I very much recommend this column by @adamjwhitedc and Yuval Levin to my progressive friends (and everyone, really). I have a few quick comments on it, but it is important and thought provoking. nationalreview.com/2020/08/the-re… 1/
There is a subtle imbalance in the way Trump's executive actions are compared to Obama's. White/Levin describe Trump's recent EOs with precision, which as they point out shows the orders to be more limited than Trump's rhetoric and more arguably, narrowly constitutional.
2/
2/
By contrast, White and Levin describe Obama's actions (specifically DACA & DAPA) in sweeping terms. This makes it easier to make the sweeping claim that "President Obama essentially rewrote immigration law." That's quite contestable. 3/
DACA and DAPA, for legal purposes, should be described with the same precision as Trump's Executive Orders. When described with precision, DACA and DAPA are more defensible, more limited in their effect, and, in fact, DACA and DAPA may not even present the same issues. 4/
White/Levin err by defending Trump, albeit on narrow legal terms, by pointing out the gap between rhetoric and actual action, but on Obama to fall back on citing broad presidential rhetoric. 5/
But all that is a bit peripheral, because White/Levin are clearly concerned by Trump's actions. Their main point - a very important one - is that narrow legality as often understood by courts may not be enough to justify a presidential act, and too often it has been. 6/ 
I'd tweak them on the claim that this has not been a common problem in the Trump era. The Muslim Ban (Mong others) comes to mind as an executive policy that threatens the character and values of the Constitution, even if SCOTUS found it narrowly defensible. 7/
Regardless, the core problem White & Levin highlight seems very real. The Constitution embodies values, not only narrow legality. The Constitution's values will crumble if courts can only enforce narrow legality, and if presidents push their power to the technical limit. 8/
I doubt that asking other branches (i.e. Congress) to step up to defend constitutional values will work, which leaves me with pessimism. I'd prefer, I think, for courts to narrow the gap between narrow legality and legal values. That gap strikes me as the root of the problem. 9/
But regardless of the solution, it is pretty important right now for serious conservative and progressive thinkers to see the problem. There really is one, and it could get much worse. 10/END
