By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a CNN interview, White House aide Stephen Miller paused mid-sentence while discussing the President’s authority to deploy National Guard troops, leading to speculation of a technical glitch or a deliberate stop. Miller’s use of the term “plenary authority” sparked controversy, as it suggests the president has broad, potentially limitless power. Despite the on-air issue, the interview resumed with Miller re-asserting the President’s authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy federal resources, though he emphasized the administration would abide by the judge’s ruling. This incident raised questions and drew criticism, particularly concerning the scope of executive power in domestic troop deployments.
Read the original article here
Stephen Miller’s “plenary authority” remark, made during a CNN interview, certainly seems to have stirred the pot, and it’s a bit of a surprise to hear so many opinions about it. The main focus here appears to be on the phrase itself, and the implications behind it. “Plenary authority” implies a kind of absolute power, a concept that doesn’t exactly sit well with a system of checks and balances. It’s clear from the reaction that the implications of this statement, especially coming from someone like Stephen Miller, have raised eyebrows.
It’s fascinating to see how the “technical issue” explanation, offered by CNN, has been received. Many feel that this was merely a convenient way to deflect attention from the core issue. The fact that CNN allowed Miller to essentially re-do the segment, omitting the controversial phrase, is considered by some to be evidence of a deliberate effort to downplay the significance of what was said. This choice by CNN appears to have fueled a lot of frustration, leading to a sense of betrayal among some viewers, who feel that the network should have pressed harder on the remark.
The reactions express a deep-seated distrust, and it’s not difficult to understand why. Miller’s past statements and actions, combined with the rhetoric from his side of the political spectrum, have left many skeptical about the administration’s intentions. The assertion of “plenary authority” is seen by many as a direct challenge to the principles of democracy. The general sentiment seems to be that this administration is actively working to undermine democratic institutions.
The controversy is perceived as not just about the words themselves, but about the underlying ideology and the direction the country is headed. The discussion surrounding the remark taps into concerns about the concentration of power, the erosion of norms, and the potential for authoritarianism. Many believe it is a deliberate move to test the waters and gauge public reaction. The “trial balloon” idea suggests that this could be a deliberate tactic to slowly introduce extreme ideas, and see how much pushback they receive.
The response to this event also highlights the critical role of media in shaping the narrative and holding power accountable. There’s a lot of anger directed at CNN for their handling of the situation. The overall feeling is that major news outlets failed to provide sufficient scrutiny. Some believe it shows a biased approach, while others feel that this highlights the breakdown of journalistic integrity.
The focus on the word “plenary” also leads to some observations on the use of big words to sound impressive, and the way these words can be misused in political discourse. There is a sentiment of the idea that they use big words in an attempt to sound intelligent. But some feel it backfired.
The reaction points to a broader sense of frustration with the current political climate. The incident seems to have become a symbol of a larger struggle. The overall feeling is one of anger and disappointment, and a deep concern about the future.