The White House is working on an executive order on elections, the press secretary has confirmed, and this has naturally sparked a flurry of reactions. It’s the kind of announcement that immediately gets people thinking: what’s the angle here? What’s the goal? And, perhaps most importantly, is it even legal?
It’s crucial to understand that the power to set election laws and procedures primarily resides with state legislatures and Congress, not the president. While an executive order can certainly be issued, it doesn’t automatically override existing state or federal laws. That’s a fundamental principle of how our system of government is structured.… Continue reading
Senator Sanders believes the current political climate represents a pivotal moment in American history, as the President is allegedly undermining the Constitution and the rule of law. He asserts that the government shutdown is not the Democrats’ responsibility to resolve, but rather the Republicans, as they are refusing to negotiate. Sanders acknowledges the pressure both Democrats and Republicans face from constituents, particularly regarding the potential impact of budget decisions on healthcare costs.
Read More
Casten: ‘I think Trump commits impeachable offenses on a daily basis,’ and frankly, it’s hard to disagree with that assessment. It’s a statement that, in many circles, feels more like an observation of the obvious than a controversial claim. The idea that Trump’s actions, words, and even his business dealings frequently cross the line into impeachable territory is a sentiment echoed by a significant number of people. It’s a point of view that seems to have a lot of momentum behind it.
Casten’s assertion, taken at face value, suggests a pattern. A pattern of behavior that consistently pushes the boundaries of acceptable conduct for a president.… Continue reading
President Donald Trump has acknowledged that he is constitutionally barred from running for a third term, despite previous hints and suggestions from himself and allies. Speaking to reporters, Trump conceded the Constitution’s clear restriction, though he expressed regret. This admission comes after repeated speculation about his intentions, fueled by displays of “Trump 2028” merchandise and discussions of potential legal pathways. While top allies like Steve Bannon have explored the possibility, House Speaker Mike Johnson dismissed any feasible route for Trump’s return to the presidency.
Read More
Trump says US blocks him from running for a third term, and that statement, right there, is the core of a very complicated and, frankly, predictable situation. It’s almost comical how the pieces fit together, like a puzzle you’ve seen assembled a thousand times before. He’s acknowledging the reality of the situation – the Constitution prevents a president from serving more than two terms – but the context and the tone are far more telling than the words themselves. It feels like a calculated move, a playing of the hand that’s been dealt, but with a certain amount of misdirection thrown in for good measure.… Continue reading
While tariffs may appear to protect American jobs initially, they ultimately harm both workers and consumers. High tariffs trigger retaliatory actions from foreign countries, leading to trade wars, market shrinkage, and job losses. President Reagan highlighted the importance of free trade in his address, citing the negative impact of protectionist measures during the Great Depression. The goal should be to reject protectionist legislation and promote fair, free competition to foster prosperity for all nations, as America’s economic growth depends on it.
Read More
In a recent interview, Steve Bannon claimed that Donald Trump will serve a third term in office, despite the constitutional two-term limit. Bannon asserted that there is a plan within Trump’s inner circle to circumvent the 22nd Amendment and keep him in power. This plan, the specifics of which have not been disclosed, is supported by Bannon’s belief that Trump is an “instrument of divine will” and that he is needed for another term. While the Constitution appears clear on this point, Trump himself has previously hinted at such a possibility, though legal experts have widely dismissed any means of subverting the 22nd Amendment.
Read More
A former US Marine Corps colonel and combat veteran resigned after 24 years of service due to concerns about Donald Trump’s perceived disregard for the Constitution. The resignation occurred on the same day Trump addressed military leaders, prompting Krugman to reflect on the importance of questioning potentially immoral or illegal orders. Krugman cited the January 6th riots, pardoning of insurrectionists, and the administration’s treatment of Afghan allies as key factors in his decision, claiming Trump was testing the limits of presidential power. He warned of a potential “collapse” if the gaps in the laws regarding presidential power were not addressed.
Read More
Former U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Doug Krugman resigned in late September, citing concerns about President Trump and the direction of the country. In an op-ed, Krugman explained his belief that Trump’s actions, including the rebranding of the Department of Defense and the potential use of the military for domestic purposes, were at odds with the Constitution. Krugman stated that Trump’s pardon of those involved in the January 6th insurrection and his halting of refugee programs were particularly concerning, leading him to believe he could no longer serve under Trump’s leadership. Krugman’s decision reflects a broader worry about the role of the military and the adherence to constitutional principles.
Read More
President Trump recently boasted about utilizing tariffs as a foreign policy tool, neglecting to acknowledge that this power constitutionally belongs to Congress. Furthermore, the White House plans to use tariff revenue to fund the WIC program during the government shutdown, although the legality of this action remains unclear. This approach raises concerns as it allows the president to circumvent Congress’s “power of the purse” by unilaterally allocating funds without legislative approval. While the intention to support low-income families is positive, the underlying constitutional violation of presidential authority presents a significant problem.
Read More
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker