Amanpour and Company

>>> NOW, FROM PULLING OUT OF THE PARIS CLIMATE AGREEMENT AND THE W.H.O., TO THOSE HARSH CRACKDOWNS ON IMMIGRATION, PRESIDENT TRUMP'S BARRAGE OF EXECUTIVE WORLDERS HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DRAMATICALLY CHANGE THE LIVES OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE.

SO, IT BEGS THE QUESTION, HOW MUCH POWER DOES A U.S. PRESIDENT ACTUALLY HAVE?

HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN SPEAKS TO HARI SREENIVASAN ABOUT SOME OF TRUMP'S FIRST ORDERS AND IF THEY'LL HOLD UP IF CHALLENGED IN COURT.

>> CHRISTIANE, THANK YOU.

PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.

PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTED TO KEEP A BUNCH OF HIS CAMPAIGN PROMISES, SOME OF THEM INCLUDED MAKING EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND REPEALING EXECUTIVE ORDERS, AND I THINK HE PUT OUT 46 DIFFERENT PRESIDENTIAL ACTIONS AND HE REPEALED DOZENS OF DIFFERENT EXECUTIVE ORDERS FROM PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS.

BUT BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SPECIFICS, U.S. TO SET THE TABLE FOR PEOPLE, WHAT IS THE SCOPE AND GRAVITY OF THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS?

WHAT DOES IT MEAN?

WHAT KIND OF POWER DOES IT HAVE?

>> TO BEGIN WITH, AND EXECUTIVE ORDER IS ANYTHING THE PRESIDENT TELLS THE PEOPLE WHO WORK FOR HIM TO DO.

AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT IT'S NOT A LAW, BECAUSE ONLY CONGRESS CAN PASS A LAW, AND THE PRESIDENT SIGNS IT.

AND IT DOESN'T USUALLY HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW, UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE HAS AUTHORIZED THE PRESIDENT TO IMPLEMENT THE LAW VIA EXECUTIVE ORDER, AND IT ALSO DOESN'T USUALLY FORCE ANYONE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO DO ANYTHING.

SO THAT'S THE LIMITATION OF AN EXECUTIVE ORDER.

AT THE SAME TIME, AN EXECUTIVE ORDER CAN BE A VERY EFFECTIVE WAY FOR A PRESIDENT TO SET OUT PRIORITIES, BY TELLING EVERYBODY WHO WORKS FOR THE PRESIDENT WHICH IS THE WHOLE OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, INCLUDING ALL OF THE AGENCIES, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT IMPLEMENTS LAWS, THAT THEY SHOULD APPROACH AND GIVEN PROBLEM IN A CERTAIN WAY, AND SO, IT CAN BE A HUGE IMPACT ON A PRESIDENT'S POLICIES.

AND THEN, A LOT OF SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE PRESIDENT IS EXERCISING POWER THAT HE HAS UNDER SOME LAW, THE EXECUTIVE ORDER TELLS YOU WHAT THE PRESIDENT'S GOING TO DO.

AND THAT CAN ALSO HAVE TRANSFORMATIONAL EFFECTS.

FOR EXAMPLE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS, I'M SURE IN THE CONTEXT OF CLIMATE.

>> SO, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE ONES THAT GIVE YOU THE MOST CONCERN.

I MEAN, WHICH -- WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL 46, BUT WHICH ONES ARE THE ONES THAT LEAP OFF THE PAGE TO YOU?

>> THERE'S A LOT TO CHOOSE FROM.

STARTING AT THE PLANETARY LEVEL, THE PRESIDENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT THE UNITED STATES WILL WITHDRAW FROM THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORDS IS OF GRAVE SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPORTANCE TO ME.

I'M VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE AFFECTS OF THAT ON GLOBAL WARMING.

AND IT COMES WITH A WHOLE SERIES OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS THAT ARE DIRECTED AT ENABLING AND FACILITATING MUCH MORE EXTRACTION OF FOSSIL FUEL RESOURCES, THAT IS TO SAY DRILLING, IN THE UNITED STATES.

AND THE CONCERN THERE ISN'T JUST FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WITH THE DRILLING, IT'S REALLY WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ENVIRONMENT WHEN THE FUELS ARE THEN BURNED.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WILL REALLY REVERSE A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF THE PROGRESS THAT'S BEEN MADE ON CLIMATE CHANGE.

