A letter signed by a wide range of scholars with different political and jurisprudential views urges Congress to sue to end illegal US involvement in the Yemen conflict.
Jamelle Bouie's counterintuitive recommendation would effectively eliminate constitutional limits on elected officials, including Trump and every demagogue who follows him.
The decision does not reach the merits of President Trump's attempt to divert military funds to build his border wall.
Free market reformers and authoritarian nationalists battle it out to reshape Brazil.
The symposium includes contributions by 16 legal commentators, including VC bloggers Keith Whittington and myself.
The first court decision on Trump's plan to reallocate federal funds to "build the wall" goes against the administration.
A federal judge rejects the President's attempt to block a Congressional subpoena of his financial records.
Plus: "Offending religious feelings" in Poland, Trump tax returns, the latest "heartbeat bill," Denver's mushroom measure, and more...
The libertarian legal analyst says Trump, like his White House predecessors, has abused executive power in all sorts of ways.
The Fox News legal analyst says the president is abusing executive power.
That's a potentially dangerous combination.
Reason editors discuss Russia, Biden, Moulton (?), and that television show with the dragons.
Forget about Donald Trump and the Mueller report and think about all the little (and not-so-little) people who get crushed by the feds.
The symposium includes contributions by a variety of legal commentators, including fellow VC blogger Keith Whittington and myself.
Extreme partisanship and the desire for power will play as big a role in saving Trump's presidency as his aides did by ignoring his orders.
Donald Trump's rhetoric is breathtakingly authoritarian, but so far he's done less than his predecessors to expand executive power.
Thank Donald Trump for the belated attempt to enforce the Constitution's separation of powers.
How the overwhelming vote against Trump's position could potentially affect the lawsuits challenging the legality of the declaration.
The nation's force mustered in service of the nation's will.
How has residuum theory gotten this all so wrong?
The administration continues to try to impose grant conditions on state and local governments that were never authorized by by Congress. In two new decision, courts continue to rule against them.
Against the Imperial Presidency.
The strongest legal argument against Trump's attempt to use emergency powers to build the wall is that declaring an emergency does not authorize him to spend money and condemn property for that purpose. But he also lacks grounds to declare an emergency in the first place.
Congress seems to have authorized this end run around its spending power. Can it do that?
"Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power."
Bargaining over policy is supposed to be frustrating. That's a feature, not a bug, of limited government.
My 2015 critique of Presidents Day is, if anything, even more relevant four years later.
A variety of legal experts weigh in on the subject, including me. Most conclude Trump may have the authority to declare an emergency, but not to spend funds and seize property for the wall.
There is no good justification for what the president is doing. Republicans and conservatives need to call him out on it.
Plus: Congress forgets to fund the First Step Act, The New York Times chastises smug politicians over Amazon, and what if the U.S. were 100 city-states?
A summary of the reasons why Trump lacks the power to use emergency powers to build his border wall, and why it would cause great harm and set a dangerous precedent if he did. Other than that, it's a great idea!
The way the travel ban policy has been implemented both before and after the Supreme Court's decision further underscores the magnitude of the Justices' mistake.
The op ed explains why this option is not legal - and why it would set a dangerous precedent if the president succeeded in doing it.
They correctly warn it would set a dangerous precedent that could be abused by future presidents, including liberal Democrats.
Republicans embrace presidential authoritarianism, continuing a foul bipartisan tradition of legislating immigration through the executive branch.
The op ed was published yesterday in the New York Daily News, but may be even more relevant today.
She's the highest-profile candidate to jump in.
The administration usurps Congress by redefining machine guns.
From the moment he started his improbable run for higher office, Donald Trump has stripped bare all pretensions that politics is about more than "winning."
Progressives appreciate the separation of powers-up to a point.
SCOTUS weighs congressional power, criminal law, and the non-delegation doctrine in Gundy v. U.S.
No great surprises so far. But some notable points nonetheless.
The Post has a symposium in which a a variety of legal commentators (myself included) discuss what they consider to be Judge Kavanaugh's most important opinions.
In 1999, Judge Kavanaugh suggested that the Supreme Court case that forced Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes may have been wrongly decided. But it's not entirely clear what he now thinks about the issue.
The debate over Judge Kavanaugh's views on executive power actually encompasses four separate issues. On some of them his views bode well for the future, on others not so much.
