Lawmakers were disturbed by the explanation provided regarding the justification for killing two incapacitated men, with the implication that they were still considered threats. The administration maintained that the men were still involved in drug trafficking, thus perpetuating the idea that they were engaged in armed conflict with the U.S. despite being shipwrecked. This rationale contradicts the laws of war, which generally prohibit killing those no longer actively participating in a conflict. The core argument is a dangerous extension of executive power, allowing for summary military execution of civilians in international waters.
Read More
A federal judge in Oregon has issued a permanent injunction preventing the Trump administration from deploying the National Guard in Portland to address protests against immigration policies. The judge, appointed during Trump’s term, ruled that the deployment was unjustified because there was no rebellion or inability to execute federal laws. Oregon officials and the California Attorney General celebrated the decision, calling Trump’s actions an abuse of power and a win for the rule of law. The Justice Department, however, immediately appealed the ruling, arguing the deployment was necessary to address violence and protect federal personnel and property, and the case remains ongoing.
Read More
The Supreme Court Justices on Wednesday, expressed considerable skepticism regarding the legality of the aggressive tariffs imposed by the Trump administration. Justices questioned the administration’s justification for enacting the tariffs, with both conservative and liberal justices scrutinizing the process. The core of the legal challenge centers on whether the tariffs, levied under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, overstepped the President’s authority and infringed on Congress’s power to tax, as lower courts have ruled. If allowed to stand, the tariffs could generate trillions in revenue, highlighting the potential fiscal impact.
Read More
The Supreme Court is hearing a case regarding President Trump’s use of emergency powers to impose tariffs, a move with significant implications for the global economy. The administration defends the tariffs, arguing they are permissible under emergency law, while challengers, including small businesses and Democratic-leaning states, claim the president overstepped his authority. The core dispute revolves around whether the 1977 emergency powers law grants the president the authority to unilaterally levy tariffs, a power constitutionally reserved for Congress. A ruling against Trump could impact the $195 billion in revenue generated by the tariffs and potentially set the tone for future legal challenges to his policies, despite Trump having appointed a conservative majority to the court.
Read More
Rand Paul: “All of these people have been blown up without us knowing their name,” a statement that cuts right to the heart of a disturbing reality, a chilling admission of extrajudicial killings. It’s a stark picture he paints, and honestly, it’s a difficult pill to swallow. It’s a statement that, in its simplicity, lays bare a system that’s gone off the rails. It forces us to confront the uncomfortable truth that decisions are being made, lives are being taken, and we, as a nation, are often left in the dark. The fact that he can say it, and then in the same breath praise the former president, is… well, it’s telling.… Continue reading
Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appointed in 2020, stated the Supreme Court lacks the power to enforce its rulings if a president chooses to ignore them, lacking the “power of the purse” and “power of the sword.” She discussed her legal theory of originalism and the ongoing debate surrounding executive power, specifically referencing the “unitary executive theory.” Barrett acknowledged that the court often makes decisions along partisan lines, though she maintains she is “nobody’s justice.” During the interview, she was hesitant to discuss what the court’s role might be in the face of an executive challenging its authority.
Read More
Miller’s use of the first person in describing his actions within the administration raises concerns about his authority and influence, especially given his unelected position. Social media users have expressed alarm, pointing out that Miller appears to be making decisions regarding the deployment of federal agencies and National Guard units. Furthermore, the author criticizes Miller’s portrayal of potential scenarios involving military action in Southern towns, suggesting that such actions would likely be met with resistance.
Read More
During a CNN interview, White House aide Stephen Miller paused mid-sentence while discussing the President’s authority to deploy National Guard troops, leading to speculation of a technical glitch or a deliberate stop. Miller’s use of the term “plenary authority” sparked controversy, as it suggests the president has broad, potentially limitless power. Despite the on-air issue, the interview resumed with Miller re-asserting the President’s authority under Title 10 of the U.S. Code to deploy federal resources, though he emphasized the administration would abide by the judge’s ruling. This incident raised questions and drew criticism, particularly concerning the scope of executive power in domestic troop deployments.
Read More
A federal judge’s decision blocked President Trump’s plan to deploy the Oregon National Guard to Portland, sparking a high-profile legal battle over executive power. The ruling, from a Trump-appointed judge, addressed the legality of sending federalized troops into a U.S. city amid protests and the broader constitutional relationships between the White House, Congress, and the states. The state of Oregon and the city of Portland argued that the deployment was unconstitutional. The Justice Department has appealed the ruling, and further court proceedings are scheduled.
Read More
In a controversial decision, the Supreme Court allowed Donald Trump to cancel $4 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress. The ruling, seemingly based on a “pocket rescission” strategy, granted Trump the ability to withhold funds until they expired, effectively giving him a line-item veto. This decision, reached through the shadow docket, shifts power from the legislative to the executive branch. The Court’s justification focused on the president’s authority over foreign affairs outweighing Congress’ spending control, a move that could lead to a president impounding any funds they dislike, undermining the separation of powers.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood