click
⬇️
Feb 11, 2025
It's The Unitary Executive, Stupid
American Bar Association:
In American law, the unitary executive theory is a Constitutional law theory according to which the President of the United States has sole authority over the executive branch. It is "an expansive interpretation of presidential power that aims to centralize greater control over the government in the White House". The theory often comes up in jurisprudential disagreements about the president's ability to remove employees within the executive branch; transparency and access to information; discretion over the implementation of new laws; and the ability to influence agencies' rule-making. There is disagreement about the doctrine's strength and scope, with more expansive versions of the theory becoming the focus of modern political debate. These expansive versions are controversial for both constitutional and practical reasons. Since the Reagan administration, the Supreme Court has embraced a stronger unitary executive, which has been championed primarily by its conservative justices, the Federalist Society, and the Heritage Foundation.
The theory is largely based on the Vesting Clause, which singularly grants the president with the "Executive Power" and places the office atop the executive branch. Critics debate over how much power and discretion the vesting clause gives a president, and emphasize other countermeasures in the Constitution that provide checks and balances on executive power.
The Unitary Executive
The theory is largely based on the Vesting Clause, which singularly grants the president with the "Executive Power" and places the office atop the executive branch. Critics debate over how much power and discretion the vesting clause gives a president, and emphasize other countermeasures in the Constitution that provide checks and balances on executive power.
The Commander in Chief Clause has also been interpreted to reinforce the unitary executive theory, as it makes the president the highest ranking officer of the United States Armed Forces.
Historically, as part of the campaign to support ratification, Alexander Hamilton contrasted the powers of the presidency and that of the King of Great Britain. Namely, the King exercised powers in military affairs that would be delegated to Congress. In the 2020s, the Supreme Court held that, regarding the powers granted by the vesting clause, "the entire 'executive Power' belongs to the President alone".
Today's Clapback
Democrats doing the work. Looks like MAGA thinks they can heckle and disrupt their way thru - the way "The Tea Party" did in 2010 - but a well-prepared Representative can change the outcome.
That's US Rep Janna Hayes (D - CT05) stompin' that guy's ass. He brought nothing but ego, and a butt-hurt DumFux News talking point, and she did exactly what needs to be done every time. Outstanding.
Yes, I'm A Liberal
Not my manifesto, but this post from Ron Howard gets to the gist of it all.
I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean what a lot of you apparently think it does. Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines:
1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. Period.
2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.
3. I believe education should be affordable. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.
4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.
5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.
6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.
7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; compulsory prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize my right to live according to my beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine.
8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the same rights as you.
9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are not eligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).
10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.
11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.
12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized.
13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine.
14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?
15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.
16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?
I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.”
1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. Period.
2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.
3. I believe education should be affordable. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt.
4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.
5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare.
6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.
7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; compulsory prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize my right to live according to my beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine.
8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the same rights as you.
9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are not eligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).
10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.
11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.
12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized.
13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine.
14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?
15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.
16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?
I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.”
The Fight
Democrats are not "doing nothing". Drop that shit from your repertoire right fucking now.
Ansari: Never in my life did I think that within one week we would see an all-out assault on USAID, on the Treasury, on the EPA, on the Department of Education, and now the agency that is literally designed to support and protect working people from fraud and abuse and predatory… pic.twitter.com/Vj6syh5ctt
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 11, 2025
Raskin: You know, I realized a rally a day keeps the fascists away. So we've got to keep meeting like this, right? pic.twitter.com/66ZrHIweOR
— Acyn (@Acyn) February 11, 2025
Rep. Jared Moskowitz says that despite being a member of DOGE caucus, Elon Musk doesn't give them DOGE findings and they have to rely on the media to get reports of the findings.
— Ron Smith (@Ronxyz00) February 11, 2025
DOGE is a scam pic.twitter.com/XH255Er0C6
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser joined a multistate suit Monday over the Trump administration’s cuts to National Institutes of Health funding
The lawsuit is the fourth that Colorado has joined against policies enacted by the Trump administration. The state has also intervened in at least three other cases.
The latest lawsuit focuses on grant funds from the National Institutes of Health, the nation’s main funder of biomedical research. Historically when awarding grants to research, the NIH has funded not just the direct cost of research but also the indirect costs that make the research possible — money needed to maintain facilities or perform administrative tasks.
The Trump administration last week announced that it would cap how much grantees receive in indirect costs. The move would save $4 billion, the administration said.
The lawsuit, which was filed in Massachusetts, argues that the decision violates federal administrative law as well as Congress’ appropriations authority.
“This illegal action cutting NIH funding — taken abruptly, recklessly, without reflecting on its painful impact, and with no justification for a dramatic change — will harm Colorado universities, undermine important research efforts, and damage our economy,” Weiser, who has announced he is running for governor in 2026, said in a statement. “Government agencies are required to act fairly and reasonably, ensuring that affected parties have notice of potentially dramatic changes and an opportunity to be heard.”
Here are all the lawsuits and other legal challenges Colorado has joined to the Trump administration.
This list is up-to-date as of Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2025.
Fight over NIH funding cuts
The lawsuit: As described above, this lawsuit focuses on cuts at the National Institutes of Health to funding for the indirect costs of research. Colorado institutions received a little over $560 million in NIH funding in the last fiscal year, with much of that going to the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, with big chunks also going to the University of Colorado Boulder and Colorado State University. Weiser’s office said the proposed funding cuts would eliminate nearly $90 million in funding across the three campuses.
Date filed: Feb. 10, 2025
Other states involved: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin
Latest action: A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the funding cuts from taking effect for now.
Debate over DOGE access
Date filed: Feb. 10, 2025
Other states involved: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin
Latest action: A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the funding cuts from taking effect for now.
Debate over DOGE access
The lawsuit: This case seeks to block the new Department of Government Efficiency — headed by Elon Musk — from accessing the U.S. Treasury Department’s central payment system. The system contains, among other things, personal information about many millions of Americans. The suit contends that giving “special government employees” like Musk access to the system violates federal law and policy. It was filed in New York.
Date filed: Feb. 7, 2025
Other states involved: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin
Latest action: A judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking access, though the Trump administration has since pushed back on the order.
Putting heat on the funding freeze
The lawsuit: This suit seeks to block the federal funding freeze that affected as much as $3 trillion of budget government spending. The suit argues that the freeze unconstitutionally usurped Congress’ power of the purse. Colorado U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said the freeze would have impacted “tens of billions of dollars in payments” to the state. The suit was filed in Rhode Island.
Date filed: Jan. 28, 2025
Other states involved: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia
Latest action: A judge blocked the freeze, and the Trump administration later announced that it had rescinded the order. But the plaintiff states, including Colorado, argued that federal funds were still being held up. Hickenlooper, fellow Colorado U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, and Gov. Jared Polis wrote in a letter Monday to White House budget director Russell Vought that “more than $570 million in obligated funding remains inaccessible” to Colorado agencies and organizations. A federal judge in Rhode Island issued an order Monday finding that, despite the restraining order, the Trump administration has continued “to improperly freeze federal funds and refused to resume disbursement of appropriated federal funds.”
Pushing back against birthright citizenship ban
The lawsuit: Shortly after taking office Trump issued an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship — which grants citizenship to children born in the United States. This lawsuit challenges that order, saying it explicitly violates the U.S. Constitution. The case was filed in Massachusetts.
Date filed: Jan. 21, 2025
Other states involved: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin
Latest action: A federal judge in Boston heard arguments on the lawsuit Friday but did not issue an immediate ruling. Three other federal judges across the country have already issued rulings blocking the executive order.
Other actions
Weiser’s office moved to intervene in two ongoing cases before Trump was inaugurated for his second term. In both cases — which involve challenges to regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives — Weiser said he was concerned that the Trump administration, once in power, might abandon the defense of those regulations.In other action, Weiser’s office joined with the attorneys general in 21 other states and the District of Columbia to support a suit seeking a temporary restraining order against the Trump administration’s proposed buyout program for federal workers. A federal judge granted the restraining order request, issuing one that extends until at least next week.
Bob Reich
Last week, Trump’s social media corporation — Trump Media and Technology Group, in which Trump personally owns a majority of shares — announced plans to sell financial products, including a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), aimed at what Trump calls the “patriotic economy.” Its shares jumped 6 percent on the news.
Devin Nunes, Trump Media’s CEO, said the Trump ETFs give investors a chance to put money into “American energy, manufacturing and other firms that provide a competitive alternative to the woke funds and debanking problems that you find throughout the market.”
Woke funds? Debanking problems?
Two weeks ago, Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee to direct the FBI, was given 25,946 shares in Trump Media, according to a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. They are now worth about $840,000. What was this a payoff for?
Last weekend, the Trump-Musk regime shuttered the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The federal government is no longer protecting consumers of financial products. Trump-Musk ordered all work to stop at the CFPB. Its X account was deleted and its homepage unplugged. CFPB employees who went to the building Sunday to retrieve things they needed to work remotely were turned away by security.
Keep connecting the dots.
The shutting of the CFPB was welcomed by the crypto crowd, including Musk, and by those issuing Bitcoin exchange-traded funds, such as Trump.
Besides his financial interest in crypto, Musk has stated publicly he’s seeking to create an “everything app” that could be used for all financial transactions. Mark Zuckerberg and venture capitalist Marc Andreessen are aiming for the same thing.
The CFPB had proposed that such apps be supervised the same way banks are supervised. Well, scratch that now. No supervision. And no insurance by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Brace yourselves for fraud and bank runs.
Musk, Zuckerberg, and Andreessen — all Trump backers and lapdogs — had claimed that the CFPB was trying to “debank” or remove them and other Trumpers from the banking system. In fact, the CFPB proposed the first-ever rule to block debanking.
Andreessen is invested in companies like Synapse, which have cost many people’s life savings. Some firms in his portfolio were shut down by the CFPB for scamming people. Zuckerberg says Meta is not a bank, although it has a payments business and Zuck wants to start a currency.
Now, connect all the dots and what do you see? An oligarchy unleashed and in the open. Their extraordinary wealth is buying the power to make them even wealthier.
It’s bad enough that Trump and Musk are making room for their own personal financial products and those of their major backers.
Trump’s financial products also invite people and corporations seeking to curry favor with him to invest in his products. Outright bribery.
Who will be left holding the bag? Surely anyone gullible enough to put their savings into one of these initiatives. Worst case, all of us if the stock market crashes and pulls the economy down with it.
This, my friends, is pure corruption. Mark my words: It will blow up in Trump’s and Musk’s faces. I just hope it doesn’t blow up in ours.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)