The seemingly legal camouflage makes the words almost mediocre, yet clearly conveys their ominous undercurrents.
“The judges are not allowed to control the legitimate power of executives,” says JD Vance, a graduate of Yale Law School at X, in an escalating tug of war between bosses Donald Trump and Donald Trump. I walked away. US Federal Court.
Whatever it lacked rhetorical prosperity or polish, this post represents a clear rejection of long-established constitutional norms, while not supporting legal basis, it is said that some have shown a clear rejection of long-established constitutional norms. The scholar says:
It also corresponds to an implicit statement intended to ignore the court’s decision. This warned that if enacted, it would overturn the US government’s complex system of checks and balance and lay the foundation for dictatorship.
“The Vice President has absolutely no basis for the constitution and its historical development to make this claim,” said Bruce Ackerman, a professor of law and political science at Yale University, Vance’s alma mater. “It rejects the basic principles of checking and balance.”
Vance’s intervention was sparked by a series of court rulings that delayed Trump’s Permer Rush to grab the lever of power across the US government since returning to presidency on January 20th.
Trump acted outside his legitimate power in arbitrarily deliberately closed institutions, including the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, the National Labor Review Board and the Equal Employment Opportunity Committee, according to Trump. Exchange appointment. He also immediately fired 17 inspector generals who were charged with eradicating government waste, fraud and abuse across the administration without giving Congress a statutory 30-day notice.
“The president cannot control policy decisions of all institutions in the administrative sector,” he said. “In particular, the President cannot fire the people and members of these committees. Even less, he can destroy two independent committees through one-sided actions.”
However, the court found that an executive order from the White House ignored existing laws or violated the Constitution if it attempted to revoke birthright citizenship, and so Trump was in the process of improving the US government. issued a series of legal setbacks to the Crusades. .
Other rulings include a massive shooting of thousands of staff at USAID (now embarrassing foreign aid agencies) halted and a sudden freeze on another government grant and loans reversed. It was there.
The social media post on Sunday issued a temporary injunction the day before that would stop Elon Musk’s self-styled “Government Efficiency” (DOGE) from accessing the Treasury payment system. It appeared to have been a particularly target for the verdict by the ruling. – Pay trillions of dollars through a vast database of personal information from millions of Americans and various government programs.
The underlying Vance reaction, although not explicitly stated, is the threat that Trump simply ignores court decisions he didn’t like and can apply his powers as he thinks it is appropriate. did.
Vance has made such arguments in the past, extending the argument to a hypothetical negative ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, where some of the current disputes are expected to end. majority.
On a 2021 podcast, when he was a candidate for the US Senate, Vance said Trump was “widely thought to be at risk of realising in Washington, saying that all mid-level bureaucrats should be fired. I drew a scenario similar to what is being done: Every civil servant in an administrative state replaces them with our people.”
It’s likely to end in a court battle, he said – in that case, Trump should go against an unfavourable ruling: “When the court stops you, stand in front of the country like Andrew Jackson, “The Supreme Court has given him his sentence. Now let him force it.”
Ackerman, author of We the People, a three-volume history of the Constitution, deposes his approach as “the lawless defense of the Supreme President.”
Some analysts speculate that Trump’s attempts to seize free control of the bureaucracy are based on the unified theory of enforcement of the presidency.
The president cannot control policy decisions of all institutions in the administrative sector.
Bruce Ackerman
The theory argues that the president has only authority over the government’s administrative division, and aims to centralize control of the White House. Based on the “Clauses of Rights” of the Constitution, it states that “the right to enforce (the President) is given the right to do so.” It has been endorsed by the conservative justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in recent decades and has been defended by right-wing think tanks, including legacy. The Foundation, the leading architect of The Radical Project 2025, illustrated many of the current attacks on Trump’s bureaucracy.
But Ackerman warns that grabbing Trump’s power, and Vance’s claim of its unlimited contour, suggests something more ominous.
“(This is) a dictatorship,” he said. “This isn’t a single executive. It’s a very different thing. As for the foundations of the constitution, it’s a shattered attack.”
It appears that Trump has abandoned all the pretenses by respecting constraints with an approach that warns him of causing a constitutional crisis and endangering a descent into an authoritarian “king.”
David Dorien, a Syracuse University constitutional law professor, has launched Watergate, far beyond the Imperial presidency, where Trump’s ambitions believe many have reached that attitude under Richard Nixon. He said it will be cut by legislation in Congress.
“What Trump is trying to do is steal all the power to control the government from Congress and use the judiciary to unravel the law,” he said. “Trump challenges all restrictions on his power and then hopes that the court will declare all laws that will limit him to unconstitutional.”
This will return the ball to the court. “The question is whether the courts are willing to stand up to limit illegal power, or are they willing to remove the law and the control of Congress by saying that what the president is doing is legal. “Durian said. “The main thing is that he does not follow the laws on the right and left. He takes the power of the parliament of the wallet, and it is illegal. It is just against the law and against the constitution.”
Vance, on his part, is to justify his dictatorial grabs of power in his attacks on the judge.
“(Vance’s post) is propaganda that serves to help establish a dictatorial regime while avoiding taking responsibility for it,” he said. “Vance says that while courts should not control legal powers, … most of these powers (which Trump is seizing) are not legal. I suggest that the courts should stay. This suggests that he should refrain from constraining non-gimate power grips involved in establishing a dictatorial regime.
“It’s a framing that helps to justify something that’s not justified.”