AND I WOULD ADD TO THAT, AS WELL, AN EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT SAYS THAT THE INCENTIVES CREATED FOR PEOPLE TO BUY ELECTRIC VEHICLES ARE ALSO GOING TO BE ROLLED BACK.

SO, THAT'S AT THE LEVEL OF THE GLOBE AND I'M SAYING THAT ONLY BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS THE LARGEST NUMBER OF PEOPLE, AND WE CAN GO ONTO THE OTHER THINGS.

>> ONE OF THE CAMPAIGN PROMISES THAT HELPED GAIN SO MUCH SUPPORT FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP AMONG HIS SUPPORTERS AND VOTERS WAS ISSUES REGARDING THE SOUTHERN BORDER, IMMIGRATION, AND HE HAD EXECUTIVE ORDERS FOCUSED IN ON THAT.

AND I THINK ONE OF THEM WAS TITLED PROTECTING THE MEANING AND VALUE OF AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP, I MEAN, SO, HE WENT FROM ISSUES REGARDING THE SOUTHERN BORDER, ALL THE WAY INTO BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP.

OF THAT CATEGORY OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, WHICH ONES DO YOU THINK WILL, I GUESS, LAST?

BECAUSE MANY OF THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS LOOK LIKE THEY WILL BE COMING UNDER LEGAL CHALLENGE.

>> WELL, YOU PUT THEM INTO THREE BUCKETS.

ONE OF WHICH IS I THINK IS OVERWHELMINGLY LIKELY TO BE FOUND ILLEGAL.

ONE OF WHICH IS GOING TO BE FOUGHT IN COURT.

AND ONE OF WHICH WILL PROBABLY SURVIVE.

THE ONE THAT'S ALMOST CERTAINLY GOING TO BE FOUND ILLEGAL IS THE ORDER THAT PURPORTS TO SAY THAT IF YOU'RE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES, IF YOUR PARENTS ARE UNDOCUMENTED, YOU DON'T AUTOMATICALLY BECOME A CITIZEN.

AND THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT IT EXPLICITLY VIOLATES THE 14th AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION, WHICH SAYS, IF YOU'RE BORN IN THE UNITED STATES AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, YOU BECOME A CITIZEN.

SO, YOU MAY ASK, HOW IN THE WORLD CAN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TRY TO GO AGAINST THAT?

OBVIOUSLY, THE PRESIDENT DOESN'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CONTRADICT THE CONSTITUTION.

EVEN CONGRESS CAN'T CONTRADICT THE CONSTITUTION.

AND THE THEORY THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS ING UNDER IS A VERY CONVOLUTED THEORY.

JUST SO YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS, THOUGH IT'S WRONG, THE CLAIM IS THAT THE WORDS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES ONLY APPLY IF YOU'RE HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AS A CITIZEN YOURSELF, OR YOUR PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

NOW, THERE MIGHT BE SOME EDUCATIONS, LIKE, IF YOU'RE AN AMBASSADOR FROM A FOREIGN COUNTRY AND YOU HAVE DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY AND YOU HAVE A CHILD, MAYBE YOU AND YOUR CHILD AREN'T SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES, MAYBE.

BUT EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS HERE, WHETHER THEY'RE HERE ON A TOURIST VISA OR UNDOCUMENTED, IS SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

IF YOU COMMIT A CRIME, YOU'LL BE ARRESTED.

AND BUT THAT'S THE ARGUMENT THEY'RE GOING TO MOUNT.

ALREADY, A LAWSUIT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST IT BY ATTORNEYS GENERAL OF MANY STATES, AND THE COURTS WILL OVERWHELMINGLY STRIKE THAT DOWN.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE PRESIDENT DID WAS DECLARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF EMERGENCIES.

HE DECLARED A NATIONAL EMERGENCY AT THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THE UNITED STATES, HE DECLARED ANOTHER EMERGENCY DELIVERING EMERGENCY PRICE RELIEF FOR AMERICAN FAMILIES AND DEFEATING THE COST OF LIVING CRISIS, AND THEN DECLARING A NATIONAL ENERGY EMERGENCY.

SO, WHEN A PRESIDENT DECLARES AN EMERGENCY, WHAT DOES THAT KIND OF UNLOCK?

>> THERE ARE MANY LAWS PASSED BY CONGRESS THAT INCLUDE PROVISIONS THAT SAY, THE PRESIDENT IS ENTITLED TO DECLARE AN EMERGENCY UNDER SOME SET OF CONDITIONS, AND THAT WHEN THE PRESIDENT DOES THAT, HERE ARE THE EXTRA POWERS HE GETS.

SOMETIMES IT'S NEW MONEY, SOMETIMES IT'S MORE AUTHORITY TO MAKE DECISIONS.

AND THEN THERE ARE SOME MORE GENERAL TUTES THAT CONFER THIS IN A NONSPECIFIC WAY.

SO, THE -- UNFORTUNATE FACT IS THAT IT ALL DEPENDS ON THE SPE SIF STAKE CHUTE.

AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS THAT IN SOME INSTANCES, TRUMP WILL JUST BE INVOKING EMERGENCY POWERS THAT HE'S ENTITLED TO INVOKE.

WE CAN QUIBBLE ABOUT WHETHER THERE REALLY IS AN EMERGENCY, BUT THE STATUTES GIVES IT TO THE PRESIDENT TO DECIDE IF THERE IS AN EMERGENCY.

IN THOSE INSTANCES, THE PRESIDENT WILL HAVE EXPANDED POWERS.

SOMETIMES POWERS TO MAKE DECISIONS, POTENTIALLY EVEN TO DECLARE TARIFFS UNDER SOME OF THESE EMERGENCY POWERS PROVISIONS.

AND TO SPEND MONEY AND TO SOMETIMES EVEN DEPLOY TROOPS.

AND THEN, THERE ARE GOING TO BE OTHER SITUATIONS WHERE THE PRESIDENT PUSHES THE ENVELOPE, WHERE PRESIDENT TRUMP PUSHES THE ENVELOPE OF WHAT HE'S ALLOWED TO DO PURSUANT TO THOSE EMERGENCY POWERS.

FOR EXAMPLE, BY TRYING TO INVOKE EMERGENCY POWERS TO SPEND MONEY ON SOMETHING THAT CONGRESS HAS ALREADY TOLD HIM NOT TO SPEND MONEY ON.

HE TRIED TO DO THAT IN HIS FIRST ADMINISTRATION WITH RESPECT TO BUILDING A BORDER WALL, AND ULTIMATELY DIDN'T DO SO.

SO, I WOULD EXPECT SIMILAR PUSHING THE ENVELOPE HERE AND WHERE HE DOES PUSH THE ENVELOPE, HIS ACTIONS WILL BE CHALLENGED IN COURT.

>> NONE OF THIS HAPPENS IN A POLITICAL VACUUM, RIGHT?

THE PRESIDENT FEELS EMPOWERED BY THIS VICTORY OF ALL THE BATTLEGROUND STATES AND SO FORTH, TO SAY, LOOK, THIS WAS A REFERENDUM NOT JUST ON JOE BIDEN, BUT THIS GIVES ME THE AUTHORITY, I HAVE ESSENTIALLY BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS AND I HAVE APPOINTED THREE SUPREME COURT JUSTICES WHO MIGHT SIDE WITH ME MORE OFTEN THAN NOT.

ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING JUST IN THE LAST COUPLE OF TERMS, THEY HAVE INCREASED THE SCOPE AND SCALE OF PRESIDENTIAL POWER.

I WONDER WHETHER WE ARE ACTUALLY WITNESSING A MUCH, MUCH GREATER CONCENTRATION OF POWER IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, AND SPECIFICALLY, UNDER ONE PERSON NOW.

>> EVERY PRESIDENT CLAIMS TO HAVE A MANDATE, AND EVERY PRESIDENT TAKES BOLD STEPS.

IN STATISTIC CALL TERMS, MEASURED BY THE POPULAR VOTE, TRUMP'S MANDATE IS NOT VERY LARGE, AND WHAT'S MORE, HIS MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES IS RAZOR THIN.

AND COULD EASILY BE UNDERMINED.

AND SO, IT'S ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO BE AS SIMPLE AS YOU MIGHT IMAGINE, OR AS OTHERS MIGHT IMAGINE, FOR A REPUBLICAN CONGRESS TO VOTE THINGS THAT TRUMP WANTS, BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE A NARROW MAJORITY, EVEN JUST A FEW PEOPLE DEVIATING FROM IT ON A SPECIFIC ISSUE MEANS YOU WON'T NECESSARILY WIN.

AND THAT'S ONE REASON THAT YOU SEE HIM COMING INTO OFFICE WITH THIS WHOLE SLEW OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS, ALL OF WHICH, IN THEORY, AT LEAST THE LAWFUL ONES, HE CAN DO WITHOUT CONGRESS.

AS FOR THE SUPREME COURT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE RIGHT, HARI THAT THE SUPREME COURT EXPANDED EXACTLY POWER IN, FOR EXAMPLE, ITS DECISION THAT TRUMP AND OTHER PRESIDENTS SUBSEQUENTLY CAN'T BE HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE FOR MOST CONDUCT THEY DO AS PRESIDENT, WITH SOME NARROW EXCEPTIONS, BUT IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT EVEN THE VERY CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS OF THE SUPREME COURT ARE GENERALLY SKEPTICAL OF THE IDEA THAT CONGRESS GIVES POWER TO THE EXECUTIVE DAY JEN SIS, INCLUDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCIES, THAT DO THINGS THAT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW.

YOU MAY SEE THAT ON SOME OF THOSE ISSUES, THE CONSERVATIVE JUSTICES ARE SKEPTICAL OF TOO MUCH DELEGATION OF POWER.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF, I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THIS COURT IS VERY SYMPATHETIC GENERALLY TO THE IDEA OF STRONG EXECUTIVE POWER.

AND IT WILL PROBABLY SEE SOME COURT CASES THAT REALLY TEST THAT.

IN THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, REMEMBER THAT TRUMP CAME INTO OFFICE WITH THE MUSLIM BAN AND THE COURTS, THE LOWER COURTS REALLY PUSHED BACK AND HE HAD TO DO IT AND THEN REDO IT AND REDO IT AND THE SUPREME COURT IN A VERY COMPLICATED COMPROMISE DECISION SAID, WELL, YOU CAN SORT OF DO THIS WITHIN CERTAIN LIMITS.

AND HE MAY FIND HIMSELF IN SIMILAR SITUATION NOW, WHERE THE COURT PUSHES BACK AGAINST HIM MORE THAN HE EXPECTS.

>> ALREADY WE'VE SEEN, ESPECIALLY IN THE CONTEXT OF IMMIGRATION, A RECENT MEMO CAME OUT THAT TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WANTED FEDERAL PROSECUTIONS TO GO AFTER CITY AND STATE OFFICIALS WHO STOOD IN THE WAY.

WHAT DOES THIS DO TO, I GUESS, THE GENERAL CLIMATE ON NOT JUST WHETHER OR NOT THESE LAWS CAN BE DEEMED LEGAL AND THESE ACTIONS CAN BE DEEMED LEGAL, BUT WHAT ABOUT ANYBODY WHO CHOOSES TO SAY, THIS IS NOT MY OFFICIAL ACT, THIS IS NOT PART OF MY JOB TO DO THIS?

AND SO, I'M NOT GOING TO COMPLY.

>> YOU KNOW, THIS KIND OF RHETORIC IS REALLY DESIGNED TO FRIGHTEN THOSE PUBLIC OFFICIALS WHO WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A STAND.

AS HAPPENED DURING THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, OF SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT?

WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO COMPLY WITH YOUR DEMANDS AND ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO UNDOCUMENTED PEOPLE.

AND I THINK A LOT OF THOSE FOLKS ARE VERY BRAVE PUBLIC SERVANTS AND WILL CONTINUE TO STAND THEIR GROUND, BECAUSE LEGAL LY THE TRUMP THREATS DO NOT HAVE MUCH REALLY TO REST UPON.

OUR SYSTEM OF FEDERALISM, WHICH YOU CAN LOVE IT OR HATE IT, BUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS ARE AGAINST YOU, MOST PEOPLE SUDDENLY DISCOVER THAT THEY LIKE FEDERALISM, AND UNDER A SYSTEM OF FEDERALISM, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN'T COMMANDEER LOCAL OR STATE-LEVEL OFFICIALS TO FULFILL THE DEMANDS OF FEDERAL LAW.

THEY CAN'T BREAK FEDERAL LAW, BUT THEY CAN'T BE COMMANDEERED INTO DOING THE JOB OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'LL BE RESTING ON.

>> ONE OF THE AREAS THAT THE PRESIDENT IS INTERESTED IN ROLLING BACK IS THE -- HE'S ALREADY ORDERED ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCHES TO STOP ALL DEI, DIVERSITY, EQUITY, INCLUSION-RELATED INITIATIVES, AND, YOU KNOW, ON THE SURFACE, IT MIGHT BE SEEN AS A REACTION TO THE POLITICS OF THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

BUT SOME OF THE RULES THAT ARE GOING TO BE SORT OF ERASED OR ROLLED BACK HAVE BEEN ON THE BOOKS FOR DECADES FOR ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PURPOSES.

