There were many people pointing out the dangers of consolidating so much power into the Presidency over the last few years but most of them were told to shut up with their paranoia conspiracies and racist rhetoric.

It also didn't help that Congress is more and more doing absolutely nothing of substance. The last 8 years have been nonstop obstructionism, and the next 4 appear to be headed the same way. (note: this is not to say I agree with overuse of executive powers, I do not.)

Not sure why you think next 4 years will be the same... I think the next 4 years will be markedly different due to Trump leadership and Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

We're hearing about Repeal & Replace in January, maybe as late as March and voting has already started to lay the framework to allow passage with 51 votes in the Senate.

Regardless Obama expanded executive power more than any president in history. So even if Trump doesn't plan to expand it he has plenty to work with already. I doubt he'll reverse it other than streamlining bloated intel agencies.

He's pledged to reverse all of Obama's "illegal" executive orders... and I assume that, being a Republican, he considers all of them to be illegal.

Trump may not do so, but the Republicans seem to want to dismantle Obama's legacy as thoroughly as possible, and blot him and the effect of his presidency from history like Akhenaten. There would probably be a political cost to pay if Trump didn't reverse it, just on principle.

It's probably the 'last few years' part that is what gets someone accused of racism. Pushing the boundaries of presidential power is not unique to Obama and indeed has no party affiliation.

Yeah, I think a lot of people have been concerned with this ever since 9/11 and the big expansions of power that seemed to go with it.

I completely agree with you that there is no party affiliation with this, and to me that is the most concerning part.

E.g. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WcaxiOS6oPs

> But that's simply because no serious presidential contender, save maybe Bernie Sanders, would have done otherwise.

I have my own issues and gripes with him, but I feel that Rand Paul was also one of the few who spoke sanity when it came to all these matters. In the only primary debate he actually participated in, when asked about interfering in Syria, his response was "we've done that how many times now - when has it worked out for us?" which, of course, the populist audience did not like.

Fair point!

I suspect that the intelligence apparatus is so influential across the administration that it's very hard for the President to rein it in.

Obama has had to make compromises on which issues he's going to push for. The disappointingly slow progress on Guantánamo Bay was an example of this... And that's a single prison camp with a relative handful of people in it. Digital surveillance is an out-of-control monster that all branches of intelligence just want to have more of, as evidenced by this latest decision on data sharing.

How difficult is it not to issue an Executive Order 10 days before leaving the office?!

I don't know how Executive Orders work; can they be rescinded, countermanded, or otherwise cancelled out by the succeeding President?

Absolutely. Although it can be difficult to unwind all of their effects.

>maybe Trump

I doubt it. Trump has praised NSA surveillance in the past and has hinted that Snowden should be executed. Unless he was just saying such things to try to get the intelligence community on his side pre-election, he's in favor of authoritarian tools.

Ron Paul