getting a manuscript in which wraps up nicely with the end of impeachment. During has presidency things keep happening it would consume a whole presidency over and over again. It is interesting. Is an odd thing people are criticizing trumper being a dictator, and there within a month people are saying where she doing more . I think its not really the separation of powers its a problem of federalism, constitution mrs. Where are may be gone along with my thesis is trump actually has been respecting federalism limits on his powers but even to his own political detriment. The populace and him im sure once to set closing dates and reopening dates. And want to set standards for social distancing. But the constitution doesnt give that power. The constitutions was limited enumerated powers. We have all along had the understanding that Public Health and safety is primarily a state and local issue. In the federal government can come in as support. But the frontline, trench warfare of it fighting a pandemic or a disorder is always going to be a city, state, local authorities. So the government has been doing what its supposed to do it can provide money to the states. I can provide equipment and personnel and resources. I can fund a vaccine, it can Fund Technical research, it can spread information. But the federal government doesnt really have the people. Doesnt really have the actual mechanisms of government to take care of a nationwide pandemic. You think about how many people do they even have . How could they enforce a pandemic social distancing system . The entire fbi, entire workforce is smaller than the new york police department. The real agencies of government, the real arm of public power in this kind of spread pandemic has to come from the state and local. Think the president who is not conscious of the constitutional limits of the power would try to go beyond that. To his political detriment is stayed within his boundaries. Is it a fair question to ask can you imagine fdr in a situation like this, this is for the states. We are not a shipping clerk. I think thats a bother so many people. They expect the president to be big and powerful and authoritative. And how difficult is it to say wear a mask . [laughter] which is what he couldve done. Misses why the founders created the presidency. Why even have an independent executive branch . Why not have a westminster parliamentary system where the chief executive is really just the leader of the majority part party. Ththe president will be nancy pelosi right now. It is because they wanted a branch of the government to act quickly and swiftly in a time of emergency and unforeseen circumstances. So we expect president s to do that. Open gets easier to do that we have an enemy who is attacking or a natural disaster. Someplace where the president can either use their own constitutional powers or invoke legislation that provides that emergency power. But it seems to me, Something Like a pandemic is outside the grass with the national government. Is just too large of a problem. Too systematic. It is such a great social problem. It affects everybody. The cant really we could say please wear a mask. Please say socially distant. But he cant the president or the federal government can really create the law and enforce it. To make you wear a mask. Make estate 6 feet away from each of the paid maybe this is an indictment of the federal system itself . That we are not terribly well suited for handling this type of crisis. A look nonetheless at some of the other federal systems, germany and australia for example. Candidate were they done a lot better than we have. His or something inherent to the system but what is to the situation were in right now the pandemic . The president really was constraining the tools that he had available to solve the problem though it was solved in some other democracy. Biden or Hillary Clinton wouldve been all that different than what we have now. This because there is a restraint on the president and on the federal government. You raise really interesting point about comparing it to the performance of other federal systems. I think our system is a little different in that we have so many state governments. Germany and australia, they dont have 50 different state governments. But its also true image of kinda make a small argument about this and that trump is appointing justices to the bench a big believer in federalism twopart so he has been kind of put in pushing the federalism revolution thats been going on since reagan i think. You are right. I think the federal system as you point out is slow. If you figure out the right policies and why do you have to go through 56 to do it. I think the state system we will get the right answer right away. Are we to make affirmative mistake the traditional allows for experimentation, adaptation to local circumstances. The deeper constitutional with the federal system like ours is deeply suspicious of human nature. And it is not