Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign launch was meant to present a different side of Hillary — a softer, more humble, less power-hungry version of the candidate. The “Scoobie” van road trip to Iowa portrayed Hillary as the everywoman, interested only in You.
Hillary was trying to shift the public’s attention away from her scandal-ridden days in Arkansas and as first lady, her Wall Street connections, the Clinton Foundation’s questionable fundraising and her role as diplomatic field general for a disastrous foreign policy. Clinton’s campaign not only wanted to leave the old Hillary behind, but to distance her from President Obama as well.
Yet on a critical issue — executive branch power grabs — Clinton cannot leave her past or Obama behind.
Obama expanded his power domestically far more than any other president in memory. His executive action on immigration is a good example of legislating from the bureaucracy by implementing policies directly contrary to existing law and anything Congress would be willing to do. So too his use of Environmental Protection Agency rulemaking power to remake the energy sector where previous efforts to do the same legislatively had gone nowhere. And let’s not forget Obama’s unilateral changes to Obamacare to postpone its day of financial reckoning beyond the 2014 elections.
Whether such executive power grabs are upheld or rejected in court, they all show the degree to which Obama has tried to expand his power at the expense of Congress.
Should we expect any better from Hillary should she become president? I don’t think so; in fact, I think we can expect worse.
Consider that Hillary went off the government grid to conduct her official business by setting up a private server at her home that was controlled by her personal staff.
By using the private server, Hillary ensured that her correspondence was hidden from prying U.S. government eyes and Freedom of Information requests. Hillary’s people were the ones to control what was turned over to the State Department and what was permanently deleted.
The server scandal is a metaphor for the old Hillary — opaque, controlling, paranoid, ruthless and power-hungry. It’s proof that she hasn’t changed.
Now we have Candidate Clinton promising even more aggressive executive immigration amnesty than Obama. Not only has Hillary vowed to defend Obama’s executive immigration actions, she said “if Congress continues to refuse to act, as president I would do everything possible under the law to go even further.” She added, “That is just the beginning …”
Does anyone doubt her? She may just be pandering to Hispanic voters, but she’s pandering by threatening just the sort of naked power grabs that Obama made routine.
Campaign consultants can remake a candidate’s image, but they can’t remake the candidate herself. A President Clinton would almost certainly face a Republican House of Representatives in 2017, if not a Republican-controlled Congress.
Rather than trying to work with such a Congress, Hillary has made it clear she would be even more aggressive than Obama in expanding presidential power at the expense of Congress and the Constitution.
William A. Jacobson is clinical professor of law at Cornell Law School and publisher of Legal Insurrection Blog.Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
