#from the executive to the judicial and legislative branches

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

A judical tide overwhelms Trump.

April 25, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

The plague of fantasy orders signed by Trump in his first 100 days in office has collided with reality. Reality is winning—big time. On Thursday, Trump's executive orders were overwhelmed by a rising tide of judicial decisions.

Trump's executive orders should be viewed as a mixture of propaganda and photo opportunities. Although we should treat the orders as serious statements of Trump's intent, we must also recognize that they violate the Constitution and laws of the US at every level.

Executive orders CANNOT

-Amend, suspend, or ignore the Constitution; -Supersede statutes enacted by Congress; -Cancel or impound congressional appropriations; -Shutter agencies created by statute; -Use mass layoffs to incapacitate agencies established by Congress; or -Overrule judicial decisions.

Because every executive order signed by Trump violates (at least) one of the above prohibitions, federal judges have enjoined the implementation of Trump’s orders at a scalding pace. Bewildered Trump supporters complain that no president has ever encountered such widespread judicial constraint. Trump's supporters ignore the obvious explanation—that no other president has acted in such a lawless manner.

One hundred days into Trump's second term, the courts have emerged as an essential bulwark in the defense of democracy. It is, of course, their duty to do so, but it could have been otherwise. Even the Supreme Court has dipped its toe into the emerging tide of opposition to Trump. We can only hope that the justices will read the winds and tides to help navigate our nation back to the safe harbor of the rule of law.

Let’s take a look at some of the judicial decisions issued on Thursday that are slowing or reversing Trump's efforts to overturn the Constitution and circumvent the rule of law.

Multiple court decisions halt the implementation of Trump's executive orders.

Republicans are attempting to push the SAVE Act through the Senate. The SAVE Act would require proof of citizenship for newly registering or re-registering voters. Trump understands that the SAVE Act will be blocked in the Senate by the filibuster rule, so he issued an executive order attempting to implement the SAVE Act by presidential fiat.

On Thursday, a federal judge told Trump that the president has no role in federal elections. See Democracy Docket, Judge Halts Trump’s Anti-Voting Executive Order.

The case was brought by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) against the Trump administration. The Complaint is here: LULAC v. Executive Office of President.

On Wednesday, the US district judge overseeing the case, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, issued an order blocking implementation of Trump's executive order. In her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly noted that the president has no constitutional or statutory role in the administration of elections:

Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections. Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the President purports to order. See SAVE Act, H.R. 22, 119th Cong. (2025). And no statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order is here: Memorandum Opinion | LULAC v. EOP | 4/24/25.

The 119-page opinion rests on a simple but powerful point: The Constitution grants power to regulate to the states and to Congress. Trump's bloviating executive orders are propaganda, nothing more.

To a similar effect, a trio of decisions held that Trump's executive order prohibiting public schools from teaching or using “DEI” is unconstitutional. A “Dear Colleague” letter sent to schools across the nation threatened to cut off federal funding to schools that taught or utilized “DEI” in their curricula or operations. See CNN Politics, Department of Education policy targeting DEI and other race-related school programs is likely unconstitutional, judge rules.

Three US District Court judges, two of whom were appointed by Trump, wrote in three separate cases that the “Dear Colleagues” letter sent by the Department of Education to schools across the nation (a) constituted “viewpoint discrimination” under the First Amendment, (b) violated the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee, or (c) violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

The three orders are set forth below:

Order | NEA v. Department of Education (D. N.H.)

Oral Ruling | NAACP v. Department of Education (D. D.C.)

Memorandum Opinion | American Federation of Teachers v Department of Education | (D. MD).

The judges relied on three different judicial approaches in enjoining the implementation of the threats in the Dear Colleague letter. The various judicial approaches are explained by the legal theories asserted and remedies sought by the plaintiffs.

The fact that three jurists arrived at the same conclusion via three legal pathways underscores the breathtaking substantive illegality and procedural impropriety of the administration’s ham-fisted tactics. Trump's executive orders are performative in nature, unmoored from presidential authority and constraints set forth in the Constitution.

In another loss for Trump, a federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled that Trump's executive order that attempted to defund “sanctuary cities” is unconstitutional. See Order Granting Injunction | San Francisco v. Trump (N.D. Cal.).

US District Judge William H. Orrick issued an emergency order preventing implementation of an executive order that withheld federal funds from so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Judge Orrick issued an identical injunction against a similar order issued by Trump in 2017. Judge Orrick noted that his ruling in the 2017 case was upheld by the Ninth Circuit.

There were other legal developments (all bad for Trump), but losing five cases in a day is likely a record for any president in US history. You have to work hard to be so wrong that you lose cases at their inception, when the burden of proof is stacked against the plaintiffs.

Pressure mounts for law firms to resist Trump's hostile takeover attempt

There were several significant developments in the efforts to oppose Trump's assault on the independence and integrity of the legal profession. First, Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), published a statement calling on lawyers at top law firms to end their silence in the face of Trump's hostile takeover attempt. See LDAD, Elite Lawyers Must End Their Silence and Unite to Protect the Justice System.

Although 21 major firms have chosen to take a public stand against the administration’s assault on the legal profession, 170 of the 200 largest firms have remained silent. LDAD has called upon those 170 law firms to speak out and declare their fealty to the rule of law.

LDAD published an open letter to those 170 firms, warning them of the consequences of capitulating to Trump.

LDAD writes,

Your firm will forever be redefined. Your rival firms will point to you as a portrait of cowardice and ask how any client could trust you after succumbing to powerful interests without a fight. You will forever be joined with a small group of the most privileged firms in this country who betrayed the principles that lawyers and clients must be free to choose one another; that all people appearing in our courts are entitled to the best advocacy their counsel can offer; and that the rule of law requires lawyers and their firms to stand up for it, even when it is not in their own personal or financial interest. Reputations take decades to build and only one fateful decision to destroy.

A coalition of law students has joined the effort to stiffen the backbones of leaders at elite law firms. The leaders of the effort are asking current law students to refrain from working for law firms that have capitulated to Trump. See Law Student Firm Pledge.

The Law Student Firm Pledge reads, in part,

Our democracy is under attack, and it is time for lawyers to choose sides. As the future of the legal profession, who have committed to defending the rule of law, we cannot stand for capitulation to tyranny. [¶] The response from too many firms has been either silence or collaboration, with some of the most powerful law firms in the world committing to the elimination of diversity programs and openly agreeing to set amounts of money in pro bono work to support Trump's lawless agenda.

We, the undersigned, refuse to work for any firm that gives in to Trump administration demands regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion or the types of cases handled by the firm.

In another courageous action, a law firm in Tennessee has served public notice of its withdrawal from the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA) because of the TBA’s silence in the face of Trump's lawlessness. See Memphis Flyer, Memphis Law Firm Leaves Tennessee Bar Association for Its Silence on Trump.

The law firm, Donati Law, announced its resignation from the TBA in a letter that stated, in part, as follows:

It is with great sadness that we feel obligated to leave the TBA due to its refusal to take a stand consistent with the ideals of the Rule of Law and an independent judiciary in the face of extreme threats from the executive branch.

Kudos to Donati Law for serving as examples for other law firms.

Finally, fourteen Democratic representatives in the US House have sent letters to the Capitulating Law Firms asking for voluntary responses to pointed questions. See 4/24/25 Letters to Brad Karp (Paul Weiss) et al.

The letters make the point that the agreements may have violated multiple federal and state anti-bribery statutes as well as ethics rules of the New York and D.C. bar associations. Ouch, double ouch, and triple ouch!

Each of the firms that received the above letter must have notified its malpractice carrier of a potential claim, loss, or alleged illegal act. And insurers for large law firms are busily drafting exclusions from insurance coverage for future “deals” with the Trump administration.

It is truly breathtaking that a handful of the largest, most sophisticated firms in the nation have placed themselves in such jeopardy to protect marginal profitability. What were they thinking?

