If Either Party Cared About Limiting Executive Power, Trump's Presidency Would Be Toast
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.
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.
Like Neil Gorsuch, the D.C. Circuit judge has criticized Chevron deference for encouraging executive arrogance.
The story of how classical liberal Justice George Sutherland enabled executive overreach abroad.
The op ed outlines some of the grave flaws in today's Supreme Court ruling.
Some preliminary comments on a badly flawed ruling.
Can the president of the United States be sued for damages in a civil proceeding?
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.
Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.
Make a donation today! No thanksEvery dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.
Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interestedSo much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.
I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanksPush back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.
My donation today will help Reason push back! Not todayBack journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.
Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksBack independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksSupport journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksYour support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanksDonate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.
Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks