How does Donald Trump prevent the executive authority
Throughout his first two weeks, Donald Trump shot officials throughout the federal government, including inspectors of cabinets and prosecutors at the Ministry of Justice. In the previous case, there was wanted by Trump under law to inform Congress in advance, and to provide “objective justifications”. (He did not.) The last issue may have violated the protection of civil service for non -political members of the federal bureaucracy. It remains to see exactly how the courts will respond – and perhaps even the Supreme Court, which showed respect for extensive theories of the executive authority – of Trump’s actions.
I recently spoken by phone with Jack Goldsmith, a law professor at Harvard University and former head of the Office of the Legal Adviser of the Ministry of Justice. (Participate in his book The name Goldsmith He said New York Times, On these cases, “we will discover a lot about the final obligations of the judge Roberts.” During our conversation, which was edited for length and clarity, we discussed the extent of the strategy of the administration’s actions, and why is the Roberts Court likely to emphasize the theories of the extremist executive authority, and what Trump truly tries to do to the Ministry of Justice.
I have been told recently TimesAbout all shootings, “on one level, this seems to be designed to invite the courts to decline because many of them are illegal and the general message is a limitless vision of the executive authority.” But in fact, they clearly prepare test cases. “What is You consider it illegal in particular?
Things that constitute a problematic, or clearly illegal problem include Overbroad Memorandum of Administration and Budget, which has at least withdrawn at least, which seemed to be based on confirmation of the presidential authority not to spend the allocated funds. They have a theory about why this is good, but I don’t think it will succeed in the Supreme Court.
They have launched civil service employees, which are subjected to civil service prevention, and not the removal force that the Supreme Court has recognized yet. The removal force is the ability to remove the executive branch officials, which the Supreme Court confessed to two exceptions. The Trump administration launched a member of the National Labor Relations Council – there is a precedent that the president has no power to shoot in this context. I also think that the refusal to impose a tiktok ban has much exceeded what the Supreme Court said is the permissible range to estimate the enforcement of presidential law. Not only can the president decide not to impose a law approved by a previous administration because he wants to study his national security effects. He also withdrew from the Paris Agreement without compliance with one year notice, and this does not contradict the treaty, and does not contradict the precedents of the executive branch, which says that the president should follow the requirements of the notice. There may be a lot, but these are those that stick to me.
What do you mean by “preparing tests”? Does this mean that you think this is somehow aware?
It is a bit of the puzzle. It is not clear who runs the legal store in the Trump administration now. But this may be part of a concerted strategy to prepare test cases because they want to pay the external borders of the executive authority before the Supreme Court, which they believe may be sympathetic to their opinions. By flying in the face of the precedents of the Supreme Court, they put themselves to ask the court to cancel these precedents. This is what I meant to bring tests. But this assumes something that is not sure of it, which is that this is part of a conscious legal strategy by some complex and enlightened lawyers who run all this. There is an alternative theory that there is nothing to happen, and that this is Trump 1.0, on a larger scale. It may be a mixture of both.
If this legal strategy is, is the goal of expanding the presidential authority about the specific actions that they prepare test issues about, or is it the theory that accomplishes something wider?
Therefore, if you understand you correctly, this is both. Some of the things they do fly against the precedents of the Supreme Court. These are the precedents of the Supreme Court on the authority to remove the president, as the court recognized some restrictions. Some people believe that these fragile precedents and danger, but were recently confirmed by the court.
By doing things that fly explicitly in the face of this protection, it appears to be hatched to fight about whether the Supreme Court will abide by these restrictions imposed on the presidential authority or expand it.
The issue of power spending was settled because Richard Nixon tried to say that the president has a widespread constitutional authority not to spend the money allocated by Congress for widespread reasons based on politics. William Renkuist, head of the legal advisor office, said he did not think he was legal and Nixon did so anyway. Then the Congress pushed back and enacted a law, which was passed in 1974, which has been ruled since then, and that the presidents had complied more or less. With this very wide spending, and very wide allegations that they do not want the right money, it appears that the Trump team is facing a legal challenge to obtain recognition of a new presidential authority not to have to spend the money allocated by Congress.
The Supreme Court did not address this question. They never treated Nixon’s theory. If the Supreme Court blesses this theory, the Trump team has achieved a great expansion in the presidential power. They will not have to spend other customized funds. This is the precedent they are looking for.
What is the extent of the theory to you?
“Extreme” is not the word that I will use, but it is a new theory. I don’t think it works at all. I don’t think there is any reasonable legal basis for that. But there is an argument for that, and I can embody it if you want it.
please.
I got a few ingredients. The constitution says that the president cannot spend unreliable money. But the constitution does no Say that the president should spend all the allocated money. For a lot of our history, returning to at least for Thomas Jefferson, presidents have not always spent all the money allocated to a full range of reasons. There was a practice, in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, sometimes not spent money. Early, Congress has not always determined that all the allocated money must be spent. Sometimes presidents do not spend this, and sometimes this leads to conflicts. But there was no widespread constitutional authority to not spend the money until Nixon’s confirmation.
I do not think, and most people do not think, that these points add to an exclusive presidential authority, given by the constitution, not spending allocated money. It will be an extraordinary transformation in power from Congress to the president. It is believed that the authority of credits in Congress is one of the most important forces that he gave them orders. This is not a small thing if the president is able to do this. So I do not say that there is no argument on the other side; I say it is a weak argument.