Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Constitution. Show all posts

Monday, June 15, 2026

Going After Habeas Corpus

 Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration is has been full of ominous developments.

Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan at NYT:

Last spring, Will Scharf, an arch-conservative lawyer serving as the White House staff secretary, wrote a secret memo to the chief of staff that reflected growing unease in the West Wing about one of the extreme measures being weighed by Stephen Miller, the powerful adviser driving President Trump’s deportation campaign.

Dated April 29, 2025, and stamped “confidential,” the memo was careful and lawyerly but amounted to a warning against end-running the rule of law. The subject line read: “THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.”

Habeas corpus — the centuries-old right to force the government to justify, before a judge, why it has locked a person up — is enshrined in Article I of the Constitution. Mr. Scharf’s memo, in its unassuming way, was a blinking red warning light. The second Trump White House was deliberating an explosive new claim of presidential power: the suspension of habeas rights for unauthorized immigrants.

The suspension of habeas corpus has occurred just a handful of times in U.S. history, and always under the most dire circumstances of war or invasion. Yet to a greater degree than previously known, administration officials, encouraged by Mr. Trump, actively weighed taking that step in the early months of his second term — this time to accelerate the mass deportation of immigrants in the country illegally.

...

Suspending habeas corpus was one of two radical ideas Mr. Miller had been pushing that alarmed Mr. Scharf. The other was invoking the Insurrection Act to deploy the military to enforce the law on American streets as protests grew against deportation sweeps.

...
But the documents reflected alarm among a small group of senior aides. They felt that Mr. Miller’s eagerness to test the limits of executive power — and to accuse other branches of encroaching on it, echoing a president who bristled at any constraint — risked steering the administration, and the country, in a dangerous direction.

...

“The Constitution is clear, and that of course is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,” Mr. Miller said. “So it’s an option we are actively looking at.”

Mr. Miller was intentional about his choice of words. The president had been trying to recast the immigration surge across the southern border during the Biden years as an invasion by enemy forces — a highly dubious claim intended to unlock extraordinary powers, intended only for wartime, to repel the migrants. Mr. Miller kept using the word “invasion” even after border crossings had fallen to multidecade lows.

“Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not,” Mr. Miller added to the reporters, a not-so-subtle warning to federal judges to give the president the leeway he was seeking.

After weeks of uproar, and disagreement between government officials on whether it could be done, the proposal eventually faded from view. Asked about it later, Mr. Trump appeared to acknowledge discussing suspending habeas corpus, but downplayed that the discussions were serious, and suggested it was not worth doing so just then.

Wednesday, April 1, 2026

Trump v. Mail Ballots

Our most recent book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration has been full of ominous developments.

Rick Hasen:

President Trump has signed a second executive order purporting to regulate federal elections (especially mail ballots). His first executive order from March 2025 has already been enjoined in key parts for violating the Constitution. As Judge Kollar-Kotelly wrote in one of the opinions, “Put simply, our Constitution does not allow the President to impose unilateral changes to federal election procedures.” This one is likely to fare no better before the courts.

... 

The basic idea of the actual EO that the President issued on Tuesday is this: DHS is going to craft a list of citizens above the age of 18. States will get that list. If a state does not submit a list (presumably to be compared to the federal list [UPDATE: See here on the relationship between state and federal lists]), and give the post office the citizen-approved list of voters (and do other things like add bar codes to mailed ballots), USPS will not deliver the mail. (USPS would have to craft regulations to implement this.)

To put this in plain terms: the order would use the USPS, which is not under the direct control of the President, to interfere with a state’s lawful transmission of ballots. If the state does not comply with these rules, federal law would purport to interfere with a state’s conduct of its own elections.

The President does not have the authority to do this. He cites to two federal voting statutes and the part of the Constitution that says that the United States shall guarantee to each state a Republican form of government. These sources do not give him authority to force states to change their election rules.

...

Finally, the timing here makes this virtually impossible to implement in time for November’s elections. This calls for rulemaking and DHS compiling these lists. These will take time. There will be inaccuracies or worse, and there will be lawsuits, many lawsuits. It seems highly unlikely any of this could be implemented for 2026, even if it were not blocked by courts.

It raises the question if this is just more election denialism theater. That’s what it looks like, rather than a serious effort to craft a law that could be implemented and withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Tuesday, September 16, 2025

Bondi Threatens to Go After "Hate Speech"

Our new book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration  has been full of ominous developments. Last week, a gunman murdered Charlie Kirk. Trump and his followers are exploiting the tragedy to attack their opponents.  But some forms of retribution are too much even for MAGA influencers.

Tom Latchem at The Daily Beast:

MAGA leaders torched Attorney General Pam Bondi after she vowed to “target hate speech” in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s killing—something the murdered activist said he did not believe in.

Bondi said her Justice Department would enforce hate speech investigations after the Conservative free-speech, right-wing activist was assassinated.

“There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place, especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society.
“We will absolutely target you, go after you if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

However, Kirk himself had repeatedly spoken about the danger of defining and punishing so-called ‘hate speech. ’
“Hate speech does not exist legally in America,” he posted on X last year. “There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”
A video posted by Decensored News on X compared Bondi’s statement to Kirk’s own words before he died.

Describing himself as a “free speech absolutist,” Kirk told an audience, to applause, “My position is that even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in our country.

“The most disgusting speech should absolutely be protected."

...

Fox News senior political analyst Brit Hume piled on: “Someone needs to explain to Ms. Bondi that so-called ‘hate speech,’ repulsive though it may be, is protected by the First Amendment. She should know this.”

Right-wing influencer Auron MacIntyre called Bondi’s remarks “the worst possible framing for what is a legitimate action against terrorist networks,” warning, “This will be the clip every leftist uses… it is a disaster at every level.”

Matt Walsh also lit into the attorney general on X, saying, “There is no law against saying hateful things, and there shouldn’t be.”

Bethany Irvine at Politico:

Asked by ABC’s Jonathan Karl about AG Pam Bondi’s comments that she would “go after” those who were “targeting anyone with hate speech” following Kirk’s killing, Trump zeroed in on the news outlet. “We’ll probably go after people like you, because you treat me unfairly. It’s hate. You have a lot of hate in your heart. Maybe they’ll come after ABC. Well, ABC paid me $16 million recently for a form of hate speech … Maybe they’ll have to go after you,” Trump said.

Bondi, for her part, riled up both conservative and liberal circles with her controversial comment that was seen as a threat to clamp down on free speech — a debate that she attempted to further define today, POLITICO’s Gigi Ewing writes. “Hate speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment. It’s a crime,” Bondi said in a post on X, claiming that the “radical left” has used it to “normalize threats, call for assassinations, and cheer on political violence. That era is over.”

 

Friday, May 16, 2025

The Bill of Particulars Against Trump

Our forthcoming book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration is off to an ominous start

 J. Michael Luttig at The Atlantic:

As Trump turns the federal government of the United States against Americans and America itself, the bill of particulars against him is already longer than the Declaration of Independence’s bill of particulars against King George III and the British empire.
For not one of his signature initiatives during his first 100 days in office does Trump have the authority under the Constitution and laws of the United States that he claims. Not for the crippling global tariffs he ordered unilaterally; not for his unlawful deportations of hundreds of immigrants to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), El Salvador’s squalid maximum-security prison; not for his deportation of U.S. citizens to Honduras; not for his defiantly corrupt order from the Great Hall of the Department of Justice to weaponize the department against his political enemies; not for his evil executive orders against the nation’s law firms for their representation of his political enemies and clients of whom he personally disapproves; not for his corrupt executive orders against honorable American citizens and former officials of his own administration, Chris Krebs and Miles Taylor, a former Homeland Security chief of staff who dared to criticize Trump anonymously during his first term; not for his unlawful bludgeoning of the nation’s colleges and universities with unconstitutional demands that they surrender their governance and curricula to his wholly owned federal government; not for his threatened revocation of Harvard University’s tax-exempt status; not for his impoundment of billions of dollars of congressionally approved funds or his politically motivated threats to revoke tax exemptions; not for his attempt to alter the rules for federal elections; not for his direct assault on the Fourteenth Amendment’s birthright-citizenship guarantee; not for his mass firings of federal employees; not for his empowerment of Musk and DOGE to ravage the federal government; not for his threats to fire Federal Reserve Board Chairman Jerome Powell; not for his unconstitutional attacks on press freedoms; and finally, not for his appalling arrest of Judge Dugan.

Monday, May 5, 2025

Legal Incompetence

Our forthcoming book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration is off to an ominous start.

Mark Berman and Jeremy Roebuck at WP:
Justice Department lawyers defending the Trump administration’s policies are encountering mounting criticism and frustration from federal judges, a sign of deepening tension between the executive branch and courts weighing its aggressive uses of power.

In recent hearings and rulings, judges appointed by presidents of both parties have criticized the statements and behavior of administration officials, accusing them of defying court orders, submitting flimsy evidence, providing inadequate answers to questions and even acting like toddlers.

The cases involve lawsuits challenging everything from President Donald Trump’s push to increase deportations to his efforts to punish law firms. Most are in the early stages of litigation. But the judicial pushback suggests a break from the goodwill courts have traditionally shown toward assertions by government lawyers.

The “deference that judges would give to attorneys from Main Justice is evaporating,” said John E. Jones III, a former federal judge in Pennsylvania appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush. Justice Department lawyers, he added, have “lost a fair measure of their credibility.”

At a hearing in D.C. last week about law firms, U.S. District Judge John D. Bates seemed unimpressed by some of the Justice Department lawyer’s answers, responding at one point: “Oh, give me a break.”

U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell was similarly skeptical Friday as she ruled Trump’s actions against a different law firm were unconstitutional, writing that Justice Department lawyer Richard Lawson, “when asked, was unable to fill in basic details” about the sanctions.

In Virginia, a judge scoffed at evidence the government offered in an immigration case in March to claim one couple were members of a violent gang. “I expect more from the government than this kind of very shoddy work,” U.S. District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema told the Justice Department lawyer, adding that if it were a criminal case, “I’d throw you out of my chambers.”

Sunday, May 4, 2025

Trump on Abiding by the Constitution: "I Don't Know"

 Our forthcoming book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration is off to an ominous start.

Amanda Terkel and Lawrence Hurley at NBC:
In an interview last month with “Meet the Press,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “Yes, of course,” when asked whether every person in the United States is entitled to due process.

Trump, however, isn’t so sure.

“I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know,” Trump replied when asked by “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker whether he agreed with Rubio. His comments came during a wide-ranging interview at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, which aired Sunday.

The Constitution’s Fifth Amendment says “no person” shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”; it does not say that person must be a U.S. citizen, and the Supreme Court has long recognized that noncitizens have certain basic rights. Trump has also said that while “we always have to obey the laws,” he would like to see some “homegrown criminals” sent to El Salvador as well, a proposal that was widely panned by legal experts.

When Welker tried to point out what the Fifth Amendment said, Trump suggested that such a process would slow him down too much.

“I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials,” he said. “We have thousands of people that are — some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.”

“I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it,” he added.

“But even given those numbers that you’re talking about, don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” Welker asked.

“I don’t know,” Trump replied. “I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

Thursday, April 17, 2025

"Retaliation Is Real"


 Zachariah Hughes at Anchorage Daily News:
U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski told a room full of Alaska nonprofit leaders that the tumult of tariffs, executive orders, court battles, and cuts to federal services under the Trump administration are exceptionally concerning.

“We are all afraid,” Murkowski said, taking a long pause. “It’s quite a statement. But we are in a time and a place where I certainly have not been here before. And I’ll tell ya, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice, because retaliation is real. And that’s not right.”
...

“It’s called the checks and balances. And right, now we are not balancing as the Congress,” Murkowski said.

She expressed alarm at how the judiciary was increasingly being treated as a partisan entity, saying it was putting America in “a very dangerous place, because you stop believing in the rule of law.” And she called on Alaskans to “be affirmative” in protesting on behalf of programs they want to remain in place so that elected leaders are kept aware of where support and frustration exist among constituents.

“I think it’s important the concerns continue to be raised rather than letting the fatigue of the chaos grind you down,” Murkowski said.
Jade Walker at CNN:
Defy President Donald Trump and retribution will be swift. That’s the message the White House is sending to Harvard University after the school refused to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion policies, audit the viewpoints of students, faculty and staff and alter rules for on-campus protests. In response, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal grants at Harvard. The IRS is reportedly making plans to rescind the university's tax-exempt status. The Department of Homeland Security canceled two federal grants worth $2.7 million and threatened to strip Harvard of its ability to enroll international students unless it turns over its disciplinary records. And Trump trashed the school in a rant on his Truth Social site. As the university grapples with the sudden loss of funding, Harvard researchers are scrambling to figure out what to do about studies that are already in progress. Yet even as each school weighs having to cut budgets and staff, nearly 800 faculty members have signed a letter urging the university to resist the Trump administration’s demands.


Sunday, February 23, 2025

Trump and GOP Wage War on the Media

Our forthcoming book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration is off to an ominous start. 

Sarah Fischer at Axios:

In his first four weeks, Trump's administration has: 
  • Banned the Associated Press: The White House last week said it would bar the AP from future events in the Oval Office and Air Force One over its decision not to directly follow Trump's executive order renaming "Gulf of Mexico" as "Gulf of America" in its style guidance.
  • Ended federal news subscriptions: The State Department on Wednesday ordered the cancellation of news subscriptions around the world. The directive came shortly after the executive branch said it will stop spending money on Politico subscriptions after paying the outlet millions last year.
  • Reshuffled Pentagon press: The Defense Department informed several outlets, including NPR, NBC News, Politico and CNN that they had to move out of their workspaces at the Correspondents' Corridor in the Pentagon, although their press credentials will remain intact. They will be replaced by mostly conservative outlets such as Washington Examiner, Daily Caller, and Newsmax, and others under a new otation system.
Zoom in: These moves, while punitive, are temporary and a new president can easily reverse them. Broader efforts to target media companies by Trump, his administration and a Republican-led Congress recently could be harder to unwind.
  • Congressional PBS, NPR probe: Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) has called on the CEOs of NPR and PBS to testify at a DOGE subcommittee hearing about what she says is "systemically biased content." It's the first hearing to be announced for the subcommittee. Both broadcasters rely on congressionally appropriated funding to survive.
  • FCC PBS, NPR probe: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is also investigating the two public broadcasters over whether their member stations violated FCC rules around airing commercial ads. FCC Chairman Brendan Carr implied that the investigation could help influence Congress' funding decision.
  • FCC Comcast/NBC investigation: Carr informed Comcast he is opening an investigation into the company's diversity, equity and inclusion practices. It marked the first public effort by the new administration to target a private company for its DEI initiatives.
  • FCC CBS inquiry: Carr opened an inquiry into CBS News to evaluate whether it violated the FCC's news distortion rules when it edited a "60 Minutes" interview with 2024 Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris during the campaign. The inquiry adds pressure to CBS, as it considers whether to settle a separate lawsuit filed against it last year by Trump before he took office.

Reality check: A strong U.S. legal and regulatory framework makes it difficult for Trump and his regulators to go after media companies without likely having to defend at least some of their actions in court.



Sunday, February 16, 2025

Napoleonic Code

 Our forthcoming book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration is off to an ominous start. 



Maggie Haberman, Charlie Savage and Jonathan Swan at NYT:
By late afternoon, Mr. Trump had pinned the statement to the top of his Truth Social feed, making it clear it was not a passing thought but one he wanted people to absorb. The official White House account on X posted his message in the evening.

The quote is a variation of one sometimes attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, although its origin is unclear.

...
The Trump administration at first did not offer a public legal rationale for blowing through the statutes that provide various kinds of job protections to the officials that Mr. Trump has summarily fired, including members of independent agencies like the National Labor Relations Board.

But last week, the administration offered something of an explanation. Sarah M. Harris, the acting solicitor general at the Justice Department, sent a letter to Congress saying the department would not defend the constitutionality of statutes that limit firing members of independent agencies before their terms were up. Such laws say the president cannot remove such an official at will, but only for a specific cause like misconduct.

While not using the phrase “unitary executive theory,” Ms. Harris’s letter echoed its ideological tenet that the Constitution does not allow Congress to enact a law “which prevents the president from adequately supervising principal officers in the executive branch who execute the laws on the president’s behalf,” and said the Trump administration will try to get the Supreme Court to overturn a 1935 precedent to the contrary.
...

But, taken at face value, Mr. Trump’s statement on Saturday went much further, suggesting that even if what he is doing unambiguously breaks an otherwise valid law, that would not matter if he says his motive is to save the country.

...

While national security cases rarely get litigated, when they have, the Supreme Court has been skeptical of sweeping theories of presidential power — striking down President Harry S. Truman’s attempted seizure of steel mills as a Korean War measure, for example.

In any case, Mr. Trump’s moves so far have largely not been in the realm of national security. Rather, he has been attempting to stamp out pockets of independence that Congress created within the executive branch in order to centralize greater power in the White House over issues that are largely ones of domestic policy.

Mr. Trump and some of his allies have pushed the political argument that the nation has been under siege from what they characterize as leftist policies and values, and has fallen into a spiral of decline that must be reversed by any means necessary.

Among them, Mr. Trump’s budget chief, Russell Vought, wrote an essay in 2022, declaring that the United States was already in a “post-Constitutional moment” and that to push back against liberals, it was necessary to be “radical in discarding or rethinking the legal paradigms that have confined our ability to return to the original Constitution.”

Monday, February 10, 2025

Vance, Roberts, and the Constitution

Our forthcoming book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. 

Charlie Savage and Minho Kim at NYT:
Vice President JD Vance declared on Sunday that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power,” delivering a warning shot to the federal judiciary in the face of court rulings that have, for now, stymied aspects of President Trump’s agenda.

The statement, issued on social media, came as federal judges have temporarily barred a slew of Trump administration actions from taking effect. They include ending birthright citizenship; giving associates of Elon Musk’s government-slashing effort access to a sensitive Treasury Department system; transferring transgender female inmates to male prisons; and placing thousands of U.S. Agency for International Development employees on leave.

 Chief Justice John Roberts:

It is not in the nature of judicial work to make everyone happy. Most cases have a winner and a loser. Every Administration suffers defeats in the court system—sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topics. Nevertheless, for the past several decades, the decisions of the courts, popular or not, have been followed, and the Nation has avoided the standoffs that plagued the 1950s and 1960s. Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.


Saturday, February 8, 2025

The Coming Constitutional Crisis, Continued

Our forthcoming book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration is off to an ominous start.

Brent D. Griffiths, Natalie Musumeci, and Laura Italiano at Business Insider:
Constitutional law experts warn that if a president chose to defy court orders, judges would have limited options. The consequences would likely fall on lower-level officials, not the president himself, said Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law in Chapel Hill.

"At the very least, you would have a possible contempt citation directed at a particular official who has refused to comply with a court order," Gerhardt told BI, "If they indicate they are defying it because of his order, then the court is going to include the president in the citation of contempt."

But enforcing even that would fall to the Justice Department — which answers to Trump.

Gerhardt pointed to recent examples of Trump testing limits: The president fired inspectors general without providing Congress the legally required notification and list of reasons for dismissal.

Some in Trump's orbit have previously said the president should actively confront the judiciary. Long before he was elected last November, Vice President JD Vance argued that Trump should forge ahead with bold actions and dare federal judges who try to stand in his way.

"I think that what Trump should, like, if I was giving him one piece of advice, fire every single mid-level bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state," Vance said in 2021 on a podcast. "Replace them with our people. And when the courts — because you will get taken to court — and when the courts stop you, stand before the country like Andrew Jackson did and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.'" (Many historians believe Andrew Jackson likely never said that.)


Eight years ago, Dahlia Lithwick et al. wrote:

The situation has forced observers to reckon with a question that has little or no precedent in American history: What happens when the federal government or its agents refuse to honor a court order handed down by a federal judge? By definition, it has to be different from what happens when, say, a state lawmaker flouts the word of a federal judge, since in the past, such cases have involved the president himself sending in the U.S. Marshals to enforce the law. But who will be on what side if things escalate, and the executive branch itself explicitly and continuously refuses to follow the rulings of the judiciary? At what point does the conflict turn into a full-blown constitutional crisis?

 


Friday, February 7, 2025

The Coming Constitutional Crisis

Our forthcoming book is The Comeback: The 2024 Elections and American Politics. The second Trump administration is off to an ominous start.

German Lopez at NYT:

In the United States, Congress, the president and the courts are supposed to keep an eye on one another — to stop any one branch of government from becoming too powerful. President Trump is showing us what happens when those checks and balances break down.

The president can’t shut down agencies that Congress has funded, yet that’s what Trump did, with Elon Musk’s help, to the U.S. Agency for International Development. The president can’t fire inspectors general without giving lawmakers 30 days’ notice, but Trump dismissed 17 of them anyway. Congress passed a law forcing TikTok to sell or close, and the courts upheld it, but Trump declined to enforce it. “The president is openly violating the law and Constitution on a daily basis,” said Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth College.

In doing so, Trump has called the bluff of our constitutional system: It works best when each branch does its job with alacrity. Trump’s opponents are filing lawsuits, but courts are slow and deliberative. They can’t keep up with the changes the White House has already implemented. Congress could fight back, but the Republican lawmakers in charge have shrugged, as my colleague Carl Hulse reported. Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina conceded that what the administration is doing “runs afoul of the Constitution in the strictest sense.” But, he said, “nobody should bellyache about that.”

As a result, most of Trump’s actions stand unchecked.

Calder McHugh at Politico:

Since President Donald Trump took office, federal courts have been busy hitting the brakes on the most ambitious parts of his shock-and-awe agenda. Courts have temporarily blocked the administration’s ability to implement a federal funding freeze, its attempts to cull the federal workforce, the president’s order ending birthright citizenship and even a plan to move three incarcerated transgender women to men’s facilities.

What it tells us is that Trump’s second term seems likely to be defined by a different kind of conflict than his first. This time around, he understands the gears and levers of government better. He’s surrounded by loyalists in every agency. Congress has bent the knee and shows zero interest in serving as a check on the executive branch. Now, it’s the judiciary, which is fielding a deluge of legal challenges against the White House agenda, that’s barreling towards a confrontation with a president who already holds it in low regard.

The contours of the fight between the two branches of government — and exactly how a newly emboldened Trump plans to take on obstinate judges — are just now coming into focus.

After a district judge issued a temporary restraining order on the Trump administration’s ability to implement a blanket federal spending freeze on Monday, many EPA climate and infrastructure grants remain frozen as of today.

The Justice Department has acknowledged receipt of the judge’s order. But the Trump administration has not yet complied with portions of the order. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), described the standoff this way: “It’s hard to tell what is incompetence and what is confusion and what is basically contemptuous trickery.”

The incident might be a one-off, an innocent oversight in the fog of assembling a new administration. But it might also be a preview of what’s to come. There are few enforcement mechanisms that the judiciary can rely on to make other branches of the federal government comply with their orders. If the Trump administration decides to willfully ignore orders from federal judges, it would, at minimum, present a constitutional crisis with no obvious solutions.


Sunday, January 26, 2025

Trump v. Law and Norms

Our next book is titled The Comeback: the 2024 Elections and American Politics.

He freed even the most violent of the rioters who assaulted the Capitol in his name four years ago. Out of pique over questions of loyalty, he stripped former advisers facing credible death threats of their security details. Disregarding a law passed with bipartisan support and upheld by the Supreme Court, he allowed the Chinese-owned TikTok app to remain in use in the United States despite serious national security concerns.

Not satisfied to simply eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, he ordered government workers to snitch on anyone suspected of not going along or face “adverse consequences,” a practice familiar to anyone of a certain age who lived in Russia. He fired at least a dozen inspectors general who monitor departments for corruption and abuse in a late-night purge on Friday, ignoring a law requiring him to give Congress 30 days’ notice and provide specific reasons.
...

He decided to rewrite the 14th Amendment to the Constitution as it has been understood for more than a century to declare that it does not guarantee automatic citizenship to all children born in the United States. It took just three days for a federal judge to step in and temporarily block the move, which he called “a blatantly unconstitutional order,” but the issue will surely go to the Supreme Court.

 ...

Just three days before his inauguration, he released a crypto token called $Trump that together with other family tokens rose to around $10 billion in value on paper. The tokens create new opportunities for companies and other financial players inside and outside the United States to curry favor with the new administration.

Moreover, while other presidents had wealthy patrons who enjoyed access to the Oval Office, Mr. Trump has gone so far as to surround himself with billionaires on the inaugural platform and give Elon Musk, the world’s richest man, a mandate to revamp the federal government that puts billions of dollars in his pocket through various contracts.

Monday, September 2, 2024

Power and Violence

Our most recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good. Some Republican leaders -- and a measurable number of rank-and-file voters -- are open to violent rebellion, coups, and secession.  Trump has accused the Biden Administration of trying to kill him. 

Hannah Knowles at WP:
Donald Trump amplified a vulgar joke about Vice President Kamala Harris performing a sex act. He falsely accused her of staging a coup to secure the Democratic nomination and faulted her without evidence for a security lapse that enabled a rogue gunman to try to assassinate him. He shared a manipulated online image of Bill Gates in an orange jumpsuit and a call for Barack Obama to face a “military tribunal.” He promoted explicit tributes to the QAnon conspiracy theory. He hawked digital trading cards in an online infomercial along with pieces of his debate night suit. (“People are calling it the knockout suit.”) His campaign feuded publicly with Arlington National Cemetery over their visit. And that was just in the span of 24 hours.

