Steve:
Is there a particular piece of legislation, or social change, that came in during/after the time of either of the two Roosevelts that can be identified as having reduced the threat of plutocracy and which Trump's actions look likely to undo?
Not that I can think of offhand, but i really do not know much about such things. The breakup of Bell Telephone might have been the last effort to prevent monopolies. What is occurring today may not be considered monopolies by legal definition, but there has been a great deal of consolidation in many industries, with few players, and little or no choice by consumers.
But, on the other hand, he is promising to do the old FDR, New Deal, spending on infrastructure thing.
He has promised to spend on infrastructure, but there are questions about how it will be funded and how jobs will be awarded. Think cronyism.
But therein lies the problem of interpreting the Constitution that we've touched on before. The exhortation to "promote general welfare", right there at the start of that document, is about as woolly as it gets.
I agree in general, but on a case by case basis it is not always so difficult to determine what the general welfare is, it just allows for wiggle room. Trump and Bannon are using the promise of jobs as an excuse to eliminate environmental protection. We might judge the environment to be more important to the general welfare but others might hold that jobs are better for the general welfare. The question of whether the only two options are jobs and pollution are the only two options was not raised. Would the cost of filtration or some other means of disposal make operations prohibitive or would they just cut into profits? And then there is the question of how many jobs. And of the environmental impact and health costs.
Quite possibly, but same problem as above. As soon as we start claiming that such and such a thing is against the "spirit" of the law or the Constitution then we enter a standard political debate full of political opinion and short on undeniable fact. And our opponent, at the end of it, can simply say "what an interesting opinion".
Many in the U.S. are far less sanguine. Two days ago Trump held a press conference and blocked the NYT, CNN, LAT, BBC, Huffington Post, Politico, and others. In their balanced report the NYT did point out that it is not unusual for an administration to single out groups of reporters for special briefings and that Obama had once tried to block Fox. But there is more. Trump said that the use of anonymous sources should not be allowed. This is an opinion until he tries to act on it. Trump is also attacking the FBI. If this is a concerted effort to suppress information regarding Russia’s role in the election then there is a much stronger case that this is a violation of the letter and not just spirit of the Constitution.
Hopefully the question of whether he is or isn't in violation of that one is a little easier to establish (at least in principle) as a fact which can't so easily be dismissed as just another political opinion among many.
He is being sued by several organizations for being in violation of the emolument clause. Even if he is found guilty it is not clear how it will play out.
Dolphin42:
If he doesn't deliver for them will the people get rid of him?
I do not think he would be reelected. There will be some who will be disillusioned and not vote for him. The Democrats will step up their game. They will pick a candidate who is more popular and less polarizing than Clinton. Given the fact that many said they voted against Clinton and the fact that she won the popular vote, it is possible that a more likeable Democrat would have won.