WHAT ARE SOME OF THE KIND OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF A BLANKET POLICY?

>> WELL, FIRST OFF, I WOULD SAY, FOR THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THESE ARE INTENDED CONSEQUENCES, BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST, AS YOU HINTED, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT A RESPONSE TO THE DEI EFFORTS THAT PICKED UP, SAY, IN THE WAKE OF THE BLACK LIVES MATTER MOVEMENT.

THIS IS PART OF A LONG RUN STRATEGY BY REPUBLICANS TO PUT A DEFINITIVE END TO ALL FORMS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INCLUDING THE KINDS OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION THAT GO BACK TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS ERA, AND THAT WERE REALLY DESIGNED LESS IN TERMS OF DIVERSITY AT THE TIME AND MORE IN TIMES OF REMEDIATING THE HISTORY OF CONSEQUENCES THAT SLAVERY AND THEN SEGREGATION HAD IN THE UNITED STATES.

AND SO, PART OF THIS IS AN ATTACK ON DIVERSITY, AND THE SUPREME COURT DEALT A MAJOR BLOW TO THE DIVERSITY RATIONALE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE CASE IN 2023, AND SO, THIS ORDER FOLLOWS ON THAT.

BUT SOME OF IT IS A DEEPER CULTURAL EFFORT TO MOVE US AS A COUNTRY PAST THE IDEA THAT WE DO THINK THERE'S APPROPRIATE -- APPROPRIATE ROLE FOR DIVERSITY AND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN HIRING IN CORPORATIONS, IN HIRING IN THE GOVERNMENT, AND HANDING OUT OF GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS, AND SO FORTH AND SO ON.

AND THAT'S THE NAME OF THE GAME FOR THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

AND SO, THE COUPLE OF ORDERS THAT THE ADMINISTRATION HAS ISSUED DO GO ALL THE WAY BACK TO AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE, IN SOME CASES, SINCE THE GREAT SOCIETY AND LBJ, AND -- WHICH HAVE, I THINK, FOR THE MOST PART HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY MOST AMERICANS.

BUT THOSE WILL ALSO BE ROLLED BACK, AND THAT'S NOT AN ACCIDENT.

IT'S PART OF AN OVERALL OBJECTIVE THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IS PUSHING FOR.

>> PROFESSOR, CAN YOU WALK US THROUGH THE IMPACT OF THESE EXECUTIVE ORDERS ON, SAY, TRANS AND LGBTQ RIGHTS?

>> WELL, THE ADMINISTRATION ISSUED AN EXECUTIVE ORDER THAT WAS DESIGNED TO REVERSE ANY PROGRESS THAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAD MADE ON TRANS RIGHTS, AND IT REFERS TO A RANGE OF DIFFERENT CONTEXTS.

IT ORDERS ALL THE PARTS OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT ARE UNDER THE EXECUTIVE'S AUTHORITY TO USE BIOLOGICAL SEX AS THE DEFINITION, RATHER THAN TO USE GENDER OR GENDER ORIENTATION AS A DEFINITION.

SOME OF THAT IS GOING TO BE CHALLENGED IN COURT, BECAUSE IT'S, TO BE BLUNT, VERY POORLY DRAFTED, AND ISN'T REALLY VERY LOGICAL IN TERMS OF HOW IT'S RIP.

BUT INEVITABLY, SOME OF THAT ORDER WILL COME INTO EFFECT.

SOME OF IT ALSO EFFECTS TRANSGENDER PEOPLE WHO ARE IMPRISONED IN THE FEDERAL SYSTEM.

AND INSISTS THAT ONLY BIOLOGICAL SEX CAN BE USED FOR PLACEMENT OF PRISONERS.

AND THAT'S ALREADY COME UNDER SHARP CRITICISM FROM TRANSACTIVISTS AND FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMUNITY FOR THE POTENTIAL DANGERS THAT PEOPLE MIGHT SUFFER IN CONSEQUENCE.

AND THAT IS ALSO A VERY SYMBOLICALLY SIGNIFICANT ORDER, YOU KNOW, DONALD TRUMP RAN ON THIS ISSUE, AND CERTAINLY BELIEVES, WITH PERHAPS SOME IMPERIAL EVIDENCE, THAT IT WAS AN ISSUE THAT HELPED HIM TO VICTORY, AND THE MESSAGE THAT IT SENDS IS PRETTY CLEAR.

IT'S AN EXPLICIT ORDER DESIGNED TO SEND A MESSAGE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT UNDER DONALD TRUMP IS NOT GOING TO BE A RESPECTER OF TRANS RIGHTS.

AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME LIMITATIONS ON THAT, BUT RIGHT NOW, THE SUPREME COURT IS CONSIDERING A CASE ABOUT TRANS RIGHTS, AND IF THAT CASE COMES OUT AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE TRANS COMMUNITY, THERE WILL BE A KIND OF MULTIPLE SET OF FORCES, BOTH COMING FROM THE EXECUTIVE AND THE JUDICIARY, THAT MIGHT REPRESENT REAL REVERSALS OF SOME OF THE PROGRESS MADE IN RECENT YEARS.

IT'S A VERY SERIOUS MATTER.

>> AS PEOPLE WATCH THIS RAFT OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND PROCLAMATIONS AND PARDONS AND SO FORTH, I WONDER WHETHER WE ARE NOW MORE CEPTING AS A SOCIETY THAT THIS THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY.

THAT'S WHY WE WANT HIM OR HER TO SIGN A BUNCH OF THINGS ON DAY ONE AND LAY OUT POLICIES AND LAY OUT PRIORITIES THAT REFLECT MY VOTE FOR THAT PERSON, RIGHT?

VERSUS, OH, I DON'T KNOW HOW CONGRESS IS GOING TO GET THROUGH IT, I DON'T KNOW HOW THE SUPREME COURTS ARE GOING TO GET THROUGH IT, BUT AT LEAST I KNOW I HAVE ACCESS TO A BUTTON THAT I CAN PUSH ONCE EVERY FEW YEARS, AND THAT HOPEFULLY MY PRIORITIES WILL WIN THE DAY.

>> I THINK YOU'RE MAKING A REALLY IMPORTANT POINT.

THE CONSTITUTION, AS IT WAS DESIGNED, DID NOT HAVE A KING, AND IT EMPEROR.

IT JUST HAD A PRESIDENT, AND THE PRESIDENT WAS SUPPOSED TO EXECUTE WHAT CONGRESS SAID TO DO.

AND OUR NOTION OF THE CONTEMPORARY PRESIDENCY AS THE MOST POWERFUL OF THE BRANCHES, AND AS YOU SAID, THE ONLY ONE THAT WE VOTE FOR, ALL OF US, HAS GRADUALLY MADE THE PRESIDENCY INTO SOMETHING MORE AND MORE LIKE AN ELECTIVE MONARCHY OR EVEN LIKE AN EMPEROR, AND THERE'S A HUGE RISK TO THAT FOR THE PRINCIPLES OF DEMOCRACY THAT WE HAVE.

THAT SAID, ALTHOUGH TRUMP IS AN EXTREME FORM OF THIS, IT'S NOT LIKE JOE BIDEN DIDN'T FREQUENTLY TRY TO DO THINGS THAT HE COULDN'T DO THROUGH LEGISLATION THROUGH EXECUTIVE ORDERS.

EVERY PRESIDENT LIKES TO MAXIMIZE THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENT TO ONE DEGREE OR ANOTHER.

AND THAT'S BEEN A CONSISTENT TREND, IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE'VE HEADED IN THIS DIRECTION.

EVERY PRESIDENT AFTER THE NEXT ONE TRIES TO EXTEND PRESIDENTIAL POWER, USUALLY JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE.

AND SO, I THINK OUR DISTRUST IN CONGRESS JUST MEASURED BY STATISTICS OF WHAT PEOPLE TELL THE POLLSTERS THAT THEY FEEL, AND THE CRISIS OF LEGITIMACY THAT THE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN FACING IN RECENT YEARS IN LIGHT OF ITS CONSERVATIVE REVOLUTION, BOTH ALSO TEND TO PUSH US IN THE DIRECTION OF SAYING, WELL, CONGRESS ISN'T GOING TO DO IT, WE DON'T TRUST THE SUPREME COURT, THAT LEAVES IT UP TO THE PRESIDENT.

AND THE REALITY IS MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THAN THAT, AND IN A GENUINE DEMOCRACY, YOU CAN'T CONCENTRATE ALL THE POWER IN ONE PERSON.

IT'S JUST MUCH TOO RISKY, BECAUSE YOU'LL LOSE THE BASIC PRINCIPLE OF CHECKS AND BALANCES.

>> NOAH FELDMAN, THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.