Via email from John S. we have this article on how, as John put in, “Trump’s plans to massively consolidate power under the executive branch.” John stated:

Surely even hard-core Trump fans don’t want that?

Not that you’re a hard core Trump fan. I’m more referring to some of the folks who comment on your posts who clearly are. It’d be interesting to hear both your view and theirs on this issue.

It’s behind a paywall but I managed to capture the text with a quick select and copy. I then pasted it into a text editor for reading.

Just as there is with sources which favor Republicans, strongly suspect the New York Times has engaged in more than a little hyperbole to make Trump look bad.

That said, I am opposed to congress, presidents, judges and regulatory agencies which exceed the scope enumerated in the constitution. That 99.9%, or more, of those regulatory agencies even exists is repugnant to the constitution and to me. That congress “gives”* agencies the authority to create new law as long as they call it a “regulation” instead of a law is just wrong. If a president would consolidate all that power and destroy it, and “salt the earth” where those weeds flourished I would probably give him a pass on doing a task he didn’t have the enumerated power given to him by the Constitution to do such a thing, simply because congress didn’t have the power to create such a powerful agency in the beginning.

But that’s not reality. Hence, I’m sort of “meh” about the claims of doom and gloom. It is sort of like voting when the only options on the ballot are Joseph Stalin and Chairman Mao.

* I don’t see where the U.S. Constitution gives congress the ability to delegate their lawmaking authority to any other entity.

Wherever and whenever there is a demand the market will supply the product:

Now that a year has passed since women lost the right to abortion, we can assess how our neighbor Idaho’s near-total ban on it is faring.

In short: It has accomplished next to nothing.

You can’t say categorically that the Idaho ban hasn’t stopped a single abortion. But the data suggests that is essentially the case – that the whole thing is a burden, cost and danger to Idaho’s own women, but hasn’t met the anti-abortion goals that supposedly informed it.

We know this now because clinics in the Pacific Northwest have started releasing data on where women come from to use their services, both back when abortion was legal nationwide, and now that it’s not.

Idaho women are simply fleeing.

Bans didn’t stop alcohol consumption, minors from getting tobacco, or other recreational drug use. They didn’t stop criminals from getting handguns. And it should be no surprise it didn’t stop abortions. Just as there were abortions when they were banned prior to Roe v. Wade. I knew a high school classmate who traveled from Idaho to Washington get an abortion. And women are doing it again.

Reduction and even elimination of abortions is a worthy goal. But I can’t see the legal system making a significant change in the total numbers. It has to be cultural change.

Legal bans only work when you have an adversary party involved which has the ability to support the legal action.*

* In the case of murder you have friend, relatives, and dedicated detectives to “speak” for the victim. The aborted fetus/child is unable to speak for itself and without a dependable voice from those who know what happened.