Trump's corruption on full display—and Republicans shrug their shoulders.

Republicans pursued the “Hunter Biden laptop” with unrelenting zeal because they believed that it might somehow show that Joe Biden attempted to profit from holding the office of the Vice President.

Donald Trump is openly auctioning off dinners with the President and VIP tours of the White House, and Republicans are nowhere to be found. To be clear, Trump is not selling access to the president for his campaign coffers or those of other Republicans. Trump is funneling the money into his personal bank account.

Here’s the scam: Trump has started a cryptocurrency. He owns the initial “coin” of the currency. Subsequent purchasers of the cryptocurrency are purchasing the coin directly from Trump. Trump is offering White House dinners and tours to those who make the largest purchases of Trump's cryptocurrency. See Mother Jones, Trump Crypto Coin Buyers Offered VIP Tour of White House.

At the very moment that Trump is selling access to the Office of the Presidency to the highest bidder, he has directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to begin an investigation of ActBlue, the major Democratic fundraising arm. See Democracy Docket, Trump Orders Probe Against Democratic Fundraising Platform ActBlue.

Trump falsely claims that ActBlue has illegally accepted contributions from foreign donors. But as explained in Democracy Docket, ActBlue discovered attempted contributions by foreign donors and blocked them:

The president left out the fact that ActBlue took actions in response to those detections. It caught and rejected fraudulent donations . . . [and] banned contributions made from foreign IP addresses using domestic prepaid cards, according to House Republicans.

As noted above, Trump's executive orders are a mixture of propaganda and photo opportunities. The investigation ordered by Trump in Thursday’s executive order is duplicative of existing congressional investigations into fundraising by ActBlue—investigations that have yet to discover any illegal conduct by ActBlue.

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[saywhat-politics]

04/22/2025

by 

Peter Montgomery

Religious-right figure Rick Joyner warned in a Facebook post Tuesday that judges who “interfere” with President Donald Trump’s executive orders may be pushing the U.S. toward “another civil war.” It’s just the latest of many examples of right-wing Christian leaders and media amplifying Trump’s complaints about courts that are stepping in to slow and stop Trump administration actions that violate the Constitution or federal law. 

In his Facebook post, Joyner gave lip service to the importance of an independent judiciary but then suggested that judges’ actions to pause Trump’s orders are “an encroachment on the Legislative Branch” and “an end run around the democratic will of the people.” 

“SCOTUS can begin to reduce this and avoid a major Constitutional Crisis, or even another civil war, by how they decide some of the cases before them,” Joyner wrote. “They can begin to bring a desperately needed restraint on the Judicial Branch that has gotten very far outside of its lane.” 

Joyner has a habit of talking about civil war. During Trump’s first months in office in 2017, Joyner warned that if the Supreme Court struck down Trump’s efforts to ban immigrants and refugees from several predominantly Muslim nations, it could lead to civil war and martial law. In 2019, he said Christians should be establishing militias to prepare for civil war. A month before the 2020 election, he told viewers that they shouldn’t worry too much about the coming civil war because the violence and bloodshed would be mostly confined to the “inner cities.” 

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

Well maybe now congress will actually do its job and pass laws.

that's a HUGE maybe. congress is dysfunctional and inefficient and unwieldy. it is constantly mired in petty politics, mindless bickering, and perpetual gridlock. Really smart leaving the day-to-day regulations that govern the nation up to them! Then, when they eventually do get around to passing oppressively narrow regulations y'all will complain about how impossible it is to remove said regulations.

[wilwheaton]

The violent attack on Congress on 6 January 2021, and all the ancillary attempts to steal the 2020 election, were a coup attempt led from the executive branch of the federal government with support from Republicans in the legislative branch. 1 July 2024 – this Thursday – was a more successful coup attempt orchestrated by six judges of the judicial branch. “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in an opinion joined by justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, after the US supreme court’s conservative majority ruled that Donald Trump holds “absolute immunity” for “official acts” done while president. Part of what’s shocking about the state of the union right now is that an entire party and the US supreme court’s conservative majority have abandoned almost everything – the truth, the rule of law, their own legitimacy, their place in history and the fate of the nation – to serve one man. They could not have picked a more outrageous man to throw their weight and reputations behind – a psychotic clown who’s also an indicted felon found liable in civil court for sexual assault, barred from doing business in New York, a stealer of state secrets, a would-be thief of an election and the instigator of a violent attack on the legislative branch of government and the constitutionally mandated transition of power after an election. A grifter who in 2016 won a minority victory in a corrupted election – his conviction earlier this year was on charges for one small part of that corruption. A man who has gloated about seizing dictatorial powers and never letting go and a worshiper of tyrants denounced by dozens of his former cabinet members and senior staffers. January 6 was an attack on the constitution and so was 1 July. That no one is above the law has been a pillar of this nation and a cherished value since the 18th century; to knock it down in the 21st destabilizes structures and values that have stood these two centuries and more. A president with total immunity poses obvious threats to the rule of law, the balance of powers and democracy itself, and if that president is the vindictive criminal on the Republican ticket the dangers are immediate and obvious.

The US supreme court just completed Trump’s January 6 coup attempt

[beauty-funny-trippy]

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with the other two Democrat-appointed justices, powerfully said in the dissenting opinion: the Supreme Court has made “a mockery of the principle, foundational to our Constitution and system of Government, that no man is above the law.”

"When [a president] uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune,... In every use of official power, the president is now a king above the law," wrote Justice Sotomayor.

This corrupt, extreme far-right Supreme Court has just opened the gates and paved the road for a fascist America. It means politicians, judges, their families, etc., will be in fear if they speak out against the president, or don't do what he wants, they could be arrested or killed. If you protest, you and your family could be imprisoned or shot.

When the Executive branch of government has the power to threaten members of the Legislative and Judicial branches, all "checks and balances" preventing the abuse of power have been destroyed.

Why isn't anyone losing their minds that Biden could now become a dictator or order assassinations? Because everyone knows he is a decent man who would never do such a thing.

However, if Donald Trump wins this election, there is literally nothing to stop him from fulfilling his heart's desire and becoming America's first dictator. He, and any future president, can now, legally, stage a military coup and hold on to power for life and his vice president would be the next to reign for the rest of their life. No more real elections.

Now, more than ever, Donald Trump is a clear and present danger to America.

In this election, not voting, is a dangerous choice.

[odinsblog]

The Supreme Court fundamentally altered the way that our federal government functions on Friday, transferring an almost unimaginable amount of power from the executive branch to the federal judiciary. By a 6–3 vote, the conservative supermajority overruled Chevron v. NRDC, wiping out four decades of precedent that required unelected judges to defer to the expert judgment of federal agencies. The ruling is extraordinary in every way—a massive aggrandizement of judicial power based solely on the majority’s own irritation with existing limits on its authority. After Friday, virtually every decision an agency makes will be subject to a free-floating veto by federal judges with zero expertise or accountability to the people. All at once, SCOTUS has undermined Congress’ ability to enact effective legislation capable of addressing evolving problems and sabotaged the executive branch’s ability to apply those laws to the facts on the ground. It is one of the most far-reaching and disruptive rulings in the history of the court.

In Chevron, the court unanimously announced an important principle of law that governed the nation until Friday: When a federal statute is ambiguous, courts should defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of it. Why? Congress delegates countless important calls to agencies—directing the EPA, for instance, to limit harmful benzene emissions, rather than providing the precise formula to determine what level of benzene emissions is harmful to humans. Congress writes statutes broadly because it expects these agencies to respond to new facts and adjust their enforcement accordingly.

