That's a potentially dangerous combination.
Reason editors discuss Russia, Biden, Moulton (?), and that television show with the dragons.Listen
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.
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.
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.
Trump Administration Continues to Lose Sanctuary City Cases—this Time Respecting New Fiscal Year 2018 Grant Conditions Imposed on State and Local Government Receiving Federal Law Enforcement Grants
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.
"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 administration usurps Congress by redefining machine guns.
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.
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.
Some preliminary comments on a badly flawed ruling.
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.
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.
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.
You don't have to be an originalist to conclude that the Constitution requires congressional authorization for war.