Trump's plan is to usurp the power of the purse

Trump to declare national emergency as Senate passes border security spending deal

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said if Trump declares a national emergency, he is "doing an end run around Congress" and Democrats will consider legal action to stop him.

McConnell says he nevertheless will support the president in doing that, and speculation has been that Trump insisted on that in return for his accepting the deal.

Nancy Pelosi suggested some future Democrat might declare some sort of gun violence emergency, though how that would be at all comparable I do not know.

Trump thinks declaring illegal immigration a national emergency enables him to use money appropriated for other purposes to build a wall he claims is the only effective way to stem the tide, though it doesn't and doing that is blatantly unconstitutional.

So some Democrat declares gun violence is a national emergency and then does what?

Newsies are speculating that it's more likely the supposed future Democratic president would declare a climate change emergency and then freely legislate carbon limits, gas price hikes, expanded subsidies for electric cars, and so on to deal with it.

Trump and the Republicans were right, by the way, to complain that Obama's creation of DACA was an unconstitutional usurpation of the power to make law, done when the congress refused to legislate DACA for him.

And this, but the way, is really "how democracies die".

Actual office holding political parties decide their agendas are much more important than the integrity of their political institutions, and so they bring out the wrecking balls.

And at least some of their popular supporters agree with them.

Oh, and if you think we can or should count on the courts to defend the constitution against agenda driven subversion when the court shares the agenda you should consider how courts have dealt with the Duce's efforts to discontinue DACA on the entirely legitimate ground that it was unconstitutional for Obama to put the program in place after the congress had refused to do it.

Far too many office holders consider the constitution less important their their party's agenda.

I am not saying agenda driven interpretation of the constitution or the law is always pernicious.

It is in place when there really is damn all other basis to decide among plausible but importantly different competing interpretations that best serve different or opposing agendas.

But this is just not that.