President Trump has declared an “armed conflict” with drug cartels, viewing them as terrorists and paving the way for increased military action. A confidential memo sent to Congress revealed this decision, giving Trump more authority for lethal strikes. This declaration follows deadly strikes against alleged drug smuggling boats, sparking concerns about legality and a dramatic escalation of military power. The administration claims these actions are part of a campaign against “narco-terrorists” and to stop the flow of illegal drugs into the U.S.
Read More
A federal appeals court sided against Donald Trump’s tariff program, declaring the method of implementation unlawful. This ruling, upholding a prior decision, determined Trump violated the law by using the International Emergency Economic Powers Act without congressional approval. New York Attorney General Letitia James celebrated the court’s decision as a win for American families and businesses, as the tariffs were viewed as massive taxes. Trump’s administration is expected to appeal the case, which is set to take effect in October.
Read More
President Donald Trump has increasingly justified his policies by invoking national security, leading to a push for broad executive powers, specifically when stripping protections from government worker unions. This strategy is meant to use emergency powers to consolidate unitary control, sidestepping judicial review by appealing to long-standing deference principles. However, courts have shown varying degrees of resistance to this, and, while some judges have deferred to the administration’s claims, others have pushed back. These legal battles are ongoing and are likely to reach the Supreme Court, which has a history of deferring to the executive branch on national security matters.
Read More
President Trump stated that he may not require congressional approval to extend the federal control of Washington, D.C., claiming the local crime situation could constitute a national emergency, despite his own police force reporting a decrease in violent crime. He announced his intent to seek extensions beyond the initial 30-day timeframe. Trump plans to present a crime bill, initially focused on D.C., and suggested that the Republicans in Congress will unanimously approve the extension. He also dismissed reports of crime statistics and claimed the crime situation is dire.
Read More
The Supreme Court’s ruling in *Trump v. Casa* establishes a significant limitation on the judiciary’s power to restrain the executive branch, specifically regarding universal injunctions. The majority opinion, led by Justice Barrett, argues that federal courts lack the authority to issue injunctions that apply beyond the immediate parties involved, creating a “gap” where the government can act unlawfully without judicial recourse. This decision, rooted in a narrow interpretation of the Judiciary Act of 1789, potentially invalidates numerous past injunctions and allows the government to sidestep constitutional challenges by focusing on procedural maneuvers rather than defending the legality of its actions. The author argues that this decision is a threat to the rule of law.
Read More
Supreme Court lets Trump resume plans for mass federal layoffs, and the immediate reaction is a mix of disbelief, anger, and a deep sense of foreboding. The core concern is that this decision further erodes the balance of power, essentially handing the President unchecked authority to reshape the government through executive order. It feels like the legislative branch, which is supposed to be a crucial check, is being rendered irrelevant, like a useless appendage.
The Supreme Court, in the eyes of many, is now viewed with extreme suspicion. It’s no longer seen as an impartial arbiter of justice but rather a tool being used to advance a particular political agenda.… Continue reading
HuffPost’s unwavering commitment to truthful, fact-based journalism spans two decades. This dedication requires ongoing support to ensure its continued operation. Reader contributions have been crucial to HuffPost’s resilience, particularly during challenging periods. Continued support is vital to maintaining the newsroom’s strength and preserving its mission. The organization hopes readers will renew their commitment to its future.
Read More
Senate Republicans’ proposed tax bill included a provision requiring exorbitant bonds for emergency court orders against the federal government, effectively barring most lawsuits challenging administration actions. The Senate parliamentarian ruled this provision violated budget reconciliation rules, deeming it unrelated to budget matters. This decision, coupled with unified Democratic opposition, virtually ensures the provision’s removal from the bill. Republicans’ attempts to justify the provision, claiming a lack of constitutional or statutory authority for national injunctions, were refuted. The ensuing debate highlights a clash over the balance between executive power and judicial oversight.
Read More
Republican lawmaker on U.S. bombs against Iran: ‘This is not constitutional.’ The statement itself is a stark condemnation, highlighting a deep fissure within the Republican party regarding the legality of military action against Iran. This isn’t just some minor procedural quibble; it strikes at the very heart of the checks and balances intended to prevent unchecked executive power. The gravity of the situation demands a thorough examination of the constitutional implications.
The claim that the bombing of Iran is unconstitutional raises serious questions about the separation of powers. A fundamental principle of American governance is that Congress, not the President, holds the power to declare war.… Continue reading
President Trump’s unauthorized military strikes against Iran have sparked a sharp divide within the Democratic party. While some, like Representative Ocasio-Cortez, condemned the action as grounds for impeachment and a violation of Congressional War Powers, others, such as Representative Fetterman, voiced support. This division reflects pre-existing ideological fault lines within the party, concerning both foreign policy and national security. Political analysts suggest this internal conflict could further weaken the Democrats’ position heading into future elections.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood