today, Free Press Published Symposium “Is Donald Trump breaking the law?”
Participants (in addition to themselves) include several prominent constitutional scholars and legal commentators: Jonathan Adler (Caseworthy/Voloff co-blogger), Aziz HUQ (University of Chicago), Larry Wrestle (Harvard), Andrew McCarthy (National Review), Michael McConnell (Stanford), Ed Whelan (Centre for Ethics and Public Policy), and yours.
The FP editor summarizes the contributions as follows:
Given the diversity of the ideological diversity of these contributors, the consensus is impressive and perhaps surprising. All agreed that the president’s legal tactics reflect a dangerous willingness to ignore statutory and constitutional constraints, and that he must be suppressed quickly.
Speaking for myself alone, I don’t think I have ever been part of an ideologically diverse symposium on controversial topics that I have agreed to more than 90% of what other participants said. But I here despite all the other ideological differences (except perhaps Adler). If I have any disagreements, it may lie in Larry Lessrig’s claim that the best analogy with Trump’s actions is that of the mafia boss. That comparison is a bit unfair to the Mafiosi, and I think the better similarity is the similarity between various nationalist authoritarians and aspiring authoritarians. But I agree that it is actually the case that Lessig says that it is illegal.
It is probably worth noting that two of the contributors (HUQ and Lessig) are far to my left, and the other two (McCarthy and Whelan) are on the right. McConnell is also much more conservative than me, but perhaps not to a lesser extent than McCarthy and Whelan.
Skeptics can argue that the FP cherry picked the participants. It is noteworthy, however, that Free Press is generally considered to be a publication of the “confession” of the Right Bass. They’re even there It was criticized Being overly friendly and overly tolerant of the MAGA movement.
Here is an excerpt from my own contribution:
The second Trump administration is trying to undermine the Constitution in many ways, making it difficult to track it. However, the three are particularly dangerous. Taking over parliamentary expenditure. The unconstitutional measures against immigrants justified by fakes are argued that the US is under “aggression.” And the assertion of the virtually endless presidential power to impose tariffs…
Trump asserts his authority to “bury” federal funds spent by Congress, imposing conditions on federal grants on state and private organizations that Congress never granted. The Constitution gives the power of the wallet to Congress, not the president…
Trump issued immigration Presidential Order Claiming an illegal transition would be equivalent to an “invasion,” which allows him to halt most legal immigrants. Orders are conflicting Showing overwhelming evidence that, Under the Constitution“aggression” means “manipulation of war” (as James Madison said), it is not merely illegal border crossings or drug smuggling. The order of invasion threatens not only immigrants but also American citizens…
A similar call for false “aggression” has been cited by Trump to justify calling the alien enemy law of 1798. This is without the process of imprisoning Venezuelan immigrants in El Salvador, which can only be used in the case of war, “aggression,” or “predatory invasion.”
The administration’s claim that it is helpless to order the return of those who are incarcerated as well as immigrants to those who are threatened with the threat of not only immigrants but also to American citizens. Under Trump’s logic, they could also be deported and imprisoned abroad, and the court could not order their return.
Finally, Trump has He took council authorities away He launched the largest trade war since Great Repression over international commerce that imposes a massive “liberation day” tariffs, thereby launching the largest trade war since the Great Repression. It’s causing serious damage to the US economy….