Crucially, these agencies are staffed with experts who have deep knowledge and experience in the area where Congress seeks to regulate. Such experts can understand and execute regulations more proficiently than federal judges, who are, at best, dilettantes in most fields of regulation. For example, an EPA scientist is unlikely to confuse nitrous oxide (laughing gas) with nitrogen oxide (a smog-causing emission), as Justice Neil Gorsuch did in a Thursday opinion blocking an EPA rule. Moreover, most agencies are staffed with political appointees whom the president can appoint and remove at will. That makes them far more accountable to the citizenry than federal judges, who are guaranteed life tenure no matter how badly they butcher the law.

Since 1984, federal courts have applied Chevron in about 18,000 decisions in every conceivable area of the law: energy policy, education, food and drug safety, labor, the environment, consumer protection, finance, health care, housing, law enforcement—the list is pretty much endless. It has become the background principle against which Congress enacts all legislation.

That all ends now.

(continue reading)

[mariacallous]

Individuals associated with the federal government have, in defiance of a court order and without a trial or any form of due process, deported hundreds of people from the territory of the United States to El Salvador, where they will be held indefinitely in a concentration camp.

1. This violated fundamental rights enumerated in the Constitution. Everyone in the United States has the right to a fair trial with due process of law. People who say things along the lines of "enemy combatants don't have the right to due process" are wrong. And it is important to understand the implications of that position. Anyone can be named an "enemy combatant." More fundamentally, once you accept any exception to the general rule, you are just inviting executive power to always use that exception, or make up another one. If you are a citizen and you are casting doubt on the importance of due process, remember this: you need due process in order to prove that you are a citizen.

2. The deportation was done in violation of a court order, according to a plan to undo the rule of law. This means that the action was not only specifically illegal, but designed as a challenge to the rule of law as such. Naturally, the individuals who chose to ignore a court order carefully selected the moment when they would do so. They chose a situation that they could characterize as us against them, the Americans against the foreigners, the regular people against the criminals. They are deliberately associating the law itself with people, the deportees, who they expect to be unpopular. This is a tactic, and historically speaking a very familiar one. In this way they hope to get popular opinion on their side as they ignore a court order. But if they succeed in making an exception once, it becomes the rule.

3. You do not know who was on those two planes to El Salvador. The individuals who arranged the deportation claim that the deportees were "foreign alien terrorists," but we have no way of knowing whether this is true. They also claim that they were “monsters,” which is not true. We do not know the names of the human beings who were deported. We cannot therefore know whether they were foreigners or American citizens. As to whether they were terrorists: they were not convicted of any crimes, and so it is hard to know whether or how this would be true. There is no doubt that their rights were violated. But your rights have been violated as well. If you do not know the details about operations that forcibly remove human beings from the territory of the United States, you do not have a responsive government. And you are therefore at risk.

4. Immigration and emigration are matters of legislation, the responsibility for which is delegated by the Constitution to Congress. In organizing a deportation outside the bounds of any particular law, and indeed outside the bounds of law in general, the executive is not only challenging Congress but disputing its purpose. The deportation action, in other words, is a direct blow not only to the judiciary but to the legislative branch of the federal government. It is an assertion of total executive authority that has no basis in law or tradition.

5. The individuals involved are declaring their power to define reality, independently not only of judicial but of all verification. There is no basis for this deportation beyond speech acts and keyboard acts. The words ("foreign alien terrorists," "monsters") are doing the work. There are no procedures between the movement of mouths and the movement of bodies. If members of the executive branch are allowed to issue truth claims that have the consequence that human beings leave the United States, we are in a dictatorship. If we accept that the executive branch can simply deport anyone they call a "foreign alien terrorist," then none of us has any rights.

6. The language that is being used has a specific resonance, which, historically, has been used to change regime type. It is important that the rights of human beings were violated. It is important that the rule of law was ignored. It is important that the executive is trying to define reality. But beyond even the issues of right and wrong and reality and unreality is the issue of language and behavior. We must consider just how the words are selected and what they are meant to do to us. "Foreign" means that they are not us. "Alien" means that we should hate them. "Terrorist" means that we should hate them enough to allow a state of exception, a suspension of normal practices, a change of regime. There is a long history of this, all around the world, including Hitler in 1933 and Stalin in 1934.

7. In an Orwellian reversal, defenders of the law are being associated with crime. The whole point of the rule of law is that everyone has a certain human dignity, which requires that they get their day in court, consistent with certain procedures. We do not know who is a criminal and who is not without these acknowledgements and these processes. The executive is claiming that it can simply name people "criminals" or “terrorists” or "monsters"-- and then contend that the defenders of law associates of criminals or monsters. In this way, the individuals who are carrying out this dictatorial action smear those who defend the Constitution by associating them with crimes, and of course with the most corporeal and unpleasant crimes. This is a logic entirely foreign to freedom, and destructive of it.

8. The smear campaign extends to political opponents. The executive branch is claiming that the people they call "terrorists" were in the United States thanks to the deliberate actions of the Biden administration, Democrats, and so on. "These are the monsters," says the chief executive, "sent into our Country by Crooked Joe Biden and the Radical Left Democrats. How dare they!" Again, we do not know whether the deportees have committed any crimes, or indeed who they are. We are meant to accept the mouth and keyboard movements of individuals associated with the federal government as generative of dispositive truth on this matter. Pushing the blame for the existence of "foreign alien terrorists" onto political opponents is meant to delegitimate them, and to undermine their place in the political order. It is a strike, in other words, against democracy and basic political freedom.

9. Anyone can be dehumanized, portrayed as a "monster," and the dehumanization proceeds from the humiliation of the body. If you took one of these deportees, gave him a certain haircut, and put him in a suit, he would look like a cabinet member. If you take a cabinet member, shave off his hair, put him in a prison jumpsuit, chain his hands, and then put him between two masked men who frogwalk him to a deportation plane, he would like like a criminal. The photos and videos of humans beings to whom this is done are dehumanizing, and deliberately so. We are meant to conclude from the images that these men must be "monsters" or "foreign alien terrorists." The only thing we should be concluding is that individuals associated with the foreign government are behaving in a way that is totally inconsistent with liberty under law.

10. This deportation was planned as a political spectacle. The deportees were carefully chosen, as was the language used to describe them. The messaging was obviously coordinated in advance. And the entire humiliating procedure was carried out before cameras that were already in place. The videos that are being distributed are not some assemblage of footage caught haphazardly by cell phones. They are the result of fixed cameras, set in place in advance, with camera operators awaiting the action. The result is propaganda film worthy of the 1930s, in which the Leader determines what is true and what is false and who is human and who is not ("monsters") through a procedure of charismatic violence. If you watch these films, please consider that they are meant to draw you in to a politics of us and them, to a world of lying and hatred beyond law, to a new regime that can come to replace our republic -- but only with your assent.

[contemplatingoutlander]

"The gerrymandering alone undermines Wisconsin’s status as a democracy. If a majority of the people cannot, under any realistic circumstances, elect a legislative majority of their choosing, then it’s hard to say whether they actually govern themselves."

--Jamelle Bouie, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times

Jamelle Bouie points out the disturbing way that Republicans in Wisconsin have basically destroyed democratic representative government on all levels by:

Creating an unbreakable gerrymander to ensure a Republican legislative majority, even if more people vote for Democrats.

Weakening the power of a Democratic governor,.

Targeting a liberal Wisconsin supreme court justice for removal or suspension so that the state SC won't have the power to rule against gerrymandered districting maps, and won't be able to prevent a 19th century ban on abortion from becoming law.

This is chilling. Below are some excerpts from the column:

For more than a decade, dating back to the Republican triumph in the 2010 midterm elections, Wisconsin Republicans have held their State Legislature in an iron lock, forged by a gerrymander so stark that nothing short of a supermajority of the voting public could break it. [...] In 2018, this gerrymander proved strong enough to allow Wisconsin Republicans to win a supermajority of seats in the Assembly despite losing the vote for every statewide office and the statewide legislative vote by 8 percentage points, 54 to 46. No matter how much Wisconsin voters might want to elect a Democratic Legislature, the Republican gerrymander won’t allow them to. [...] Using their gerrymandered majority, Wisconsin Republicans have done everything in their power to undermine, subvert or even nullify the public’s attempt to chart a course away from the Republican Party. In 2018, for example, Wisconsin voters put Tony Evers, a Democrat, in the governor’s mansion, sweeping the incumbent, Scott Walker, out of office. immediately, Wisconsin Republicans introduced legislation to weaken the state’s executive branch, curbing the authority that Walker had exercised as governor. Earlier this year, Wisconsin voters took another step toward ending a decade of Republican minority rule in the Legislature by electing Janet Protasiewicz, a liberal Milwaukee county judge, to the State Supreme Court, in one of the most high-profile and expensive judicial elections in American history. [...] “Republicans in Wisconsin are coalescing around the prospect of impeaching a newly seated liberal justice on the state’s Supreme Court,” my newsroom colleague Reid J. Epstein reports. “The push, just five weeks after Justice Janet Protasiewicz joined the court and before she has heard a single case, serves as a last-ditch effort to stop the new 4-to-3 liberal majority from throwing out Republican-drawn state legislative maps and legalizing abortion in Wisconsin.” Republicans have more than enough votes in the Wisconsin State Assembly to impeach Justice Protasiewicz and just enough votes in the State Senate — a two-thirds majority — to remove her. But removal would allow Governor Evers to appoint another liberal jurist, which is why Republicans don’t plan to convict and remove Protasiewicz. If, instead, the Republican-led State Senate chooses not to act on impeachment, Justice Protasiewicz is suspended but not removed. The court would then revert to a 3-3 deadlock, very likely preserving the Republican gerrymander and keeping a 19th-century abortion law, which bans the procedure, on the books. If successful, Wisconsin Republicans will have created, in effect, an unbreakable hold on state government. With their gerrymander in place, they have an almost permanent grip on the State Legislature, with supermajorities in both chambers. With these majorities, they can limit the reach and power of any Democrat elected to statewide office and remove — or neutralize — any justice who might rule against the gerrymander. [color/emphasis added[

"It’s that breathtaking contempt for the people of Wisconsin — who have voted, since 2018, for a more liberal State Legislature and a more liberal State Supreme Court and a more liberal governor, with the full powers of his office available to him — that makes the Wisconsin Republican Party the most openly authoritarian in the country."

--Jamelle Bouie, Opinion Columnist, The New York Times

[edited]

[wishmaker-astra]

Unitary means there isn't anything like a judiciary, legislative, or executive branch separate from it.

Superior means it can override/direct other branches of government like the legislature and judiciary in an overriding fashion in the vast majority of cases.

Balance of powers means there's a complex web of checks and balances it in theory is equal to other branches such as executive and legislature.

Inferior means it's an independent branch but subject to override of other branches.

Department/agency means it's a subsection of the executive branch carrying out executive directives as authorized, empowered, and constrained by the legislative and judicial branches (if extant) within it's system.

[findme-at1am]

DONT LET THE ABOVE FOOL YOU INTO THINKING ITS JUST ONE ACT, THEY'VE ENACTED PROJECT 2025 BY ROLLING BACK MANY ENVIRONMENT PROTECTIONS AND FEDERAL MINING REGULATIONS.

Of course the above article catches me making a masterpost for KY TODAY and I gotta redo the beginning. This is just the start but better late than never. Link for article published MARCH 3RD:

https://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article301177474.html

The bill above is House Bill 6, dubbed the "REINS Act"for "Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny," from Rep. Wade Williams, R-Earlington, disallows state agencies (judicial branch I believe) from taking action that isn't explicitly authorized by the Kentucky General Assembly if it costs more than $500,000 over two years.

Link for the bill:

Gov. Beshear's veto/280 page response:

A nice highlight: (from the effects of Legislator's REIN Act on Beshear's powers as Gov.)

"Had the General Assembly chosen to adopt a "disaster fund" as most states have, and as I have proposed in the past, there would be a separate mechanism to provide financing to address exigent circumstances without requiring a delay to seek additional funding."

For a Gov. Abusing his power it's amazing the 280 page veto where he had very informed information for his appeals to each clause: Just some below.

Gov. Andy Beshear has passed bills assisting the Energy and Environment Cabinet, he's been a dem "on the fence" (he so badly wants to be energy efficient if everyone here didn't prioritize coal or hate change (ahem with no programs I've seen to streamline coal miners to other energy efficient jobs)) over the balance of the environment and oil like any average Kentuckian is. But he's made comments congratulating Biden on his administrations efforts of balancing a new age of electric and energy efficiency with oils/"natural energy" and he's definitely fell to Biden's side.

Donald Trash of course doesn't like any pushback to his Project 2025 plans and his oil companies backing him definitely helped buy out Republicans as seen below @ the bottom of the article:

Delaying our AG's response time to bring relief to kentuckians and needing disaster relief authorized by the General Assembly for floods that usually overtake most of the water state is so much bigger than being "unelected" when Beshear has for the general part, done right by Kentuckians in terms of flood relief and responding to disasters and have exceptional bills passed.

TELL YOUR SENATOR TO REJECT SENATE BILL 257 AGAINST "K.O.G.E" AND YOUR REPS/LEGISLATORS TO SPEAK UP!!

KY WRITE YOUR REPS TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE AND WRITE YOUR SENATORS TO APPEAL HOUSE BILL 6 THEY PLAN ON USING TO DAMPEN THE GOVERNOR'S/AG/CABINETS POWERS.

APPEAL HOUSE BILL 6 TO ALLOW THE ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET TO DO THEIR JOBS WITHOUT DELAYED APPROVAL!!

Below are more topics to bring up to KY representatives:

More Topics To Send To Representatives

Link for DOGE Cuts To Federal Offices, Many Relating to Safety Standards to our main production value as a water state; coal.

Right After Pushing Back Protections for the state MOSTLY AFFECT BY RAIN WATER AND FLOODS SO WHY NOT DIG INTO THE ROCKY MOUNTAINS AND TAKE A CHANCE NEXT RAIN SHOWER!!! AFTER ADDING EXTRA DELAYS TO DISASTER RELIEF!!! SMART!!!! ESPECIALLY WITH RECORD HIGH WATER LEVELS THIS YEAR WHILE DEPRIORITISING ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT CABINET AND THE REGULATIONS THAT WATCH SAID WATER LEVEL!! WOOOHWEE!

This last one's my favorite.

(Btw they're clinging to that unelected argument as if AG's/Governor doesn't go through the process, and not just labelled "the president's specialest person" like their leader Musky that's paying them through other contracted billionaires.)

And here's a copy paste to the main sponsor of the last article, Senate Bill 89:

(Context:"Sen. Scott Madon, R-Pineville, the bill’s primary sponsor, reiterated his criticism of “government overreach” by the state’s environmental protection cabinet in its decisions about coal-industry permits."

“God put coal under our feet so that we can use it. It’s one of the greatest natural resources, and it’s our job to push back on unelected bureaucrats,” Madon said on the Senate floor.)

Start Script:

“God put coal under our feet so that we can use it. It’s one of the greatest natural resources, and it’s our job to push back on unelected bureaucrats,” you said on the Senate floor.

So suddenly we're standing up to the unelected? Is this why there's a personal attack on the Democratic governor by suppressing his legal powers with extra and unexplained checks and balances that have yet to be justified in 2024? More delays to disaster relief isn't what Kentuckians voted you in for. Allowing an unelected and unqualified individual to run a recently presented branch of government called DOGE is the epitome of humiliating for ALL Americans who live to see this administration just for a good Governor to be attacked. But we're yet to see anyone call Elon Musk or any overseer of DOGE out.

A threat to democracy means a threat to the bureaucracy that defends us from hostile contracts and allows safety training and stricter regulations for coal mining in a state with literal "Rocky Mountains." That's been dealt with tremendous floods not seen in decades in some areas and polluted drinking water in some counties relying on a boil water advisory because no one came forth with an apology for rolling back environment protections in a state that needed it most during the Biden administration.

"The bill changes the definition of regulated state waters by removing “all rivers, streams, creeks, lakes, ponds, impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, marshes, and all other bodies of surface or underground water, natural or artificial.” The definition would be changed to directly refer to the federal definition of “navigable waters.” The bill also designates bonding requirements for coal companies seeking permits for long-term treatment of water leaving mine sites."

Kentucky specifically needs to regulate its own waters as we, and only ourselves, know the true expanse of dangers civilians have to deal with when the drainage from other states target specific counties. We are known for water, despite no great lakes for a reason. Waiting for a general assembly is one of the worst possible outcomes from all of the registration passed this year when Kentucky's latest flooding was horrific but thankfully due to our Governor foresight, we were still struggling in terms of relief response and a measly 500,000 won't cut it for immediate help like calling the national guard for areas unreachable by regular vehicles. We had 24 people die, I've never heard of such a high number of deaths in floods but I'm lucky to be 24 and not know of Pineville's 80's flood personally. I had the benefit of the doubt thinking you did. I was wrong.

The second being "-impounding reservoirs, springs, wells, marshes, and all other bodies of surface or underground water, natural or artificial."

Those "marshes" include the yards of houses and homes that aren't covered for flooding from insurance companies because "they're in an area known for flooding". Not enforcing insurance for home's yards and then retracting back environmental protections is intentionally in bad faith to those who will be affected, those being homeowners, landlords and those looking to build anything energy efficient in the long run. You being a main sponsor in this bill is a disgrace to anyone who knows the Bell County area.

Rolling over and allowing cuts to our water protection agencies and people still on waiting lists for SS just for a whole office to be closed by DOGE? It only further threatens the state's and cabinets approach to relief when our state has yet to make an Emergency Fund. We 100% rely on the fast acting of our most crucial employees and Gov. if we want to react and prevent and future deaths. Your complacent role in all of this will be seen under God.

End Script.

Pls add whatever you want or feel compelled to speak about, I take important sentences in articles I find important and love contributions. (Edit: I detailed up the script a bit.)

[elusive-phantom]

It seems like way too many people are keen on either purposefully ignoring how our government is supposed to work, or genuinely forgot what we’re taught in civics. It’s actually kind of pissing me off, so let’s talk about it.

We’ll start off with a brief overview the three branches, but will go into more detail on each branch after.

Our federal government has three branches. They are the Executive, (President and about 5,000,000 workers), Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives), and Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts).

The President of the United States administers the Executive Branch of our government. The President enforces the laws that the Legislative Branch (Congress) makes.

The President is elected by United States citizens, 18 years of age and older, who vote in the presidential elections in their states. These votes are tallied by states and form the Electoral College system. States have the number of electoral votes which equal the number of senators and representatives they have. It is possible to have the most popular votes throughout the nation and NOT win the electoral vote of the Electoral College.

The Legislative part of our government is called Congress. Congress makes our laws. Congress is divided into 2 parts. One part is called the Senate. There are 100 Senators--2 from each of our states. The other part is called the House of Representatives. Representatives meet together to discuss ideas and decide if these ideas (bills) should become laws. There are 435 Representatives. The number of representatives each state gets is determined by its population. Some states have just 2 representatives. Others have as many as 40. Both senators and representatives are elected by the eligible voters in their states.

The Judicial part of our federal government includes the Supreme Court and 9 Justices. They are special judges who interpret laws according to the Constitution. These justices only hear cases that pertain to issues related to the Constitution. They are the highest court in our country. The federal judicial system also has lower courts located in each state to hear cases involving federal issues.

All three parts of our federal government have their main headquarters in the city of Washington D.C.

Now, let’s break the branches down.

The Legislative Branch:

You know that in a representative democracy the people have a voice in the making of their laws. Voters in our country elect people to represent and to serve as their voice in the law making process. Laws are made by the men and women who are elected to Congress by the voters of each state.

The Senate:

The Senate of the United States is the voice of the states and the partner of the House of Representatives. On the new Senate Office Building are engraved in marble the words, "THE SENATE IS THE LIVING SYMBOL OF OUR UNION OF STATES."

The Senate has exceptionally high authority, sometimes higher than the President or the House of Representatives. The Senate can try cases of impeachment, which can dismiss a President for misconduct.

The Senate also checks the President by having the power to approve or not approve the treaties he makes with other nations. The Senate also approves the appointments that the President makes to his Cabinet, ambassadors, federal judges, and all civilian employees of the government who are not covered by another area.

A senator's term is for six years. Only 1/3 of the entire Senate will be up for reelection at any one time. Therefore, the Senate does not have all new senators at one time. This always leaves 2/3 of the Senate members with some past experience.

A senator speaks for all the people in his or her state.

The House of Representatives:

More than any other part of our government, the House of Representatives is directly responsible and responsive to the people.

The House of Representatives has special powers that no other branch has. It has the power--

1. To start all revenue (money) bills.

2. To impeach civil officers.

3. To elect a President if no candidate receives a majority of the electoral votes.

The Judicial Branch:

The Judicial Branch of the federal government interprets and reviews the laws of the nation.

The group that has the job of interpreting and reviewing the laws of the land is the Supreme Court.

Many arguments about federal rules and laws come up in such a large country as the United States. The Constitution has a special plan to solve this problem. It provides for a system of federal courts in the Judicial Branch of the government.

The Supreme Court is the highest court. There are also lower courts. Disagreements and trials may start in the lower courts. These lower courts are called federal district courts. There are federal district courts in every state and in the District of Columbia.

If someone loses a case in the federal district court, he can try to have the decision changed by taking his case to a higher court called the Circuit Court of Appeals. If he loses there, too, he may be able to take his case to the final judges-- the Supreme Court in Washington D.C. The Supreme Court only accepts cases on special constitutional problems. What this court says is the last decision. There is no appeal beyond this Supreme Court.

Congress & Courts, Keeping the Balance:

Congress and the Courts balance each other. Congress makes laws, but the Courts interpret them. The Supreme Court decides if a law fits the meaning of the Constitution.

Congress cannot interfere with the freedoms spelled out in the Bill of Rights. It can't punish a person for something that was not a crime when he did it. Any citizen can go to a court to protect his civil liberties. The citizen may even go to the Supreme Court to get a final verdict.

Sometimes, the Constitution does not cover a law that the people want. The people can then vote directly by states to add a special section to the Constitution. This is called an amendment.

The Executive Branch:

The Constitution says that the United States must have a President and a Vice President. These two people and the people who work for them belong to the Executive Branch of the federal government. It is the duty of the President of the United States to run the federal government and to see that the laws of our nation are carried out.

The President is the highest representative of the people of our nation. The Presidential Seal has fifty stars surrounding it to show that the President represents all United States citizens. He or she must focus on the welfare of the entire nation, not just the people in one state or district like senators and representatives.

The President:

represents our country in discussions with other nations.

leads our nation in times of war.

makes suggestions to Congress about laws.

writes the budget, but must get Congress to approve it.

works closely with Congress to get laws passed or rejected.

The President’s Cabinet:

The President has the power to appoint men and women to work with him/her in running the government and carrying out the laws of the nation. These people make up the President's Cabinet. The members of the President's Cabinet advise the President on all important problems he/she must face. They also lead the departments for the Executive Branch of our government. Congress must give its approval to the men and women the President appoints before they can take office.

SECRETARY OF STATE: He/she supervises the State Department which works with foreign countries, decides on travel to countries, and protects U.S. citizens abroad.

SECRETARY OF TREASURY: He/she supervises the Treasury Department which has charge of the fiscal (money) responsibilities of the government, the Secret Service, and the collection of taxes.

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: He/she leads the Defense Department which sees that the nation is protected against its enemies and which works closely with all branches of the armed forces.

ATTORNEY GENERAL: This person is the President's main legal advisor in matters pertaining to the country. He/she sees that the laws are enforced and that the people receive justice. This person may appoint special investigation teams. He/she runs the Justice Department. (This is not the same as being a justice with the Supreme Court.)

SECRETARY OF INTERIOR: This person leads the Department of the Interior which protects and improves the natural resources of the nation's national parks and forests.

SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE: He/she leads the Department of Agriculture which focuses on the safety and regulation of food production and works with farmers throughout the country.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES: He/she leads the Department of Health and Human Services which handles welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security payments and issues.

SECRETARY OF LABOR: He/she supervises the Department of Labor which assists and protects the working people of the nation.

SECRETARY OF COMMERCE: This secretary leads the Department of Commerce which assists the businesses of the nation, sets trade policies, and enforces rules for moving materials across the country and around the world.

SECRETARY OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT: This secretary administers the Department of Housing and Urban Development which specializes in issues related to building homes for lower income Americans and planning for better communities.

SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION: He/she administers the Department of Transportation which enforces the laws and safety regulations pertaining to railroads, busses, ships and airplanes.

SECRETARY OF ENERGY: He/she leads the Department of Energy which works on problems about energy and fuels such as coal, oil, gas, and atomic energy. This department also promotes research on solar energy and other alternate sources of power.

SECRETARY OF EDUCATION: He/she supervises the Department of Education which works with schools throughout the country to provide money and grants for educational programs and services.

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS: He/she runs the Department of Veterans Affairs which provides services and advice to men and women who have served in the armed forces. This department was just recently established in 1989.

And finally, the big one.

Keeping the Balance: What a President Can Do and Cannot Do.

A PRESIDENT CAN . . .

make treaties WITH the APPROVAL of the Senate.

veto bills and sign bills.

represent our nation in talks with foreign countries.

enforce the laws that CONGRESS passes.

act as Commander-in-Chief during a war.

call out troops to protect our nation against an attack.

make SUGGESTIONS about things that should be new laws.

lead his political party.

entertain foreign guests.

recognize foreign countries.

grant pardons.

nominate Cabinet members and Supreme Court Justices and other high officials.

appoint ambassadors.

talk directly to the people about problems.

represent the best interest of all the people

A PRESIDENT CANNOT . . .

make laws.

declare war.

decide how federal money will be spent.

interpret laws.

choose Cabinet members or Supreme Court Justices without Senate approval.

Source

See also: Do Federal Judges Have the Authority to Block Executive Orders? The answer is YES.

Since the early days of the republic, the federal judiciary has reviewed the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress. The Court’s decision in Marbury v. Madison (1803) implied, and later cases confirmed, that federal courts also possess authority to review the actions of the executive branch. As another essay in this series explains, that review frequently concerns the actions of administrative agencies, particularly since the early twentieth-century inception of the modern administrative state. On various occasions throughout history, and more frequently in modern times, the judiciary has also been called upon to assess the validity of formal directions the president has issued to executive branch agencies and officials, most commonly in the form of executive orders. Federal court review of executive orders helps to define the scope of presidential powers and serves as a significant aspect of the checks and balances woven into the American constitutional system.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution vests the legislative power of the United States in Congress alone. The line between legislative and executive power is not always clearly defined, however. In the course of directing the activities of the executive branch, presidents since George Washington have issued executive orders on a wide variety of subjects, including public lands, military matters, economic crises, and civil rights. Franklin D. Roosevelt issued over 3,700 executive orders, far more than any other president, while Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Calvin Coolidge each issued more than a thousand. Most executive orders have dealt with routine administrative matters, while others, such as Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 and Harry Truman’s desegregation of the armed forces in 1948, have made substantial policy changes. Modern presidents have not necessarily issued more executive orders than their earlier counterparts, but many of their orders have been broader in scope and significance.

Courts may strike down executive orders not only on the grounds that the president lacked authority to issue them but also in cases where the order is found to be unconstitutional in substance. In some cases, it is not an executive order itself that is challenged in court, but instead a regulation promulgated pursuant to an order or the manner in which executive branch officials have interpreted an order. While many executive orders have been challenged on specific statutory and constitutional grounds, others have been subjected to “reasonableness review.” In the early twentieth century, the Supreme Court began to read the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to include a guarantee of “substantive due process.” This legal concept permitted courts to review both statutes and executive actions limiting the rights to life, liberty, or property to ensure that they were reasonable. Critics of reasonableness review, many of them progressive reformers, argued that the practice was antidemocratic because it substituted the judgment of courts for that of elected officials. Moreover, many believed that the courts applied reasonableness review too aggressively, in particular where economic regulation was concerned.

Executive orders have most frequently come before the federal courts in the context of attempts to invalidate them or halt their enforcement. Some cases, however, have been brought to enforce rights allegedly created by an executive order. One especially common example of such suits, typically occurring in the 1960s and later, was a suit in which one private party sued another for damages arising from the defendant’s violation of an order forbidding employment discrimination. Courts have often refused to hear such cases, particularly when the order was issued under the president’s inherent constitutional powers. While the federal courts have jurisdiction over civil suits arising under the Constitution, federal law, and treaties (otherwise known as “federal question” jurisdiction), courts have held that executive orders not authorized by Congress are not “federal law” for these purposes. In the 1940s, for example, federal courts dismissed several lawsuits on jurisdictional grounds because the 1942 order the plaintiffs sought to enforce—providing extra wages for war workers required to work seven days in a row due to emergency conditions—was not based on congressional authority and was therefore not a law.

Federal courts have occasionally invalidated presidential orders on the basis that Congress overstepped its bounds by authorizing the president to make the order. The non-delegation doctrine holds that Congress, being vested by the Constitution with all legislative power, may not delegate that power to the other branches of government. In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935), the Supreme Court struck down executive orders regulating the transport of petroleum that Roosevelt had issued pursuant to the National Industrial Recovery Act. Because the NIRA provided no standards or guidelines for the president to follow in deciding whether to allow or prohibit transport, the Court found Congress to have impermissibly delegated its legislative authority. A few months later, in Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States(1935), the Court made a similar finding with respect to a code of competition for the poultry industry that Roosevelt had approved by executive order. As a result, the Court struck down the order as well as Title I of the NIRA, which authorized such industrial codes.

Federal court review of executive orders is one of the most important facets of the relationship between the executive and judicial branches. In evaluating presidential actions, the courts uphold the separation of powers between Congress and the executive and place a check on executive power. On occasion, federal courts are required to perform this function in moments of national crisis. While there have been notable instances in which the Supreme Court has struck down executive orders, the Court has been loath to do so frequently, preferring to be cautious when reviewing the exercise of presidential power.

Source

[darkmaga-returns]

On March 18, another D.C. Circuit judge seized executive branch powers, enjoining the commander-in-chief from disqualifying military recruits with gender dysphoria. District Court Judge Ana Reyes, who identifies as some variety of LGBT, is a longtime Democrat Party donor and, as a lawyer, litigated against the first Trump administration. We knew she’d rule this way, not only because of her bio, but also because in oral arguments she insisted forcing soldiers to lie about reality couldn’t possibly affect military readiness.

In a memorandum accompanying her injunction, the so-called judge writes an opinion screed citing recent court opinions, the Broadway hip-hop play Hamilton, the Supreme Court legislation Bostock v. Clayton County, and corporate news articles. It would be impossible for this theater kid in robes to write a constitutional legal analysis instead, for the Constitution expressly provides in Article II, Section 2, that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.”

Commanders in chief get to set the criteria, expectations, goals, and just about everything else for soldiers. Accordingly, Trump implemented this same policy in his first term. It was 100 percent constitutional then, and it’s 100 percent constitutional now. If Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Biden get to allow queer soldiers, and all the presidents before to discharge them, clearly it is fully within the president’s power to make this decision.

Ignoring this basic aspect of U.S. law and jurisprudence takes Reyes 79 pages, in Cluster B, valley-girl prose. That’s because Reyes is not a judge, she’s an activist who doesn’t deserve a place on any judicial bench — or in any courtroom at all (except as a defendant). That much is obvious from her opinion, as well as from her background.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jonathan V. Last at The Bulwark:

1. There Is Only War

There is a way in which you can view Trump’s first term as a mostly intramural kampf. Trump took office in 2017 without the support of much of the institutional Republican party,1 but came to Washington hoping to become the same lovable host he’d been on TV. Instead, his most substantial opposition came from inside the GOP—people like Jeff Flake, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. (And also Jim Mattis, John Kelly, and Rex Tillerson.)

Over the course of his administration, Trump discovered that this faction might superficially support him, but was fundamentally opposed to him. So he engaged in a power struggle with them for control of the party. Trump ultimately triumphed, but the energy required for this fight precluded him from doing much governing. There simply wasn’t time to both purge the GOP and pass legislation. Also, Trump discovered that there were two other spheres in which structures prevented a president from acting as emperor. The first was the federal government, in which conscientious political appointees could thwart his will and civil service bureaucrats held their own power. The second was the broader culture, in which business leaders, internet platforms, and media organizations held some sway over public opinion. [...]

For a moment, put aside Elon Musk’s Nazi salute, the removal of Mark Milley’s portrait from the Pentagon, and the “Gulf of America.” Look at where the power is. The Courts. For the next two years, the judicial branch is the only institution with the power to check Trump. That’s why he issued an executive order to end birthright citizenship. There is no question that this order is unconstitutional. The only issue is whether or not there will be five votes on the Supreme Court to risk a showdown with Trump over enforcement of a verdict. Trump understands that at some point he is likely to come into open conflict with the Supreme Court. Ending birthright citizenship is a probing action designed to test the Court’s nerve. Will five justices be willing to rule against him on an open-and-shut case? Or will John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett be worried that Trump might defy a contrary ruling, exposing the Court as toothless—and so decide to go along with him now in order to reserve the right to oppose him later?

[...]

Blue States. We have reports that Trump’s deportation raids are slated to target Chicago, Boston, and New York—Democratic cities in Democratic states. The inherent tension in Trump’s deportation regime is that if he followed through on his promises and deported several million immigrants, he would hobble the national economy. To take just one example: A red state like Texas would experience huge problems in the construction industry, which relies heavily on immigrant labor. Either housing construction in Texas would slow—raising housing prices. Or construction wages would climb—also raising housing prices. But there is a way for Trump to have his cake and eat it too: If he targets immigrants in blue states, he can create a drag on local, blue-state economies while satisfying the anti-immigrant desires of red-state voters. It’s a twofer. Trump can hurt businesses and make life more expensive for consumers in New York and Illinois—and then attack blue state mayors and governors for these problems and maybe even help Republican candidates win in those states. Meanwhile, Fox will run B-roll from the raids on a loop, satisfying Trump voters in Texas and Arizona—whose economies will continue to benefit from immigrant workers. Trump understands that blue states are the last bastions of meaningful popular opposition to his rule, so he will use the federal government to subdue them.

Jonathan V. Last of The Bulwark doing excellent journalism once again.

[wahoo-stomp]

I'm so frustrated with Congress' inactivity in light of all that Trump is doing and trying to do that I wrote this letter to each of my reps. I live in a blue state, so it may not be perfectly appropriate for everyone, but I've posted it here, in case you wish to contact your reps and are looking for some kind of spine you can use to express the urgency of the situation and your frustration.

You can also find a letter here (and a handy guide to finding your reps, as needed!)

You don't have to use my letter as a base at all, but it's below a read more in case you want it.

Let's make them do their jobs.

Dear [Elected Federal Representative],

I write you as a deeply concerned American. Since the taking of office, the current president of the United States has taken extensive actions to defy the rule of law, try to control economic policies over which he has no control, threaten states and jurisdictions that have political disagreements with his administration, badger our global allies, and that's merely the tip of the iceberg. With his crony Elon Musk and many other complacent or complicit individuals with no respect for the American public or our standing abroad, he has cut services to millions of people all over the world in ways that will have catastrophic impacts for potential generations. There are legitimate concerns from independent watch dogs that we will not have another chance at a presidential election. He has publicly discussed and advocated sending American citizens to international prisons, and has not only defied the judicial branch but repeatedly indicated he believes it should not constrain him.

We are dealing with a man who firmly believes he has all the powers of a dictator, and it is the responsibility of the legislative branch to stop him, not merely that of the judicial branch.

I understand that on the federal level Democrats lack a meaningful majority, but I believe that what representation exists can and should take actions for immediate harm reduction, reaffirming to the global community and to the American public at large that the US government is still interested in free trade, freedom, and the right to be yourself in a nation of increasingly diverse makeup.

There may not be votes to impeach him - but if the Republican establishment has by and large decided to be the party of neo-fascism, than I plead with you and any sympathetic colleagues to treat this as a serious threat to our nation, to our citizens, to the global order as it stands, and most immediately, to your neighbors. If Trump is allowed to run roughshod over a certain subgroups rights and no one speaks up, there will eventually be no one to speak up when he comes for Congress, when he continues to stoke political violence, and when he begins to deport American citizens for thought crimes.

We are living through a constitutional crisis. I love my country and what it stands for and it saddens me deeply that we have reached this point, by popular vote or otherwise. I am tired of the pundits discussing what Democrats could have done better. It is time to tie our shoes and stand up and tell this narcissist with dictatorial fantasies not here, not now, not ever.

I voted for you because I believe you represent Washington state well. Now please, represent us, and represent those who would also have elected you if they didn't live in gerrymandered districts or fight with voter suppression or face socioeconomic realities that prevent them from effectively participating in our government.

This is not what Americans want. We want our government to work for us, and the Executive branch treating all of us like subjects is no reason for the rest of the branches to roll over and do whatever it says. Stand up, for all of us, please, urgently and without pause, until he's either voted out or impeached for his many crimes.

Yours with regard,

[Name]

[mariacallous]

Early in Donald Trump’s first term, Steve Bannon met with some House Republicans who were wavering on whether to vote for a Trump-backed bill that would have slashed Medicaid, the federal-state program that today pays medical bills for about 72 million low-income Americans.

Bannon, who at the time was a senior White House adviser, read them the riot act: “This is not a debate,” he said, as Axios reported at the time. “You have no choice but to vote for this bill.”

Eight years later, Trump and the Republicans are back in power ― and maybe laying the groundwork for a similar vote. The budget proposal House Republicans voted out of committee on Thursday night envisions massive spending reductions virtually certain to include Medicaid, in part to finance the tax cuts Trump has said are his top legislative priority.

But this time around, Bannon has some different advice for the Republicans ― and the Trump White House, too.

“A lot of MAGA is on Medicaid,” Bannon said on Thursday, during an interview on Fox. “If you don’t think so, you are dead wrong. Medicaid is going to be a complicated one. You just can’t take a meat ax to it, although I would love to.”

Bannon probably understands this better than most high-profile figures in American politics. The proposed Medicaid cuts during Trump’s first term were part of legislation to repeal the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare. That bill proved spectacularly unpopular ― and ultimately failed to pass ― in part because even many diehard Trump supporters would’ve stood to lose health coverage had it succeeded. Which is exactly what could happen now, as Bannon knows.

But these days, it’s not just cuts to Medicaid threatening Trump supporters.

Since reassuming the presidency, Trump has issued a torrent of executive orders that seek to limit, downsize or even eliminate key federal programs and agencies. To implement all of this, Trump has deputized adviser and billionaire tech tycoon Elon Musk, whose Department of Government Efficiency has been laying off federal workers by the thousands and blocking federal spending by the billions.

