President Trump has unwound quite a few of the Obama-era regulations, and has sought to unwind many more; now, the conservatives applaud and the progressives lament – but they do more than lament – they “resist”; which includes in several prominent cases the opinions of federal judges, who have stopped the implementation of certain regulations or policies.
This leads us to request an explanation of the following question: If one President has the power to promulgate regulations he likes and terminate ones he does not, why does his successor not possess the same power?
Remember – we are not talking about laws, which of course cannot be changed without approval from Congress – but are speaking of regulations. And yes, there is a process and a procedure for starting and stopping regulations, and those rules should of course be followed – but the important thing is, the president has the power to change the decisions of his predecessors. President Obama used that power to undo certain regulations that were in place when he took office, and now President Trump wants to do the same thing. Does he have that power, or does that power apply to a progressive president only?
We have a free society,and those who object to a change in a policy may argue against it, and may protest it; but there is a big difference between arguing against a President’s decision, and stopping it in court or suing because one doesn’t like it (or because it harms one’s interests).
People are well within their rights to challenge a President who wants to change things - but if "their guy" has the power to undo something, does the "other guy" not have the same power? In our form of government we accept laws, even those we don't like, and they are laws (or rules) until they are changed. By what interpretation of the Constitution can judges force a President to retain a rule put in place by one of his predecessors? After all, if such rules are sacrosanct, how does any change become valid?
The law is pretty clear: the President has certain powers, and he should be allowed to exercise them. President Obama did, like it or not; and President Trump has the same authority, like it or not. Yes, he should listen to arguments against the changes he wants to make, and he should be careful in his approach, but in the end, he is allowed to act within his authority, just as his predecessors have done. Judges that assert the contrary are not following the law.