You Might Have a 'Uniquely Compelling' Reason to Find Out Whether Your Government Has Placed You on a Kill List
Bilal Abdul Kareem has been nearly droned in Syria five times already. A federal judge agrees his lawsuit over the matter can proceed.
Bilal Abdul Kareem has been nearly droned in Syria five times already. A federal judge agrees his lawsuit over the matter can proceed.
The Supreme Court's ruling was based on state officials' apparent hostility to the bakers' religious beliefs. There is far stronger evidence of such hostility in the travel ban case.
Despite the administration's claims to the contrary, it appears that no such thing exists. Its absence strengthens the constitutional case against the travel ban.
I am reposting my 2016 post on this subject, on the occasion of Kevin Walsh's guest-blogging stint addressing the same issue.
If your "signature achievements" are done by executive power alone, they might as well be written in pencil.
The Donald is more like The Gipper on trade policy than you think. And not in a good way.
The originalist case for a unitary executive falls apart in an era when many of the powers wielded by the executive branch were not originally supposed to be federal powers in the first place.
The justices' comments in the oral argument suggest this will be a close case that could easily go either way. The outcome could well turn on the views of that perennial swing voter, Justice Anthony Kennedy.
On the eve of the of Supreme Court oral argument in the travel ban case, here are links to some of my more notable VC posts on the subject.
The unauthorized attack on Syria shows Congress won't enforce limits on the president's military powers.
You don't have to be an originalist to conclude that the Constitution requires congressional authorization for war.
A small-scale strike might be constitutional even without congressional support. But it is also likely to be useless, much like last year's missile strike turned out to be. Large-scale military action of the sort that could make a real difference, requires advance congressional authorization.
The brief, which I coauthored on behalf of myself and six other legal scholars explains why the Bill of Rights constrains federal power over immigration no less than other types of federal power.
Many people fear that John Bolton and Donald Trump might start an unnecessary war. But such fears would be unnecessary if Congress were to reclaims it power to initiate war.
The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit concluded that the ban violates the First Amendment because it is intended to discriminate against Muslims.
No robots need apply.
Trump's awful rhetoric is a menace to liberty - even when it does not lead to any immediate action.
Our institutions are strong enough to restrain a president, but they're also strong enough to empower him.
Friday A/V Club: Columnist, broadcaster, and critic of concentrated power
If you look past the shouting and the narcissism, there are clear signs that Trump doesn't have as much power as we all want or fear.
Some surprising insights and historical curiosities from past presidents at their one-year marks
The Court's decision to take the case is not surprising. It could potentially result in a very important decision addressing the scope of presidential power over immigration.
In his first year, Donald Trump took presidential blame shifting to new heights.
The court concluded that the travel ban exceeds the scope of presidential authority and violates immigration laws enacted by Congress.
A prominent constitutional law scholar highlights the perils of wars waged without congressional authorization - a practice engaged in by Obama and now perpetuated by Trump.
Contrary to his reputation (and Twitter feed), the president has been selectively trimming executive power.
The ATF has no legal authority to restrict the controversial firearm accessory.
Corker is a longtime defender of American intervention and war in the Middle East, and now wants to supply billions in weapons to the Saudis and Ukraine.
The hit cartoon depicts how out of control presidential power has gotten.
The president did not need Venezuela and North Korea to make his order constitutional.
A Senate vote shows that even Trump critics are happy to let the president use the military as he pleases.
Scrapping DACA is a callous act that'll hurt the country.
Instead of striving to ingratiate himself with those who hold his fate in their hands, the president seems determined to antagonize them.
Irrational, half-baked anti-terrorist policies are not necessarily unconstitutional.
An appeals court upholds an injunction against the president's travel ban but once again leaves him perfectly free to improve screening.
Intent on blocking visitors from Muslim-majority countries, the president confuses political incorrectness with seriousness.
Which is more important to the president: hurting Muslims or looking tough on terrorism?
The checks and challenges invited by the president's "serial recklessness" should be welcomed.
His recklessness doesn't necessarily weaken the executive branch. In fact the opposite may be true.
Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee need to step up their oversight game
Unlike his predecessor, Trump has not even done us the courtesy of coming up with a laughable excuse.
The heart of the potential for conflicts of interests is not the Trump business empire. It's the presidential power to steer benefits to particular interests.
The nation's father warned against "hyper-partisanship, excessive debt and foreign wars" in 1796. Why aren't we paying attention, asks John Avlon.
He should explain his views on federalism, executive power, and unenumerated rights.
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10