Trump says the purpose of these orders and Musk’s demolition tour of the executive branch is to eliminate wasteful spending ― and, no less important, to clean out the left-wing, “woke” politics that he says have infected these federal initiatives. Which may or may not be worthwhile on the merits, depending on your perspective.

But whatever the rationale, the effect is likely to be especially strong in communities where Trump is popular. Some have already taken a hit. The question now is how quickly that realization sets in, and whether anything changes as a result.

What DOGE Looks Like In Rural America

One Republican who seems to understand is Katie Britt, the senator from Alabama. Last weekend, a reporter from AL.com asked her to react to news that the National Institutes of Health was sharply reducing its research grants. The University of Alabama-Birmingham is a top recipient of NIH grants, and also Alabama’s largest employer.

Britt said she was all for cutting waste, to make sure taxpayer dollars are “spent efficiently, judiciously and accountably.” But she added that she wanted to work with the administration on “a smart, targeted approach … in order to not hinder lifesaving, groundbreaking research at high-achieving institutions like those in Alabama.”

It sounded a lot like a warning, or at least an objection, especially from a staunch Trump supporter. And it wasn’t the only one out there. Bill Cassidy, the Republican senator from Louisiana who also happens to be a physician, told STAT News: “One thing I’ve heard loud and clear from my people in Louisiana is that Louisiana will suffer from these cuts. And research that benefits people in Louisiana may not be done.”

Louisiana, like Alabama, is a strongly pro-Trump state. It also gets about $300 million a year in NIH research funding, according to an analysis of public data by the Louisiana Illuminator. Other solidly red states with big NIH-backed institutions include Texas and Tennessee. The rural sections of these states ― or any state, really ― can be especially dependent on NIH money, because universities, teaching hospitals and affiliated clinics may be the only large employers there, and the sole providers of major medical care, as well.

As of Friday, a judge has temporarily blocked the NIH funding reduction, citing federal law that would seem to prohibit the Trump administration from making those cuts unilaterally. The same goes for orders that have effectively shut down most foreign aid through the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Cuts at USAID might seem less likely to have a perceptible effect stateside, because American jobs don’t generally depend on foreign assistance. But in farm country, they do, because that’s where USAID gets food: Farmers, who voted overwhelmingly for Trump, could lose as much as $2 billion if food aid goes away.

“You’re talking about a direct impact on American products and American jobs,” George Ingram, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, told the Washington Post.

Republican lawmakers from Kansas, Arkansas and other rural states are rallying behind legislation to save the primary food aid program by moving it out of the State Department and over to the Department of Agriculture.

And they aren’t the only GOP lawmakers making the case to protect programs on the Trump target list. Nearly two dozen House Republicans have been lobbying their leadership to spare federal subsidies for electric vehicles that Trump has said he is determined to eliminate.

It’s not the potential of backsliding on climate progress that worries these Republicans. It’s the potential of losing jobs in their districts, which are home to new, sprawling EV factories in what’s become known as the “battery belt” stretching across the South. And what’s true for EVs is true for the clean energy push more generally: The money that President Joe Biden and the Democrats invested in projects like solar and wind power has gone disproportionately to Republican districts.

Take the money away, and it’s those districts that could suffer disproportionately.

How Republican Leaders Might React

Just what that suffering would look like in practice is hard to say. Cuts may not turn out to be as devastating as critics fear or say — and, in the case of the executive actions Trump and Musk have been carrying out, it’s always possible the courts will block these cuts, as they have with DOGE’s attempted NIH funding reduction.

But Trump is already well on his way to making some long-term changes — by, among other things, getting his appointees confirmed. That includes Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services once seemed to be in doubt because even some Republicans seemed queasy about his repeated, dishonest attacks on vaccines.

Among those voting yes were Sen. Cassidy, a vocal Kennedy critic, which is a reminder that even Republicans raising concerns about elements of the Trump agenda may vote to support them anyway. As for Sen. Britt, 24 hours after expressing concern about those NIH cuts, she was hanging out with Trump at the Super Bowl in New Orleans.

Kennedy’s confirmation wasn’t the only vaccine-related news this week. The other piece was word of a measles outbreak that has already infected two dozen people in Gaines County, Texas, where the vaccination rate is among the lowest in the state — and where more than nine out of ten voters picked Trump in 2024.

That’s not surprising. Republican-leaning voters are less likely to trust or get vaccines, studies and polls have shown. And Trump has made plenty of vaccine-skeptical statements of his own.

Installing Kennedy at HHS at the very least reinforces that message. At worst, it turns U.S. vaccination policy over to somebody who has spent a career making false and misleading statements on vaccine safety. In either case, Trump’s own supporters could feel the effects most directly — though perhaps only when it’s too late to stop them.

[ngdrb]

"Limits of Power: How the U.S. Constitution Restrains Presidential Authority"

The U.S. Constitution does not actually grant the president unlimited power to do anything—even if it might harm the country. Instead, the Constitution establishes a framework of limited powers for the president, balanced by checks and balances from the other branches of government: Congress (legislative) and the judiciary. The founders of the United States, having experienced the dangers of monarchical power under British rule, were careful to avoid creating a single leader with unchecked authority. Let’s break down how this balance operates and examine the specific limitations placed on presidential powers.

1. Defined Powers in the Constitution

The Constitution specifies the powers of the president in Article II, which includes responsibilities like executing laws, commanding the armed forces, making treaties (with Senate approval), and appointing certain federal officials. These powers are broad in some respects, but they come with notable restrictions. For example, while the president is the "Commander in Chief" of the military, only Congress has the power to declare war and control military funding. This means the president cannot unilaterally engage the nation in prolonged warfare without congressional involvement.

2. Checks and Balances from Congress

Congress holds significant power to counterbalance presidential authority. It creates and passes laws, controls federal spending, and has the authority to impeach and remove a president. Impeachment serves as a critical check on the executive branch, allowing Congress to remove a president who is deemed to have committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” such as abuses of power that could harm the country. Additionally, for treaties and key appointments (such as Supreme Court justices and cabinet members), the president needs Senate approval, preventing unilateral decision-making.

3. Judicial Review

The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, has the authority to review the constitutionality of presidential actions through a process called judicial review. Although judicial review is not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it has been a key feature of U.S. governance since the landmark case Marbury v. Madison (1803). This means that if the president enacts policies or takes actions that exceed constitutional limits or infringe on individual rights, the courts can invalidate those actions. This function limits presidential power and helps protect the nation from potential executive overreach.

4. Separation of Powers and Federalism

The principle of separation of powers means that the U.S. government’s authority is distributed among three branches, each with unique functions. The president may act decisively within the executive branch but cannot encroach upon the legislative or judicial branches' functions without facing potential legal or political repercussions. Federalism further diffuses power by dividing authority between the national and state governments, which means states can resist or challenge federal actions they view as unconstitutional or damaging to their interests.

5. Limitations Through Public and Political Accountability

Although not a constitutional mechanism, political accountability plays a crucial role. The president is elected by the people and thus must maintain public support to be re-elected or to maintain political legitimacy. A president acting in ways that clearly harm the country can face intense opposition from both the public and Congress. Public opinion, elections, and media scrutiny act as informal checks on presidential power, deterring actions that could lead to significant national harm.

Conclusion

In sum, the Constitution does not give the president unlimited power to act, particularly in ways that could harm the country. Instead, it establishes a system of limited, defined powers for the executive, checked by both Congress and the judiciary. The intent behind these checks and balances is to prevent any single branch or individual from wielding unchecked authority, thereby protecting the nation’s democratic integrity and the public's interests. The system is not foolproof, and debates over executive power continue, but the Constitution’s structure provides a framework aimed at minimizing the potential for presidential actions that could damage the country.