How far can the federal government go to force local and state governments to help enforce federal law? Sooner rather than later, the Supreme Court will almost certainly have to answer that question.
" challenges would have a darn good argument that no statute even authorized the Secretary to take this step"
Good arguments don't seem to matter anymore. Major questions, the newly invented doctrine of a supposedly textualist court, only applies to environmental regulations that the Court doesn't like. Anything supported by the right wing will not be a major question. And while Courts no longer need to defer to the expertise of administrative agency if they don't like the regulation, they will uphold a right wing regulation.
I think it's bizarre that the Court and so-called "conservatives" forget the definition of "executive," that is, a person that executes the policies of a board or of Congress, not someone who makes up policy and sets the law. The Court decided that the President doesn't even need to follow the law, let alone execute it.
Even if Roberts and Barrett vote to uphold the constitution and democracy, will Trump ignore them and the Republicans complain privately but let him get away with it?
Quick question regarding your footnote one and (mostly Musk's) efforts to not pay people like Lutheran Family Services (domestically) and USAID (internationally):
Does this implicate the public debt clause of the 14th Amendment as viewed broadly by SCOTUS in Perry v. US?
USAID is not an NGO. You call it one in your "taking the meritless-ness first" para. That's a basic error of fact. Not sure how it impacts your argument.
Even if Musk’s actions are deemed illegal, who is there to arrest him and remove him from the treasury etc. Dedicated Trump “Yes men/women” are in charge of all law inforcement agencies. They will not cross Trump. Also, if he were to be arrested, Trump would simply pardon him and put him right back into doing the same illegal work he has been doing. So, who is there to stop Musk?
Respectfully, I don’t agree with your point 3 on relatedness in the Power of the Purse post. Byrne grants are general capacity building grants for police departments. They are not about immigration enforcement. The program is undermined if the grant is repurposed for only one element of law enforcement activity. Same for the original Dole case. Of course highways are safer if there are fewer inebriated drivers; the majority thought there was enough of a nexus to the condition reducing federal highway money— but Brennan and O’Connor disagreed and they were right.
Mr Vladeck is always very smart and often brilliant. But I believe he misses the key point about this court - it is in the bag, it is irretrievably corrupt. His theory of the case is that the court is a brilliant, almost supernaturally wise institutional invention that sometimes errs. My theory of the case is that the court is a horrible mistake by the founders and over more than 200:years has done far more,harm than good. And this court is not behind having already agreed to a corrupt deal. They are going to give Trump impoundment, the right to coerce all local government, and the right to use the military domestically in an unrestricted way. In turn he will leave them alone
Aside form what seems like Elon Musk unauthorized actions and impersonation of a government officer, as an advisor is there not some official process to substantiate his claims rather than posting ' it's a ball full of worms'. I would think that an official report be submitted outlining the findings and provide an analysis of the situation along with its recommendations. Something like a business plan, or after-action report, or in this case a coroners recommendation.
Not a lawyer so I come here for the education and appreciate it a lot. But sometimes, there's a bit of fun. Today's play with SC Justices sharing birthdays, you've edged into my domain. Numbers. Explore what statisticians call the "birthday paradox." Ask Counselor Google or one of his or her colleagues. Relevant to the current Court, the probability that two out of nine will share a birthday is about 10 percent. The probability that 23 randomly selected folks is 50%. Sixty or more? Thus considering all who have been or are a SC Justice it's a virtual certainty
" challenges would have a darn good argument that no statute even authorized the Secretary to take this step"
Good arguments don't seem to matter anymore. Major questions, the newly invented doctrine of a supposedly textualist court, only applies to environmental regulations that the Court doesn't like. Anything supported by the right wing will not be a major question. And while Courts no longer need to defer to the expertise of administrative agency if they don't like the regulation, they will uphold a right wing regulation.
I think it's bizarre that the Court and so-called "conservatives" forget the definition of "executive," that is, a person that executes the policies of a board or of Congress, not someone who makes up policy and sets the law. The Court decided that the President doesn't even need to follow the law, let alone execute it.
Even if Roberts and Barrett vote to uphold the constitution and democracy, will Trump ignore them and the Republicans complain privately but let him get away with it?
Quick question regarding your footnote one and (mostly Musk's) efforts to not pay people like Lutheran Family Services (domestically) and USAID (internationally):
Does this implicate the public debt clause of the 14th Amendment as viewed broadly by SCOTUS in Perry v. US?
USAID is not an NGO. You call it one in your "taking the meritless-ness first" para. That's a basic error of fact. Not sure how it impacts your argument.
Even if Musk’s actions are deemed illegal, who is there to arrest him and remove him from the treasury etc. Dedicated Trump “Yes men/women” are in charge of all law inforcement agencies. They will not cross Trump. Also, if he were to be arrested, Trump would simply pardon him and put him right back into doing the same illegal work he has been doing. So, who is there to stop Musk?
You make a very good argument, and can easily see Trump rather irate at such an outcome.
The question then is does he do an Andrew Jackson and just ignore the decision. Would think not, but one doesn't know at this point.
Respectfully, I don’t agree with your point 3 on relatedness in the Power of the Purse post. Byrne grants are general capacity building grants for police departments. They are not about immigration enforcement. The program is undermined if the grant is repurposed for only one element of law enforcement activity. Same for the original Dole case. Of course highways are safer if there are fewer inebriated drivers; the majority thought there was enough of a nexus to the condition reducing federal highway money— but Brennan and O’Connor disagreed and they were right.
Mr Vladeck is always very smart and often brilliant. But I believe he misses the key point about this court - it is in the bag, it is irretrievably corrupt. His theory of the case is that the court is a brilliant, almost supernaturally wise institutional invention that sometimes errs. My theory of the case is that the court is a horrible mistake by the founders and over more than 200:years has done far more,harm than good. And this court is not behind having already agreed to a corrupt deal. They are going to give Trump impoundment, the right to coerce all local government, and the right to use the military domestically in an unrestricted way. In turn he will leave them alone
This is amazing work! Thank you!
Aside form what seems like Elon Musk unauthorized actions and impersonation of a government officer, as an advisor is there not some official process to substantiate his claims rather than posting ' it's a ball full of worms'. I would think that an official report be submitted outlining the findings and provide an analysis of the situation along with its recommendations. Something like a business plan, or after-action report, or in this case a coroners recommendation.
Not a lawyer so I come here for the education and appreciate it a lot. But sometimes, there's a bit of fun. Today's play with SC Justices sharing birthdays, you've edged into my domain. Numbers. Explore what statisticians call the "birthday paradox." Ask Counselor Google or one of his or her colleagues. Relevant to the current Court, the probability that two out of nine will share a birthday is about 10 percent. The probability that 23 randomly selected folks is 50%. Sixty or more? Thus considering all who have been or are a SC Justice it's a virtual certainty