Vice President JD Vance declared on Sunday that “judices are not permitted to control the legitimate power of the enforcer,” and for now faces a court ruling that hinders aspects of President Trump’s agenda. He then delivered a warning shot to federal justice.
The statement issued on social media came as a result of federal judges temporarily effectively banning many Trump administration actions. They include the end of birthright citizenship. Gives access to a sensitive Treasury system to Elon Musk’s companions in his efforts to destroy the government. Transgender female inmates are transferred to men’s prisons. Place thousands of US institutions for international development employees on vacation.
Vance, a 2013 Yale Law School graduate, has repeatedly argued that court orders that presidents like Trump violate legitimate enforcement power should and should be ignored. . His post wasn’t too far, but it was doing more important considering he is now Vice President.
Trump also openly violates numerous laws, including immediate fires of officials, effectively dismantling USAID and restricting folding into the State Department. They also provide a window into thinking. It also raised the question of whether the administration would stop it from staying in the ruling if it found it illegally obstructed his agenda.
Vance’s post did not cite any particular ruling. But many of Trump’s allies banned Trump’s political appointees and colleagues from Musk’s so-called government efficiency initiative from gaining further access to the Treasury’s payment system early on Saturday. He condemned the order to do so.
Trump spoke to a reporter who rode in Air Force 1 on Sunday when he went to New Orleans on Sunday, and the judge said the Treasury Department called it “disgrace.” However, he appears to be thinking about sue, saying the trial “had a long way.”
Trump added: “Frankly, we shouldn’t be allowed to make such a decision.”
Earlier that day, Vance argued for strong presidential powers, saying, “At Harvard University, which claimed legitimate state conduct, particularly judicial interference with joint internal functions, particularly joint internal functions, and judicial interference with joint internal functions. I repainted a post from Professor Adrian Vermeer: Equal branches are a violation of separation of power.”
Professor Vermeule added a comment to a post by Sen. Tom Cotton, a Republican of Arkansas. He branded the judge who called the order about the Treasury “outrageous” and issued it as “outlaw.” Trump administration.
But Cotton in particular did not appeal to Trump to ignore the orders. Rather, he said the Court of Appeal should “reverse it immediately.”
The brave pattern of blowing away countless clear legal restrictions in the second Trump administration has prompted debate about its intentions. One theory is that the Republican-appointed supermajority of the Supreme Court deliberately sets up test cases that pave the way for expanding presidential power by removing the law as unconstitutional. .
But the escalating pace of court clashes raised the question of what would happen if Trump began to ignore decisions he disliked, rather than suing them. The outcome is a constitutional crisis.
In his same social media post, Vance also cited the types of decisions made by administrative officials who portrayed him as outside the court’s legitimate scope.
“If a judge attempts to tell the general how to carry out a military operation, it would be illegal,” he wrote. “If a judge attempts to order the Attorney General about how he uses his discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.”
It is more likely that there will be debate about the scope and limitations of administrative power in the context of laws enacted by Congress, and where boundaries should be drawn between the ability of lawmakers to regulate government and the president’s exclusive constitutional authority. It was common. For example, in the George W. Bush administration, the president’s lawyer declares that Bush can legally ignore laws such as prohibiting torture of detainees, and his power as commander cited a broad view of the book.
However, Vance has repeatedly argued that the president should ignore court orders that he believes will invade their own views on constitutional authority.
Appearing on the podcast in 2021, Vance ran for the Ohio Senate seat and said if Trump returns to the White House in 2025, “All civil servants of the administration, all mid-level bureaucrats, say, Replace them with our people.”
He continued: “And as you will be taken to the court, the court – and when the court stops you, he stood in front of the country, like Andrew Jackson, saying: “The Supreme Court judge is him.” He has ruled. Now let him force him to do that.”
In an interview with ABC News in February 2024, Vance, then an Ohio Senator, was asked if he thought the president could rebel against the Supreme Court. Yes, Vance responded if control was reduced by the president’s legitimate constitutional authority. He summoned hypothetical examples to lay out his reasoning and explained the decision that prohibited the president from firing a particular general in his role as commander.
“This is merely constitutional justification,” Vance said. “You’re talking about the hypothesis that the Supreme Court is trying to run the military.”
He doubled in an interview with Politico Magazine the following month saying that if the president stops dismantling the federal bureaucracy, the Supreme Court should be ignored.
“If an elected president says, ‘I can control my government’s staff,’ the Supreme Court says, ‘You’re not allowed to do that.’ It’s a constitutional crisis,” Vance said. “That’s not something Trump or others do accordingly. When the Supreme Court tells the President that they can no longer control the government, we need to be honest about what’s actually going on. ”
Erica L. Green contributed a report from Washington.
