Latest news with #Democra
Atlantic
29-05-2025
- Business
- Atlantic
Striking Down Trump's Tariffs Isn't a Judicial Coup. It's a Vindication of the Rule of Law.
The debate over President Donald Trump's tariffs often focuses on whether they are prudent. Defenders insist that Trump's tariffs will help make America great again and boost national security. Critics counter that they'll wreck the economy. But the strongest argument against the tariffs is actually that they are unlawful. Neither the Constitution nor any statute authorizes Trump to impose what he ordered. Now, months after sticklers for the rule of law began making that argument, it has finally been vindicated: Yesterday, the United States Court of International Trade, the federal court with jurisdiction over civil actions related to tariffs, struck down almost all of Trump's tariffs in a 49-page ruling. The decision includes a detailed discussion of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the 1977 law delegating increased power over trade to the president during national emergencies, which the White House had cited to support its moves. It concludes that the law does not authorize any of Trump's tariff orders. Administration officials quickly challenged the ruling's legitimacy. 'It is not for unelected judges to decide how to properly address a national emergency,' White House spokesman Kush Desai said in a statement. 'The judicial coup is out of control,' Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller posted on social media. But their objections are dubious, not because the judiciary never overreaches, but because at least three features of this dispute make the argument for judicial overreach here especially weak. David Frum: The ultimate bait and switch of Trump's tariffs First, the Constitution is clear: Article I delegates the tariff power to Congress, and Article II fails to vest that power in the presidency. So the Trump administration begins from a weak position. And the court's ruling did not arrogate the tariff power to the judiciary, which might have warranted describing it as 'a judicial coup.' It merely affirmed Congress's power over tariffs. Americans need not fear a judicial dictatorship here. Congress can do whatever it likes. Indeed, it could pass a law reinstating all of Trump's tariffs today without violating the court's ruling. But Congress is extremely unlikely to do so, in part because Trump's tariff policy clearly lacks public support; for example, a recent poll found that 63 percent of Americans disapprove of it. Second, the plaintiffs in this particular lawsuit include the states of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, and Vermont––all democratically accountable entities in a federal system where states are meant to act as a check on unlawful exercises of federal power. All of those states asked the court to rule in this manner to vindicate their rights under the law. As Oregon's attorney general put it, 'We brought this case because the Constitution doesn't give any president unchecked authority to upend the economy.' States controlled by both Republicans and Democrats routinely file lawsuits asking the judiciary to strike down purportedly unlawful actions by the president. There is bipartisan consensus that such judicial review is legitimate, not couplike, and such rulings have constrained presidents from both parties. Rogé Karma: The impossible plight of the pro-tariff liberals Third, when Congress created the Court of International Trade and later defined its jurisdiction, its precise intent was to create an arm of the judiciary that would exercise authority over trade disputes. Congress made a deliberate choice to alter an earlier law vesting that power in the Treasury Department, under the executive branch, and deliberately vested it in a court instead. To quote from the 1980 law that defined its powers, 'The Court of International Trade shall have exclusive jurisdiction of any civil action commenced against the United States, its agencies, or its officers, that arises out of any law of the United States providing for tariffs.' Policing whether or not a tariff complies with the law and the Constitution is central, not peripheral, to the court's ambit. If the Trump administration kept its criticism of the judiciary to edge cases, where there is real doubt about how the Constitution separates powers, it could plausibly claim to be engaged in the sort of dispute that is inevitable when branches of the federal government are checking one another as intended. That it seeks to delegitimize even this ruling suggests contempt for any check on the power of the presidency, not principled opposition to judicial overreach. The Constitution explicitly vests the tariff power in Congress, and wisely so: Empowering one person to impose taxes and pick economic winners and losers tends toward corruption and dictatorship. Going forward, Congress should set tariff policy itself, and impeach any president who tries to usurp its authority.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Democrats accuse White House of withholding information on agency spending
Top Democratic funding negotiators are accusing the Trump administration of withholding spending plans for federal agencies and hundreds of programs required by law. In a Tuesday letter, Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) criticized the White House budget chief for 'overseeing the development of inconsistent and inadequate spending plans for fiscal year 2025 submitted by departments and agencies.' 'Your lack of transparency shows disdain for the right of the public to understand how taxpayer dollars are being spent and for the rule of law,' they wrote in the letter to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought. Their letter cited a provision in legislation enacted in March to avert a shutdown and fund the government through September, or the end of fiscal 2025. That provision called for departments and agencies to submit 'spending, expenditure, or operating' plans for fiscal 2025 to House and Senate appropriators within 45 days of the measure's enactment. 'Four weeks have now come and gone, and while the Committees began receiving some spending plans from departments and agencies consistent with the 45-day requirement, many agencies' plans still have yet to be submitted or blatantly omit basic funding details at your agency's direction,' the appropriators wrote. 'These spending plans were coordinated through, shaped, and approved by OMB.' The Hill has reached out to OMB for comment. The appropriators said a spending plan submitted for the Department of Health and Human Services only included 'high-level funding amounts and does not provide funding levels for hundreds of specific programs and activities.' They said it also included '530 asterisks in place of details about how this administration is choosing to fund — or not fund — hundreds of programs that the American people count on every day.' A spending plan submitted for the Education Department also 'completely omitted dozens of specific programs and activities and claimed that almost $13 billion was 'unallocated,'' they wrote. They added a 'revised spend plan' was sent for the department weeks later that included '$8 billion in 'unallocated' funding and continues to lack detail on dozens of programs now with only four months left in the fiscal year.' 'As the House and Senate Appropriations Committees intend to mark up the fiscal year 2026 bills next month, we demand that by the end of this month you comply with section 1113 and ensure that all spending plans contain sufficient information to demonstrate how each department and agency intends to prudently obligate all amounts provided by Congress for fiscal year 2025 within their period of availability and resubmit them to the Committees,' they wrote. The letter is the latest instance of the OMB facing pressure from Democrats over what they've described as a lack of transparency on federal spending. The letter also comes weeks after top GOP appropriators in the House and Senate joined their Democratic colleagues in calling for public access to be restored to a website taken down by OMB that showed how funding is apportioned to federal agencies. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
03-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Report: President Trump considers executive order limiting NIL payments
President Trump signed 141 executive orders in the first 100 days of his second term. There's another one in the pipeline that could provide a boost for most if not all of the NCAA's 134 FBS schools. The Wall Street Journal reports that the President is considering an executive order "that could increase scrutiny of the explosion in payments to college athletes since 2021." The seed apparently was planted during a Thursday meeting between the President and former Alabama coach Nick Saban, who quit coaching after the 2023 season due to his frustrations over (let's call it what it is) his inability to continue stacking the deck with all the top players. Per the report, Trump said he agreed with Saban and would look at crafting an executive order," and "Trump told aides to begin studying what an order could say." While it has been popular for folks like Saban to whine about the impact of college football players finally getting real value for their skills, efforts, and sacrifices (and if you don't think they make sacrifices, talk to Jordan Travis), why should any branch of government infringe on the ability of anyone to get paid? Will there be an executive order limiting the amount of money CEOs can make? Actors? Musicians? Will there be an executive order restricting the ability of the wealthy and connected to navigate the investment markets in a way that generates massive financial windfalls? For anyone who believes in free enterprise, this is as free as enterprise gets. Businesses compete for the non-employee employees who will help them achieve their objectives. Those businesses that consistently make bad decisions will fail. Those businesses that consistently make good decisions will thrive. It's the essence of the American way. The current chaos in college football flows directly from decades of the various schools using the phony umbrella of the NCAA to limit what the players can receive. The legislative branch spoke on this matter more than 130 years ago, in creating the first antitrust laws. The judicial branch, spurred by long-overdue litigation challenging the entire system, has finally applied those laws to a set of artificial rules that has been an antitrust violation hiding in plain sight. The moment arrived four years ago. Players, who were long denied the ability to get paid for what they bring to the college-football table, are feasting. The schools, which were able for far too long to exploit those players, are reeling. Now, the executive branch is going to undo the work of the other two branches? For what purpose? Who wins, and who loses? If Congress chooses to give college football a partial or full antitrust exemption, so be it. If the schools decide (as they should) to regard the non-employee employees as employees and embrace a nationwide union that would result in a labor deal that would result in bargaining on a wide range of rules aimed at striking a proper balance, so be it. Regardless of whether the President is a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, or Whig, the notion that any executive should or could restrict the ability of college football players to earn whatever someone will pay them would defy the three-branch system of government — and, until it is applied to others who (many are saying) are "making too much money," would create a horrible double standard.
NBC Sports
03-05-2025
- Politics
- NBC Sports
Report: President Trump considers executive order limiting NIL payments
President Trump signed 141 executive orders in the first 100 days of his second term. There's another one in the pipeline that could provide a boost for most if not all of the NCAA's 134 FBS schools. The Wall Street Journal reports that the President is considering an executive order 'that could increase scrutiny of the explosion in payments to college athletes since 2021.' The seed apparently was planted during a Thursday meeting between the President and former Alabama coach Nick Saban, who quit coaching after the 2023 season due to his frustrations over (let's call it what it is) his inability to continue stacking the deck with all the top players. Per the report, Trump said he agreed with Saban and would look at crafting an executive order,' and 'Trump told aides to begin studying what an order could say.' While it has been popular for folks like Saban to whine about the impact of college football players finally getting real value for their skills, efforts, and sacrifices (and if you don't think they make sacrifices, talk to Jordan Travis), why should any branch of government infringe on the ability of anyone to get paid? Will there be an executive order limiting the amount of money CEOs can make? Actors? Musicians? Will there be an executive order restricting the ability of the wealthy and connected to navigate the investment markets in a way that generates massive financial windfalls? For anyone who believes in free enterprise, this is as free as enterprise gets. Businesses compete for the non-employee employees who will help them achieve their objectives. Those businesses that consistently make bad decisions will fail. Those businesses that consistently make good decisions will thrive. It's the essence of the American way. The current chaos in college football flows directly from decades of the various schools using the phony umbrella of the NCAA to limit what the players can receive. The legislative branch spoke on this matter more than 130 years ago, in creating the first antitrust laws. The judicial branch, spurred by long-overdue litigation challenging the entire system, has finally applied those laws to a set of artificial rules that has been an antitrust violation hiding in plain sight. The moment arrived four years ago. Players, who were long denied the ability to get paid for what they bring to the college-football table, are feasting. The schools, which were able for far too long to exploit those players, are reeling. Now, the executive branch is going to undo the work of the other two branches? For what purpose? Who wins, and who loses? If Congress chooses to give college football a partial or full antitrust exemption, so be it. If the schools decide (as they should) to regard the non-employee employees as employees and embrace a nationwide union that would result in a labor deal that would result in bargaining on a wide range of rules aimed at striking a proper balance, so be it. Regardless of whether the President is a Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian, or Whig, the notion that any executive should or could restrict the ability of college football players to earn whatever someone will pay them would defy the three-branch system of government — and, until it is applied to others who (many are saying) are 'making too much money,' would create a horrible double standard.