Monday, August 19, 2024

Harris's Vulnerabilities on Issues

 Our most recent book is Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics. Less than 48 hours after Biden's withdrawal, Kamala Harris became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee.

Kevin D. Williamson at The Dispatch writes that Harris has vulnerabilities that Trump has not yet been able to exploit effectively:

There isn’t any serious person or analysis that finds Harris to be “by far” to the left of Bernie Sanders. But, even if there were, degrees of leftness or rightness are not especially useful in prosecuting a political case against a major-party nominee. Indictments of a candidate’s support of particular bad policies or opposition to particular good policies, however, really have to be answered. Harris has taken wrong—and unpopular—positions on everything from race-based college admissions to “Medicare for All” to the First Amendment. She has a pretty bad record on Trump’s hallmark issue, immigration, but Trump and his team cannot advance the conversation past the question of whether it said “border czar” on her business card (in part because the candidate gets distracted by his need to deliver disquisitions on Hannibal Lecter). Trump could do a Buzzfeed-style listicle of Harris’ three or five worst policy positions and hammer those home in a hundred speeches. But he is too lazy to do the modest work involved.

Saturday, June 8, 2024

Post-Constitutional

 Our recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good. Trump and his minions falsely claimed that he won the election, and have kept repeating the Big Lie.  And we now know how close he came to subverting the Constitution.     


At WP, Beth Reinhard, profiles Trump OMB director Russ Vought, who is making plans to concentrate power in the executive.
“We are living in a post-Constitutional time,” Vought wrote in a seminal 2022 essay, which argued that the left has corrupted the nation’s laws and institutions. Last week, after a jury convicted Trump of falsifying business records, Vought tweeted: “Do not tell me that we are living under the Constitution.”

Vought aims to harness what he calls the “woke and weaponized” bureaucracy that stymied the former president by stocking federal agencies with hardcore disciples who would wage culture wars on abortion and immigration. The proposals championed by Vought and other Trump allies to fundamentally reset the balance of power would represent a historic shift — one they see as a needed corrective.

Trump spokespeople claim deniability.

But in a sign of Vought’s status as a key adviser, Trump and the Republican National Committee last month named him policy director for the 2024 platform committee — giving him a chance to push a party that did not adopt a platform in 2020 further to the right. Trump personally blessed Vought’s agenda at a Mar-a-Lago fundraiser for his group and said Vought would “do a great job in continuing our quest to make America great again.”

.And when the last law was down...

“Our need is not just to win congressional majorities that blame the other side or fill seats on court benches to meddle at the margins,” he wrote in the 2022 essay. “It is to cast ourselves as dissidents of the current regime and to put on our shoulders the full weight of envisioning, articulating, and defending what a Radical Constitutionalism requires in the late hour that our country finds itself in, and then to do it.”

In practice, that could mean reinterpreting parts of the Constitution to achieve policy goals — such as by defining illegal immigration as an “invasion,” which would allow states to use wartime powers to stop it.

“We showed that millions of illegal aliens coming across, and Mexican cartels holding operational control of the border, constitute an invasion,” Vought wrote. “This is where we need to be radical in discarding or rethinking the legal paradigms that have confined our ability to return to the original Constitution.”

Wednesday, January 10, 2024

Threat Level: Trump

Our recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good. Trump and his minions falsely claimed that he won the election, and have kept repeating the Big Lie.  And we now know how close he came to subverting the Constitution.   

Isaac Arnsdorf at WP:

Republican polling leader Donald Trump on Tuesday threatened unrest if the criminal charges against him cause him to lose the 2024 election.

Speaking to reporters after an appeals court hearing in which Trump’s lawyers said he should be immune from prosecution for trying to overturn the 2020 election, Trump claimed without evidence that he was being prosecuted because of polls showing him leading President Biden. He warned that if the charges succeed in damaging his candidacy, the result would be “bedlam.”
“I think they feel this is the way they’re going to try and win, and that’s not the way it goes,” Trump said. “It’ll be bedlam in the country. It’s a very bad thing. It’s a very bad precedent. As we said, it’s the opening of a Pandora’s box.”

 The former president did not take questions and walked away as a Washington Post reporter asked him to rule out violence by his supporters.

 At Mediaite, Tommy Christopher reports on a court hearing where Trump attorney John Sauer argued for absolute presidential immunity:

JUDGE PAN: Could a president order Seal Team Six to assassinate a political rival? That’s an official act, an order to Seal Team Six.

JOHN SAUER: He would have to be and would speedily be, you know, uh, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution–

JUDGE PAN: But there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?

JOHN SAUER: Chief Justice’s opinion in Marbury against Madison and, uh, uh, and our Constitution and the plain language of the impeachment judgment clause all clearly presuppose that what the founders were concerned about was not.

Diana Falzone at Mediaite:

Weeks before the 2020 presidential election, infamous political operative Roger Stone sat across from his associate Sal Greco at a restaurant in Florida.

At the time, Greco was an NYPD cop working security for Stone on the side. Their conversation, at Caffe Europa in Fort Lauderdale, focused on two House Democrats for whom Stone harbors particular animosity, Jerry Nadler and Eric Swalwell.

In audio of the conversation obtained exclusively by Mediaite, Stone made threatening comments about the two lawmakers.

 “It’s time to do it,” Stone told Greco. “Let’s go find Swalwell. It’s time to do it. Then we’ll see how brave the rest of them are. It’s time to do it. It’s either Nadler or Swalwell has to die before the election. They need to get the message. Let’s go find Swalwell and get this over with. I’m just not putting up with this shit anymore.”

A source familiar with the discussion told Mediate they believed Stone’s remarks were serious. “It was definitely concerning that he was constantly planning violence with an NYPD officer and other militia groups,” the source said.



Thursday, January 4, 2024

Emoluments Update

In Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics, we look at Trump's dishonesty and disregard for the rule of law.

US Constitution, Art I, Sec 9: "And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

 Luke Broadwater at NYT:

Donald J. Trump’s businesses received at least $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments during his presidency, according to new documents released by House Democrats on Thursday that show how much he received from overseas transactions while he was in the White House, most of it from China.

The transactions, detailed in a 156-page report called “White House For Sale” that was produced by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee, offer concrete evidence that the former president engaged in the kind of conduct that House Republicans have labored, so far unsuccessfully, to prove that President Biden did as they work to build an impeachment case against him.

Using documents produced through a court fight, the report describes how foreign governments and their controlled entities, including a top U.S. adversary, interacted with Trump businesses while he was president. They paid millions to the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.; Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas; Trump Tower on Fifth Avenue in New York; and Trump World Tower at 845 United Nations Plaza in New York.

House Democrats highlighted the transactions on Thursday as a counterweight to Republicans’ impeachment inquiry into Mr. Biden, which has sought to tie him to international business deals by his son Hunter Biden before his father became president in a bid to prove corruption or influence peddling. They have so far failed to show that President Biden was enriched in any way by any of those transactions.

Friday, December 29, 2023

Trump Off the Maine Ballot

Our recent book is titled Divided We Stand: The 2020 Elections and American Politics.  Among other things, it discusses the state of the parties. The state of the GOP is not good. Trump and his minions falsely claimed that he won the election, and have kept repeating the Big Lie.  And we now know how close he came to subverting the Constitution. 

Zach Montellaro at Politico:
Maine’s top election official ejected former President Donald Trump from the state’s ballot on Thursday, declaring him ineligible to serve as president because of his role in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress.

The ruling by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat, is certain to inflame a roaring national debate over whether the Republican presidential frontrunner should be allowed to hold power again.

The decision makes Maine the second state in two weeks to disqualify Trump’s candidacy due to the constitutional bar on officeholders who supported or “engaged in insurrection or rebellion.” Last week the Colorado Supreme Court barred Trump from the state’s Republican primary ballot under a similar interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Bellows’ decision on Thursday increases the pressure on the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and ultimately decide Trump’s fate — as the Colorado GOP petitioned the justices this week to do.

Unlike the Colorado ruling, this one comes from an individual officeholder affiliated with the Democratic Party. And Maine, unlike Colorado, has been a presidential battleground in recent years; under an unusual state law, it cast one of its Electoral College votes for Trump in both 2016 and 2020.

Trump was quick to attack the decision, with an aide calling it “partisan election interference.” But his removal from the ballot in two states remains a stark illustration of his deep legal and political vulnerabilities.

Bellows, who made the call in Maine because state law requires the secretary to adjudicate ballot challenges to candidates’ eligibility, defended her decision in her determination.

“I am mindful that no Secretary of State has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment,” Bellows wrote. “I am also mindful, however, that no presidential candidate has ever before engaged in insurrection.”