[Mick]

POTUS45 is not the first to expand executive branch power, but most of the executive branch power creep has happened in the last ~47 years.

My guess is 47 years ago a Poli Sci instructor would note that Presidents should (and do) work relentlessly to bring the nation together, especially at times of hardship or war.   Fast forward to 2020 and I bet a Poli Sci instructor would be hard pressed to understand the politics of this time.

It would be interesting to create a Bill & Ted's adventure type SNL skit and have prior presidents visit our POTUS at this moment.

Would love to hear a dinner party with Trump, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR, all of whom expanded executive power in one way or another.

[Mick]

POTUS45 is not the first to expand executive branch power, but most of the executive branch power creep has happened in the last ~47 years.

My guess is 47 years ago a Poli Sci instructor would note that Presidents should (and do) work relentlessly to bring the nation together, especially at times of hardship or war.   Fast forward to 2020 and I bet a Poli Sci instructor would be hard pressed to understand the politics of this time.

It would be interesting to create a Bill & Ted's adventure type SNL skit and have prior presidents visit our POTUS at this moment.

Would love to hear a dinner party with Trump, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR, all of whom expanded executive power in one way or another.

[Goose]

I suspect he was told by the people that advise him that we were OK, because that is probably what they believed.

This WaPo article has a different take on it: people in the administration were alarmed but couldn't get him to listen.
Wapo article Some excerpts:

"Azar couldn’t get through to Trump to speak with him about the virus until Jan. 18, according to two senior administration officials. When he reached Trump by phone, the president interjected to ask about vaping and when flavored vaping products would be back on the market, the senior administration officials said."

"Inside the White House, Trump’s advisers struggled to get him to take the virus seriously, according to multiple officials with knowledge of meetings among those advisers and with the president."

"On Jan. 27, White House aides huddled with then-acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in his office, trying to get senior officials to pay more attention to the virus . . . Mulvaney then began convening more regular meetings. In early briefings, however, officials said Trump was dismissive because he did not believe that the virus had spread widely throughout the United States."

It has got to be surreal working for this President. He doesn't read the briefing materials, apparently. He is unfamiliar with concepts like ingesting bleach is probably going to kill you. He recommends drugs because "I have a good feeling about this". He also has a lot of "yes men" surrounding him. If you are an individual who had become informed about the possible dangers to the US from COVID-19, how do you convince him to act? Not an easy task. The "yes men" will probably tell him that everything is going to be ok and don't listen to these Cassandras. Things are not helped by the Cassandras being political appointees with no real credentials of their own. However, Azar is still employed. He didn't feel strongly enough in February to make such an issue of it that POTUS couldn't ignore it. Anybody who says "we tried, but he didn't listen" and is still there is just being self-serving. They may have been concerned, but they weren't concerned enough to go to the mat for their position. Mattis knew what to do. Even the much maligned John Bolton knew what he had to do.

[Goose]

I suspect he was told by the people that advise him that we were OK, because that is probably what they believed.

This WaPo article has a different take on it: people in the administration were alarmed but couldn't get him to listen.
Wapo article Some excerpts:

"Azar couldn’t get through to Trump to speak with him about the virus until Jan. 18, according to two senior administration officials. When he reached Trump by phone, the president interjected to ask about vaping and when flavored vaping products would be back on the market, the senior administration officials said."

"Inside the White House, Trump’s advisers struggled to get him to take the virus seriously, according to multiple officials with knowledge of meetings among those advisers and with the president."

"On Jan. 27, White House aides huddled with then-acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney in his office, trying to get senior officials to pay more attention to the virus . . . Mulvaney then began convening more regular meetings. In early briefings, however, officials said Trump was dismissive because he did not believe that the virus had spread widely throughout the United States."

It has got to be surreal working for this President. He doesn't read the briefing materials, apparently. He is unfamiliar with concepts like ingesting bleach is probably going to kill you. He recommends drugs because "I have a good feeling about this". He also has a lot of "yes men" surrounding him. If you are an individual who had become informed about the possible dangers to the US from COVID-19, how do you convince him to act? Not an easy task. The "yes men" will probably tell him that everything is going to be ok and don't listen to these Cassandras. Things are not helped by the Cassandras being political appointees with no real credentials of their own. However, Azar is still employed. He didn't feel strongly enough in February to make such an issue of it that POTUS couldn't ignore it. Anybody who says "we tried, but he didn't listen" and is still there is just being self-serving. They may have been concerned, but they weren't concerned enough to go to the mat for their position. Mattis knew what to do. Even the much maligned John Bolton knew what he had to do.

[Mick]

I wonder if this will be helpful:

[/url][url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y.pdf]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y.pdf

[Mick]

I wonder if this will be helpful:

[/url][url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y.pdf]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y.pdf

[BostonCard]

I wonder if this will be helpful:

[/url][url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y.pdf]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y.pdf

Neutralizing antibodies are necessary but not sufficient for an effective antibody based therapeutic.  I know this personally from my own involvement in an ati-flu therapeutic antibody.

BC

[BostonCard]

I wonder if this will be helpful:

[/url][url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y.pdf]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16256-y.pdf

Neutralizing antibodies are necessary but not sufficient for an effective antibody based therapeutic.  I know this personally from my own involvement in an ati-flu therapeutic antibody.

BC

[lex24]

Wow... 47 years after I took PoliSci 10, I find out Professor Horn was WRONG!  Here I always thought, to quote Wikipedia: "The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch."

Of course, everyone knows that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.  But, still, I always thought -- 'cause I learned it at Stanford -- that anything the federal government did that needed money -- particularly vast amounts of money at levels, and for purposes, never before appropriated -- required at least some action by Congress.  Apparently not, though, since Congress shoulders no responsibility.

47 years ago was a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

In this millennium the executive branch can declare any number of reasons for executive action to then not spend the funds or even use the funds for pet projects.

For example, a POTUS can decide groups of moms and kids walking up to the border seeking asylum are such a big threat to national security that he can take funds allocated to improving military readiness or enhancing border surveillance and divert those resources to building a wall.  Or a POTUS can decide to not use funds for any number of reasons banking on the idea that the courts will be slow to take up the issue.  

POTUS45 is not the first to expand executive branch power, but most of the executive branch power creep has happened in the last ~47 years.

My guess is 47 years ago a Poli Sci instructor would note that Presidents should (and do) work relentlessly to bring the nation together, especially at times of hardship or war.   Fast forward to 2020 and I bet a Poli Sci instructor would be hard pressed to understand the politics of this time.

It would be interesting to create a Bill & Ted's adventure type SNL skit and have prior presidents visit our POTUS at this moment.

Ummm, 47 years ago the President was...  Richard M. Nixon.  

You're right, that was a long, long time ago.  But I don't exactly remember it as a time when the nation was particularly "together."  In fact, blasting Nixon as "the Imperial President" was pretty much the song of the times.  Things don't actually change that much...

As for today's POTUS doing pretty much anything that he wants with money from Congress, well, maybe you missed it, but I believe he's been the recipient [and on the losing end] of more nationwide injunctions than any president before.  and, after all, this wouldn't have been a case of him NOT using funds, it would have required him to use massive amounts of funds for wholly different reasons than appropriated and STILL being way shy of what would have been required.  I'm apparently not as convinced as you are that the Democrats in Congress would have sat back and applauded...

Schlesinger wrote “The Imperial Presidency” in ‘73.  The term goes well beyond Nixon.  Presidents since the inception undertaken acts that MAY be beyond their Constitutional mandate.  Many a time knowing quite well they are doing so.  Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase is a great example.  Jefferson, of course, is the poster child for anti-federalism.  (Even though he wasn’t around during ratification). He believed that the only way for the Govt to do the purchase was by a Constitutional Amendment.  But he didn’t have the time.  So he went with the Treaty. Believing it was probably beyond the Constitutional power of the Govt. Course, Jefferson also didn’t believe in Judicial Review. But that’s another story!

[lex24]

Wow... 47 years after I took PoliSci 10, I find out Professor Horn was WRONG!  Here I always thought, to quote Wikipedia: "The Constitution also grants Congress exclusively the power to appropriate funds. This power of the purse is one of Congress' primary checks on the executive branch."

Of course, everyone knows that you can't believe everything you read on Wikipedia.  But, still, I always thought -- 'cause I learned it at Stanford -- that anything the federal government did that needed money -- particularly vast amounts of money at levels, and for purposes, never before appropriated -- required at least some action by Congress.  Apparently not, though, since Congress shoulders no responsibility.

47 years ago was a long, long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.

In this millennium the executive branch can declare any number of reasons for executive action to then not spend the funds or even use the funds for pet projects.

For example, a POTUS can decide groups of moms and kids walking up to the border seeking asylum are such a big threat to national security that he can take funds allocated to improving military readiness or enhancing border surveillance and divert those resources to building a wall.  Or a POTUS can decide to not use funds for any number of reasons banking on the idea that the courts will be slow to take up the issue.  

POTUS45 is not the first to expand executive branch power, but most of the executive branch power creep has happened in the last ~47 years.

My guess is 47 years ago a Poli Sci instructor would note that Presidents should (and do) work relentlessly to bring the nation together, especially at times of hardship or war.   Fast forward to 2020 and I bet a Poli Sci instructor would be hard pressed to understand the politics of this time.

It would be interesting to create a Bill & Ted's adventure type SNL skit and have prior presidents visit our POTUS at this moment.

Ummm, 47 years ago the President was...  Richard M. Nixon.  

You're right, that was a long, long time ago.  But I don't exactly remember it as a time when the nation was particularly "together."  In fact, blasting Nixon as "the Imperial President" was pretty much the song of the times.  Things don't actually change that much...

As for today's POTUS doing pretty much anything that he wants with money from Congress, well, maybe you missed it, but I believe he's been the recipient [and on the losing end] of more nationwide injunctions than any president before.  and, after all, this wouldn't have been a case of him NOT using funds, it would have required him to use massive amounts of funds for wholly different reasons than appropriated and STILL being way shy of what would have been required.  I'm apparently not as convinced as you are that the Democrats in Congress would have sat back and applauded...

Schlesinger wrote “The Imperial Presidency” in ‘73.  The term goes well beyond Nixon.  Presidents since the inception undertaken acts that MAY be beyond their Constitutional mandate.  Many a time knowing quite well they are doing so.  Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase is a great example.  Jefferson, of course, is the poster child for anti-federalism.  (Even though he wasn’t around during ratification). He believed that the only way for the Govt to do the purchase was by a Constitutional Amendment.  But he didn’t have the time.  So he went with the Treaty. Believing it was probably beyond the Constitutional power of the Govt. Course, Jefferson also didn’t believe in Judicial Review. But that’s another story!

[BostonCard]

Your wish appears to be the administration's strategy:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...us-vaccine

The Trump administration is organizing a Manhattan Project-style effort to drastically cut the time needed to develop a coronavirus vaccine, with a goal of making enough doses for most Americans by year’s end.

Called “Operation Warp Speed,” the program will pull together private pharmaceutical companies, government agencies and the military to try to cut the development time for a vaccine by as much as eight months, according to two people familiar with the matter.

As part of the arrangement, taxpayers will shoulder much of the financial risk that vaccine candidates may fail, instead of drug companies.

This seems to be the exact thing that has been argued for in this thread and in the Vox article.  So, good job by the administration?

BC

Interesting quotes by the Sanofi CEO, who states that because the US is investing in manufacturing "at risk", we are first in line for the vaccine, if it is successful.

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/...s-ceo-says

“The U.S. government has the right to the largest pre-order because it’s invested in taking the risk,” Hudson said. The U.S., which expanded a vaccine partnership with the company in February, expects “that if we’ve helped you manufacture the doses at risk, we expect to get the doses first.”

OF course, the downside is that Sanofi's vaccine won't be ready until fall 2021.

BC

[BostonCard]

Your wish appears to be the administration's strategy:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...us-vaccine

The Trump administration is organizing a Manhattan Project-style effort to drastically cut the time needed to develop a coronavirus vaccine, with a goal of making enough doses for most Americans by year’s end.

Called “Operation Warp Speed,” the program will pull together private pharmaceutical companies, government agencies and the military to try to cut the development time for a vaccine by as much as eight months, according to two people familiar with the matter.

As part of the arrangement, taxpayers will shoulder much of the financial risk that vaccine candidates may fail, instead of drug companies.

This seems to be the exact thing that has been argued for in this thread and in the Vox article.  So, good job by the administration?

BC

Interesting quotes by the Sanofi CEO, who states that because the US is investing in manufacturing "at risk", we are first in line for the vaccine, if it is successful.

https://www.bloombergquint.com/business/...s-ceo-says

“The U.S. government has the right to the largest pre-order because it’s invested in taking the risk,” Hudson said. The U.S., which expanded a vaccine partnership with the company in February, expects “that if we’ve helped you manufacture the doses at risk, we expect to get the doses first.”

OF course, the downside is that Sanofi's vaccine won't be ready until fall 2021.

BC

[BostonCard]

You know who was not happy about Paul Hudson's comments?  French president Emanuel Macron.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fren...e-comments

Macron himself was “affected” by the news and is seeking a meeting, a government official told Bloomberg. A potential vaccine would need to benefit the “common good,” the official added.

BC

[BostonCard]

You know who was not happy about Paul Hudson's comments?  French president Emanuel Macron.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/fren...e-comments

Macron himself was “affected” by the news and is seeking a meeting, a government official told Bloomberg. A potential vaccine would need to benefit the “common good,” the official added.

BC

[BostonCard]

Former GSK vaccine lead hired to head the "warp speed" effort.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/tr...ct-reports

Slaoui is well-respected, so this is good news.

BC

---

More vaccine news:

The Oxford vaccine offers monkeys protection against COVID-19.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healt...SKBN22Q32G

More importantly, there's no evidence of antibody dependent enhancement.

BC

[BostonCard]

Former GSK vaccine lead hired to head the "warp speed" effort.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/tr...ct-reports

Slaoui is well-respected, so this is good news.

BC

---

More vaccine news:

The Oxford vaccine offers monkeys protection against COVID-19.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-healt...SKBN22Q32G

More importantly, there's no evidence of antibody dependent enhancement.

BC