Donald Trump stated that he would personally make the decision on whether the government should pay him damages related to past federal investigations, including the Mar-a-Lago search and the Russia investigation. Trump has filed administrative claims seeking approximately $230 million under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which typically involves career officials, although Trump allies now hold key positions within the Justice Department. Trump has stated that he is “suing himself” and may donate any awarded proceeds, despite the unusual nature of a sitting president seeking compensation for investigations into his own conduct. Legal experts suggest these claims are unlikely to succeed due to the nature of the investigations and a statute that is not intended for such circumstances.
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
The presidential notice declares the United States is in a noninternational armed conflict with designated terrorist organizations, though specific groups are not named. This broad classification allows the administration to continue unilateral actions against perceived threats. Critics point out that this interpretation stretches international law and could be used to justify violence against loosely organized groups. Experts like Brian Finucane suggest the lack of clarity regarding the targeted groups’ organization creates legal issues.
Read More
No President Should Have This Kind of Power. It’s a sentiment echoing through the digital spaces, and frankly, it’s hard to disagree. The core issue isn’t just about *who* holds power, but the sheer *amount* of power concentrated in a single person. We’re talking about a situation where the President can seemingly act with impunity, flouting established norms and even, as some are suggesting, the very foundations of our legal and ethical structures.
No President Should Have This Kind of Power, especially when the checks and balances designed to prevent such overreach are failing. Congress, the courts, and even the media, which should be holding the powerful accountable, seem to be sitting on their hands, allowing this power grab to continue unchecked.… Continue reading
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has allowed President Trump to fire Federal Trade Commission member Rebecca Slaughter, sparking a dissent from Justice Elena Kagan who accused the court of overriding Congress to grant the president sweeping new powers over independent agencies. This decision signals the conservative majority’s potential willingness to overturn a 1935 precedent limiting presidential removals, specifically Humphrey’s Executor. The court’s actions have repeatedly cleared firings that Congress explicitly prohibited, thus shifting control of key regulatory agencies to the president. Arguments over the matter are expected in December, where the court will determine whether Trump can fire board members for any reason as he seeks to implement his agenda.
Read More
The Supreme Court has announced it will consider expanding presidential power over independent agencies by potentially overturning a long-standing precedent regarding the removal of board members. In a related decision, the court allowed the firing of an FTC commissioner to proceed while the case is being reviewed, echoing previous rulings that favor the president’s power of removal. The core of the case revolves around whether presidents should be able to fire board members at will, a stance supported by the Justice Department, which argues for the preservation of executive power. This decision marks a significant potential shift in the balance of power between the executive branch and independent agencies, with arguments scheduled to begin in December.
Read More
Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor emphasized the importance of civic involvement and education during a recent speech. She questioned the public’s understanding of fundamental American principles, including the distinction between a president and a monarch. Sotomayor expressed concern over a lack of knowledge regarding the functions of the branches of government, advocating for more comprehensive civic education to address this deficit. While the justice did not directly address President Trump, her remarks touched on themes relevant to ongoing debates about the balance of power within the executive branch.
Read More
The case “GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Defendants” revolves around the legality of deploying military forces within California, specifically concerning the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. The core issue at hand centers on whether then-President Trump’s actions in deploying the National Guard and other military troops into Los Angeles were in violation of the law. The court’s decision, at least initially, appears to side with Newsom and the plaintiffs, issuing an injunction against the deployment. The fundamental concern is that federal military forces were being used for law enforcement duties, which the Posse Comitatus Act generally prohibits.… Continue reading
Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook is suing former President Donald Trump over his attempt to remove her from her position, sparking a legal challenge regarding the Fed’s autonomy. Trump cited “sufficient reason” to believe Cook made false statements regarding her mortgage, which he says allows him to remove her. Cook’s lawsuit seeks to invalidate Trump’s firing order and names Fed Chairman Jerome Powell as a defendant. This legal battle highlights the contentious relationship between Trump and the Fed, particularly concerning interest rate policy.
Read More
House Speaker Mike Johnson asserted that the War Powers Act is unconstitutional, specifically regarding President Trump’s recent military actions in Iran. Johnson believes Trump’s actions are within his Article 2 powers and that the resolution barring U.S. military action in Iran will not pass. Though a privileged resolution introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie could force a vote, Johnson indicated it may be withdrawn due to a ceasefire, potentially preventing a conflict over the president’s authority. Trump has criticized Massie, which could influence the resolution’s fate.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood