The Congress began to give up power to presidents long before Trump – The Mercury News

A few years ago, I drew a forgettable article on social networks referring to the “three co-equal branches” of the government. A friend – an intelligent journalist imbued with American political history – responded with a slight correction reminding me that the Congress was the “supreme branch”, suitable for his status of article I in the constitution of the United States.

It turns out that we both mistaken, although for slightly different reasons.

Since the beginning of the century, Congress has worked more and more as a quasi -enabled rather than an independent branch of the government – the legislative branch, to be precise. Rather than jealously keeping the distinct powers which are granted to them under the Constitution, members of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Democrat and Republican, almost, almost joyfully, give way to the executive branch whenever their party controls the White House.

This pre-long phenomenon predates the second mandate of President Donald Trump and to the current majority of GOP in accordance with Capitol Hill, although, to be clear, it certainly extends to the two (more about this in an instant.) Are there any exceptions? Of course. But on this subject, the exceptions prove the rule, explained Yuval Levin, director of social, cultural and constitutional studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative reflection group in Washington, DC

“The Party of the President at the Congress only works the Party of the President at the Congress, rather than in a part of the separate legislative branch,” said Levin in a telephone interview. “The opposition party works like the anti-president party at the Congress, and they don’t really work with each other in a separate way of the president’s agenda.”

In other words, the only time the legislators contest with a president who breaks their constitutional prerogatives, if not usurping them squarely, it is when it is the guy of the other party who makes counterfeiting and usurpation. Not very “supreme”. Not very “co-on” either. Perhaps “the subordinate branch” is a better way to describe the congress. (The judicial branch – Article III – is, like the presidents, not at all shy to exercise constitutional power.)

‘Separation of parts’

The fact that the legislative branch was found here is partly a product of the movements that the Democrats of the Congress made from the 1970s, and that the Republicans of the Congress continued in the 1990s, both under a divided government – with a party controlling the Congress and the other the White House – to strip the influential policy of their muscle and concentrate the political power of hands. In the House of Representatives, this led to the consolidation of power with the president and the Senate, with the majority leader. Basic legislators have been effectively sterilized. Ironically, this was done to thwart the executive power.

“The congress found itself because it was centralized, becoming just an actor of our presidential policy,” said Levin. Representatives and senators understand each other above all as criticisms or supporters of the president.

Levin continued: “The separation of the parties overwhelmed the separation of powers.”

With Trump, which extends the limits of the executive authority, the emphasis is renewed on how the members of the Congress power are disinterested.

The 45th and 47th president are occupied in dismantling or partially disassembling the government agencies created by the status of the congress. And yes, Trump threatens to ignore the “bag power” specifically reserved for the legislative branch, through a process known as restraint, under which he would simply refuse to spend money as authorized by law by the House of Representatives and the Senate. Burial in his blizzard of decrees, there are even more seizures of power at the expense of the congress.

But Trump is hardly the first president to push the limits of his prerogatives from Article II, and the Republicans of the Congress today are not unique in their desire to acquiesce.

Democrat Joe Biden did it; Remember his forgiveness program for unconstitutional student housing. Democrat Barack Obama did it; Remember his “pen and telephone” decision to grant a permanent residence to certain illegal immigrants. The Republican George W. Bush did it; Remember to have signed statements declaring that it would not apply the aspects of the legislation to which he opposed. And not once, the Democrats (in the case of Biden and Obama) or Republicans (in the case of Bush) did anything. Indeed, they have largely encouraged them, as is the case in some cases so far, a little more than two months after the second presidency of Trump.

Warning panels

Another manifestation of this trend: Congress has regularly struggled to accept public spending plans and generally adopts legislation that leaves details to bureaucrats and decision -makers in executive branch agencies, allowing elected representatives to avoid difficult decisions and political responsibility in the event of electoral buttress.

Yet another sign: the number of vetos in the White House has dropped over the years. Before this recent tendency to acquiescement the congress, Republican President Ronald Reagan delivered 78 Vetos during his eight years in mandate. While the trend met, Democratic President Bill Clinton opposed his veto 37 bills in two mandates. But the presidents with two Bush and Obama mandates each have its veto at only 12 years old. There was a slight increase in vetos issued by Trump during his first mandate (10) and by Biden (13), but nothing approaching the Reagan era.

“In a parliamentary system, the executive comes and is part of the legislative branch – no separation of powers and few checks and counterweights. It is essentially one rule by party, ”explains Jeff Brauer, professor of political science who teaches the comparative government at Keystone College.

The continuous abdication of the power of the congress should not end anytime soon.

Brauer stresses that voters “probably do not understand the subtleties or differences that distinguish the American system from parliamentary systems – and may not care.” Like their representatives and senators, they want a decline in the congress against the presidents they oppose. But they seem to prefer submission in the case of the presidents they support. In fact, it is this preference that discourages Democrats and Republicans from telling a president of their own “no” party when he exceeded.

Perhaps, an extended period of divided government could change things. Perhaps, even, the disillusionment at the Congress – which apparently exists, Tom Reynolds, a former republican member of the House of Representatives of Buffalo, NY, told me. “I speak to members all the time and I see frustration,” he said. However, the challenge of ensuring that the legislative power recovers its power, as Brauer, is that the legislators react to the perceived will of the voters.

This is something that Reynolds, who retired from Congress in 2009 and is now working in government relations, understands well. He was the head of campaign of his party, as president of the National Committee of the Republican Congress during the electoral cycles of 2004 and 2006. “Which added to this (problem of a subordinate legislative branch) is a very polarized base of both parties.”

David M. Drucker is a columnist of Bloomberg. © 2025 Bloomberg. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency.