>> major funding for Chat Box with David Cruz is provided by the members of the New Jersey education Association.

Making public schools great for every stride -- for every child.

Promotional support for Chat Box with David Cruz is provided by insider NJ, a political intelligence network dedicated to New Jersey political news.

Insider NJ is dedicated to giving serious political players and interactive forum for ideas, discussion, and insight.

Online at insiderNJ.com.

♪ David: Welcome to Chat Box.

I'm David Cruz.

They are calling it Shock and awe.

Not very original, but dozens of executive orders, from ending right citizenship to stopping payments on government grants.

Just how much can a President Duque without congressional approval -- President Duque without congressional approval?

We will talk about that in our second half, but first we will talk about the why.

Tom Kean is the standardbearer of what used to be known as New Jersey Republicans.

He is the coolest of the governors we saw this week.

Mr. Kean: Good to be with you.

David: What do you think of that?

Is the moderate New Jersey Republican a thing of the past?

Mr. Kean: I don't think it is at all, but we shouldn't be surprised.

The president is doing nothing he didn't tell us he was going to do in the campaign.

He announced these things, some that integrate and they voted against him, but most of the country voted for him.

Unlike frankly most politicians, he is doing what he said he would do.

Because of that, even though some of us disagree with some of those things, he is more popular today than the day he was elected.

David: I want to talk about him in a minute, but can you share some thoughts with -- some thoughts on Senator Melendez, sentenced to 11 years in what has to be one of the biggest political falls from grace I can remember?

Mr. Kean: It's a sad story.

I have known the senator for 30 years and he was always a bit on the edge.

This isn't the first time he has been brought before the bench with charges or potential charges against him, probably for the last 30 years.

This one we managed to prove and stick to and he is getting unfortunately the punishment, given the magnitude of the offenses, that he probably deserves.

I feel sorry for him, but the sentence is probably the right one.

David: For the state and for certain communities, immigrant communities particularly, they have lost a real champion.

Mr. Kean: They have, but New Jersey has lost something too.

New Jersey always had a bit of a reputation, I thought unfairly, for having politicians over the edge.

Another senator went to jail some years ago.

Another governor, Williams.

It's unfortunately somewhat in the state history.

We seem to occasionally elect people who betrayed the public trust.

David: Let me ask you about this president.

Is he just an agent of chaos, or is he some kind of political savant distracting us with controversial statements and proposals?

Mr. Kean: No, he is something quite unusual.

I think historians will be writing about him for years and years to come.

Remember that 40% of the people in this country, minimum, were really dissatisfied with what was happening.

Not just politically, but they thought they had been left out, that they were not being represented.

He is there change agent.

He managed to talk to people who nobody was talking to in either party.

It's amazing the number of people who voted for Bernie Sanders and then for Donald Trump.

These are people who feel America is not representing them or their interests, and they are radicals in that sense.

They want to change and they want big change and that's what he is representing.

David: You mentioned the polls indicate he is more popular now than when he was elected.

You got immigration raids, troops at the border, ending all federal funding -- is this the agenda you think the country voted for?

Mr. Kean: He hasn't done anything he didn't say he was going to do.

David: No surprises, right?

Mr. Kean: Some people thought he was kidding, going too far, or exaggerating.

He told us exactly what he was going to do, and he is doing it.

You can't fault him for that.

You can disagree, and I disagree with some, but he is doing what he was elected to do.

David: We talk about these pardons.

You have got the January 6 rioters, one set of pardons.

The whole concept of the presidential pardon, it's like we have unleashed this superpower that presidents have to preemptively pardon themselves, pardon rioters, pardon their family members.

There is a danger in that, wouldn't you say?

Mr. Kean: Yeah.

I had that power as governor in the state.

I pardoned some people when I left.

No, I think it has been abused.

I think it was abused first by Biden and abused further by Trump.

I understand he told us he was going to pardon the rioters, and I don't object to him doing that, but he should have done it selectively.

It is wrong to pardon anybody who attacks a police officer.

Some civil rights demonstrations I even took part of, when they went too far and attacked police officers that was against the law and should have been stopped.

I thought that's a problem.

The pardon power in general is something Congress ought to take a look at because I think it has been abused.

David: Right, because it is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Mr. Kean: It is.

David: Is that something Congress could -- I mean, not theirs Congress clearly, but a future Congress -- might be able to curtail legislatively?

Mr. Kean: They could certainly shine a light on it.

They could hold hearings, point out the fact that what exists, what historically happened and why it may have been abused by the last few presidents.

I think Biden went too far.

I don't think the Constitution ever envisioned pardoning your own family.

David: Or preemptively pardoning yourself.

Mr. Kean: That's right.

David: There was this investigation, going back to January 6, there was this investigation into it.

But that was really kind of turned into this partisan sideshow from both sides.

I know that you were head of the 9/11 commission, which was decidedly less partisan than that.

Do you think in the current climate that we are ever going to be able to go back to these kind of bipartisan commissions that actually look for truth?

Mr. Kean: I think you have got to.

No commission is going to be accepted by the American people in the long run unless it has bipartisan context.

The next party will simply attack it.

It will become part of political campaigns, as this did, be reversed by a president of another party.

The nine/11 commission was the last really major bipartisan group in this country, and it was so successful.

Congress bipartisanly passed 40 of our 41 recommendations, considering some of them were difficult recommendations.

David: I know they have not asked for your help, but maybe they could use it.

Where do you think Democrats disconnected with voters this time around?

Mr. Kean: The worst thing for Democrats isn't disconnecting with voters.

They disconnected with what used to be their base.

Working people used to be the base of the Democratic Party, labor unions and all that.

Trump talked to those people, and they responded.

A huge part of the Democratic base went to the Republican Party.

Trump particularly, not the Republican Party, Trump.

They are going to have a difficult time getting those people back because those people decided the Democratic Party simply didn't represent them.

They didn't like some of the things they did socially, the things they did economically.

They are looking for change.

David: Someone suggested that the Democrats need their own Trumpian figure, and suggested someone like Senator Fetterman from Pennsylvania.

The guy who wears shorts and a sweatshirt to the inauguration.

That he is the kind of democratic regular dude who can relate to voters.

Mr. Kean: He is not only a regular dude, he is looking for bipartisan solutions.

He has crossed the aisle on a number of occasions.

I like him, what I have seen of him, because he does seem to cross the aisle.

We have given that up.

The old bipartisanship.

There used to be 25 or 30 people at least in the Senate who were known as blue dog Democrats or Rockefeller Republicans, but they formed coalitions under which we got policies through.

Mondale told me once without that group, people who crossed the aisle when the issue was important, we wouldn't have got anything done.

I don't know how people get anything done today.

The answer is they don't.

David: Switching to Jersey, you have four mostly legit candidates in your party's primary for governor.

Three are embracing the president with all their might.

It is that really philosophical amity, or just political opportunity?

Mr. Kean: A little bit of both.

It is very hard to not go along with the president of your party.

The majority of people in this country wouldn't -- would like to see the president succeed, no matter what party he is in.

You want the party to move forward, you want a successful president, particularly if using your own party.

It's very hard to go any other direction.

I expect anybody who goes the other direction is going to be a successful candidate.

David: You don't have a favorite, do you?

Mr. Kean: If I did, I wouldn't tell you.

David: I tried.

We ran into you this week at the groundbreaking in Camden with a few of the other governors.

Everyone there speaking glowingly of George Norcross, everyone fully knowing he is facing indictments and has been a controversial figure for some time.

What are you doing there?

Mr. Kean: Well, I'm a Republican and I know historically what George Norcross, and his father, who was a good friend of mine, and supported me, a labor leader, and what he has done for Camden, particularly South Jersey.

Camden was the worst city in the state by every measure that I knew.

It was the most difficult city.

The most difficult city to deal with because the roots of the party were so deep and intractable.

George Norcross never accepted that.

He could have done a lot of things, but he took that city on , not only with the hospital but other things.

He made a real difference.

I think when individuals make a real difference, particularly for poor people, we should recognize it and praise it.

I don't happen to feel George Norcross has broken the law.

I don't believe he will be found guilty.

But whether he has or hasn't, he has done something magnificent for Camden, the community, and the hospital, and we ought to recognize it.

David: Always good to talk with you.

Thanks for taking a few minutes with us.

It's been hard to keep up with the executive orders, proclamations, and threats coming from the White House.

Enough to make you wonder if this guy can do all that stuff on his own.

The fact is the president has broad constitutional powers that kick in especially if he declares a state of emergency, which I think you did on his first day in office.

Let's take a look at what that could mean with a professor of political science and senior scholar at the Eagles and center at Rutgers.

Great to see you again.

>> Great to be with you, as always.

David: Are we seeing this president present challenges to the constitutional limits of the executive branch?

Mr. Kean: It's an interesting question, at least to the degree that folks may not be informed of what this presidents abuse our of his constitutional authority.

Go back to his first administration.

He spoke very openly about what he thought article two of the Constitution provided for him personally as president.

President Trump espouses a very radical, unilateral, unitary view of article two of the Constitution.

In layman's terms and in his own language, which means he can do essentially anything, and any act of the president is essentially constitutional, vis-à-vis his ability to function as executive and use those powers wherever they may be found or needed.

That in and of itself tells you what he believes about it.

Obviously there has been parameters set up around that particular notion.

As you and I know, and I hate to bring officiating into this as a sensitive topic these days, but you can't call a foul or penalty on every play.

If you continue to foul, chances are the referee is going to let some of that goal.

I think what the Trump administration is doing by effectively issuing all these executive orders is they know that a certain percentage are going to go through regardless how extreme they may be.

I think that's a little bit of the strategy at play here.

David: I am not a constitutional scholar, but the document seems to give pretty broad powers to the president, almost monarch like.

Am I wrong about that?

Mr. Kean: The Constitution does not explicitly use the language executive orders.

I know many of my conservative friends who are strict constructionists might not like to hear that.

There is no explicit constitutional authority to issue executive orders.

What we have had happen is over the centuries at the office has existed, the president right to faithfully execute the office of the presidency and to execute the laws established by Congress permits him to a field executive orders to do so.

That in and of itself has created a kind of ambiguity that lots of presidents like to step through.

Andrew Jackson used a good number of executive orders, sort of changing the pattern of how they worked historically.

FDR issued thousands of them, including the most reprehensible of all perhaps, Executive Order 9066, effectively giving the right of the government to intern Japanese-American citizens.

Hopefully we have some historical memory of that.

That's been the legacy of executive orders, not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution but seen as a necessary and proper use of presidential power, if you will.

The challenge is they still are facing legal scrutiny and judicial review, and if you have a court that largely sides with presidential authority for a specific president, as it's fair to say this court does, a good number of those orders may not be challenged.

David: So what were the framers thinking?

Certainly they warrant -- they were not anticipating a Donald Trump, but they must have anticipated someone in that office trying to take all of those powers for him or herself?

Prof. Ambar: The truth of the matter is the framers of the Constitution were a little embarrassed by the office of the presidency.

That's pretty clear.

We had articles of Confederation for 10 years that brought us through the Revolutionary war.

That wasn't a shabby a compliment.

They helped cede lands to the western territories that later became states themselves, not too shabby.

The articles banned expansion of slavery into the Ohio territory.

Nevertheless, the Constitution framers wanted a more powerful central government with a more powerful executive.

They had reasons of their own for that.

But there was opposition.

We did have anti-Federalist.

We had Patrick Henry, who in Virginia, 1788 during the ratifying convention said -- these were his rather shocking words -- away with your president, we show have a king.

-- we shalt have a king.

Henry felt there were too few limits on presidential authority and he did not support it, radical patriot that he was.

There was some opposition.

The ambiguities of the Constitution, the so-called silences in the Constitution, have been claimed by characters over the centuries.

That has been a challenge for some of us, and I include myself in those ranks, who view the authority given to the president rather skeptically.

David: I want to touch on pardons, because they are very much part of the conversation.

Most recently this week when the senator, former Senator from New Jersey, was sentenced to 11 years, sent up what appeared to be a flare to the president suggesting that if you are feeling like spreading those pardons around, I will take one.

Prof. Ambar: Unfortunately the pardon power is one of the few remnants of monarchical power found in our Constitution.

Part of what the framers thought was necessary to strengthen the image of the president was to give him some latitude suggestive of that held by the kings of Europe at the time.

In other words, wanted a Republican executive, small r republican executive, but wanted to infuse some musculature into the office.

The pardon power was one way of doing that.

However, people like George Washington and others down the line sparingly used that power for the very reason that it smacked too closely to monarchy.

However, over time the pardon power has been abused by Democratic and Republican presidents alike, it's fair to say, and has become a personal power of the president.

It's clear that both Joe Biden and certainly Donald Trump have used the presidential pardon power for personal reasons.

David: During the first go around with President Trump, there was some opposition from within the party, but there doesn't seem to be in the over that left.

Prof. Ambar: Not really.

The silence is deafening from the Republican party, frankly deafening from a lot of our media.

The coverage of President Trump this time around, early days though it may be, seems to be rather tepid and let's take a wait and see attitude.

There is a little too much deferential treatment given to this president, and frankly recent presidencies have not been nearly as scrutinized, in part because there is a melding of corporate media power with that of our government.

That is not only a shame, it is something that runs the risk of further weakening our democratic institutions and frankly the faith of the American people that the government is on their side, instead of on the side of the powerful, politically well-connected.

David: You have the governor of this state waving at the president, saying can we have help with this pricing?

You have Mayor Eric Adams going to Florida to go meet with the King so that he might get a pardon.

It's become very blatantly transactional, it appears.

Prof. Ambar: Fear is a hell of a drug, if I can paraphrase the late, great Rick James.

Fear is a potent weapon in politics.

As Trump told Bob Woodward, his definition of power involves the word fear.

And I think people are very afraid.

Powerful individuals are very afraid to cross this president, for selfish reasons.

They want their companies, their media conglomerates, they want their personal favors to be protected.

Their interests, if you will, to be protected.

We have to go back to The Gilded Age to see this kind of malfeasant, institutional choir since -- quietescence toward executive power the way we see it operating.

At the root of it is fear and there is no getting around that.

David: This is a president who compared himself to Abraham Lincoln.

Do we have any comparisons you can recall that might be a parallel to this current president?

Prof. Ambar: I have just written a book about Abraham Lincoln, so my grandmother would wash my mouth out with soap if I compared Lincoln to Trump.

Rest in peace to grandma Cora from Astoria.

No, there really aren't the kinds of parallels.

Although Lincoln spoke of the possibility of a tyrant arising in America in his 1838 speech.

We just celebrated the 187th anniversary of it a day ago on January 27, where as a young member of the Illinois assembly he spoke out against ill omens among us, namely the rise of mob violence.

The examples he used were racially motivated, but he also spoke about the rise of a potential tyrant, a Caesar, Napoleon, Alexander, on American soil.

He suggested we don't have to fear from Russia or some other foreign power.

That if we are to expire as a country, it won't come from abroad.

He said national suicide will be our reason.

That's what I'm writing about right now.

I think Lincoln was on it, even before he became president he understood the threats to democracy were latent and the American people, citizens, had to be very vigilant and wide-eyed about the possibility of what we are seeing right now.

David: We are going to end on that happy note.

Professor Saladin Ambar, Senior scholar at Rutgers Eagleton's Center on the American Governor .

Appreciate you coming on, always good to talk to you.

Prof. Ambar: Thank you for having me.

David: That's Chat Box for this week.

Our thanks also to Governor Tom Kean for joining us.

You can follow me on x at David Cruz NJ and subscribed to the NJ Spotlight News YouTube channel to see what the team is up to.

It's easy to share this content and we encourage you to do so.

I'm David Cruz.

For all the crew here at Gateway Center, thanks for watching.

>> major funding for Chat Box with David Cruz is provided by the members of the New Jersey education Association.

Making public schools great for every child.

Promotional support for Chat Box with David Cruz is provided by insider NJ, a political intelligence network dedicated to New Jersey political news.

New Jersey NJ is committed to giving serious political players an interactive forum for ideas, discussion, and insight.

Online at insiderNJ.com.

♪