Trump Has Secret Emergency Powers?
"Presidential emergency action documents” concocted under prior administrations purport to give him such authority, according to a New York Times op-ed.
"Presidential emergency action documents” concocted under prior administrations purport to give him such authority, according to a New York Times op-ed.
Hungary's Viktor Orbán consolidates power, Harvard's Adrian Vermeule fantasizes about wielding it, and many of those who oppose authoritarian conservativism beg Donald Trump to close the country down.
Takeout and delivery orders are the only thing keeping the state's 115 craft breweries afloat during the coronavirus outbreak.
“Why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?”
This inability to agree on the nature of the national interest is endemic not just to the new nationalism, but to all of politics.
The presidential candidate reserves the right to wage unauthorized wars, kill Americans in foreign countries, prosecute journalists, and selectively flout the law.
The legal battle over immigration, federalism, and executive power heats up.
The argument requires several controversial assumptions and leaps of logic.
Kehinde Wiley's pre-presidential works criticized inequalities and hierarchies of power. His presidential portrait doesn't do the same.
The president remains frankly puzzled by the distinction between can and should.
Other possible legal challenges to Trump's expanded travel ban may be precluded by the Supreme Court's ruling in Trump v. Hawaii. This one is not.
If Barr is so concerned about the appearance of integrity, why did he insert himself into a high-profile case involving a presidential pal?
Until we start denuding the Oval Office, we will continue getting the royals we deserve.
After Watergate, Democrats rolled back executive power. Under Trump, they just want to be the ones who get to wield it.
Until we start denuding the Oval Office, we will continue getting the royals we deserve.
Republicans should think twice before endorsing the dangerous myth that impeachment requires a criminal violation.
The courts may not strike it down. But it remains both illegal and deeply unjust.
While Trump will almost certainly be acquitted within the next few days, impeachment might still damage him politically. And the long-term impact of this process will likely take a long time to unfold.
Trump's lawyer did not say a president "can do anything" to get re-elected, but he did say that goal cannot count as a corrupt motive.
A major constitutional clash is unfolding at SCOTUS.
Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent they may come to regret the next time a Democrat occupies the White House.
It at least sends a message against future abuses of executive power.
As Rep. Justin Amash notes, the second article of impeachment charges the president with obstructing Congress by refusing to provide documents and testimony.
Josh Blackman argues that the tradeoff isn't worth it. Here's why I disagree.
Republicans might rue that mistake when Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders inherits Trump's beefed-up trade authority.
A response to Josh Blackman's New York Times op-ed on the case against Trump (with updates)
Even the president’s buddies understand the threat posed by the unconstrained use of military force.
Plus: Tarriffs are killing U.S. wine, Vermont bill would ban cell phones for kids, and more...
"Somehow we've decided that the one job in America that gets the most job protection is the one where you actually get nuclear weapons," says the Cato Institute's Gene Healy.
Americans can lose their jobs for almost anything. Why are we so hesitant to give presidents the boot?
Democratic presidential candidates sparred over how they'd close one of the worst excesses of the war on terror.
Many of the president's beefs are frivolous, but he is right that impeachment has been rushed.
The gaps in the record invite the public to dismiss impeachment as a purely partisan exercise.
While the president’s motives in seeking Ukrainian investigations are a matter of dispute, his actions are clear from the public record.
In assessing impeachment, we should keep in mind Trump's usurpation of Congress' power over federal spending. This is a serious violation of the Constitution, and focusing on it overcomes some standard objections to impeachment.
Rules are for the little people, not the eighth richest man on the planet.
Just like their counterparts in the Democratic Party do!
The allegations against Trump are more serious than the offenses that led to Bill Clinton's impeachment because they relate directly to his duties as president.
Faced with a president they find repulsive to the core and with unfunded future payment obligations in the many trillions, Democrats think now is the time to really unleash Washington.
The Trump administration's justification for rescinding DACA relies heavily on the claim that the program is illegal. But it's not.
His desperate attempt to stop a grand jury from seeing his tax returns invokes kingly powers that would put the president above the law.
If, at the end of all this, President Mike Pence sits behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office, what has been accomplished?
The decision is the first to address the legality of using the emergency declaration for this purpose. Previous wall cases involved Trump's attempts to redirect other funds.
In making the case against the House impeachment inquiry, the White House counsel relies upon a repudiated district court opinion that doesn't even support its argument.
"We believe the acts revealed publicly over the past several weeks are fundamentally incompatible with the president’s oath of office, his duties as commander in chief, and his constitutional obligation to 'take care that the laws be faithfully executed.'"
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