RNZ News
01-05-2025
- RNZ News
Owners on edge after spate of cat maulings in Whakatāne
Mauling victim: Stormy, who was mauled to death on Monday is the latest in a string of recent dog attacks on cats. Photo: Supplied The owner of a cat fatally mauled by roaming dogs this week has been horrified to learn that her pet Stormy is not the only victim of this group of dogs in Whakatāne. Whakatāne District Council dog control officers say they have impounded eight dogs over the past 10 days and are encouraging people to make formal complaints when they see roaming dogs, rather than post about them on social media. Trinaka Godsmark-Tawa's cat Stormy was found dead on Monday morning. The James Street resident had been getting ready for work just after 5am when they heard loud and aggressive barking that lasted five minutes. A neighbour told them he had just chased three dogs away outside his house and one of them had a cat in its mouth. With the help of her neighbour she went in search of Stormy and found him mauled to death about six houses away. She posted about the attack on social media and soon learned that just minutes before Stormy was killed, a nearby Riverside Drive resident had chased three dogs from their property where they had been terrorising their cat. The dogs - one described as a husky and another as light-coloured - had been seen coming from Awatapu lagoon. Local Democracy Reporting [The Beacon] has verified that at least four other cats have been attacked by dogs in Whakatāne this year. One incident in Whakatāne south three weeks ago, was witnessed by the cat's owner and her two preschool children. The woman, who did not want to be named for fear of repercussions, said her two-year-old daughter had been feeding the cat when it was grabbed by two dogs. She describes one as a liver-and-white husky-type dog and the other as a tall, cream-coloured pitbull or staffie mix. "It could have been [my daughter] they attacked," she said. Nine lives: This 14-year-old cat is still recovering from lacerations caused by two dogs that attacked it three weeks ago in front of the owner's two preschool daughters. Photo: LDR It happened just before 7am while the cat waited for his food on the front doorstep. "I opened the front door to let my two-year-old put the food down and all of a sudden, the cat was swiped from her feet. "I quickly ushered [the girls] back inside and shut the door. They watched out of the window as I chased after the dogs. So, they were watching as [the cat] was being ripped by two dogs, one on each side. The 14-year-old cat survived, but is on antibiotics and still limping, the owner said. "He has some very big lacerations on his back." The children remain frightened to go outside their front door. "They've only ever known this cat as their baby. Now I've had to carry them to and from the car. They won't go out on the front porch anymore." She urges people to call dog control as soon as they see these dogs roaming. A dog control officer told her there have been multiple reports of the same dog, she said. Local Democracy Reporting [The Beacon] also heard from a Hinemoa Street resident whose cat was attacked by dogs a few weeks ago. It also survived, but spent a week at the veterinary clinic. Two other cat owners have posted on social media that their cats were killed by dogs in January. Godsmark-Tawa would like to see more dog control officers patrolling the area as it's not the first time it's happened in the area. "It's unfair that we have had to bury our cat because someone can't keep their dogs in their own gate." The council is currently advertising for a dog control officer on its careers website. Whakatāne-Ōhope ward councillor Nāndor Tanczos said roaming dogs were an ongoing problem, not only in town but in other parts of the district, and one that the council took seriously. "In the last long-term plan, we voted for more staff for animal control. One of the difficulties is that staff can't be everywhere all the time ... so it does rely a lot on people contacting the council when they see it happening." Any help with identifying the dogs is encouraged, such as taking photographs or videos. "Often the animal is gone by the time staff get there. It's not very easy to identify individual dogs. "The council staff are really good people, and I think they are genuinely trying to do their best with the challenges that they've got," he said. He said most dog owners were responsible but a few owners needed to stop their dogs escaping. He said other issues were whether dog control officers had the powers they needed under the council's bylaws and how many dog control staff were needed. "People want more dog control staff, but also people complain that there's too many staff at council. We can do that, if that's what the community wants, but people have to say how much extra they are prepared to pay in rates for that to happen." Council animal control team leader Verna Kinney said the council had received one formal complaint regarding a dog attack on a cat in the James Street area. "As this matter is under active investigation, we are unable to comment further." Since 20 April, it has received 20 service requests about roaming dogs in the Whakatāne township with several reports relating to the same incidents. She urges people to report sightings of roaming dogs as soon as possible but, for safety reasons, not to approach unattended dogs." LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
