Latest news with #TheConversationU.S.
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Missile strikes and drone attacks heighten South Asian crisis - 8 questions answered over the role of Pakistan's military in responding
Pakistan's government has pledged to respond 'at a time, place and manner of its choosing' following an air attack from India that killed 31 people in Pakistan on May 6, 2025. The missile strike comes at a time of increased tension between the two South Asian neighbors following a terror attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir on April 22 that resulted in the deaths of 26 Indian tourists. India blamed the assault on its neighbor although has yet to provide any solid proof of a link between the assailants and the Pakistani state. To understand more about how Pakistan's powerful military is viewing the incident, and weighing a response, The Conversation U.S. turned to Ayesha Jalal, an expert on South Asian history and politics who is the Mary Ricardson Professor of History at Tufts University. This is clearly a defense issue, so the Pakistani military is going to take the lead. Any decision over how to respond to the Indian airstrikes will have to be done in consultation with the civilian government. But ultimately it will be the powerful Pakistani generals that will be making the decisions. In Pakistan, this is the usual way of doing things. The military has dominated politics in Pakistan for decades. Partly, this is due to the very dynamic we are seeing now. From the creation of Pakistan onward, there has been tension with India, including over Kashmir. Indeed the two countries went to war over Kashmir within a year of the partition of India soon after the creation of Pakistan. So the military has always been seen as central to Pakistan's view of itself as an independent nation. Then in 1958, the Pakistani army toppled the civilian government in the country's first of several military coup attempts, three of which have been successful. Since that time onward, no civilian government has been able to govern successfully for long without the support of the army. Recent political developments in the country – the ouster and arrest of former Prime Minister Imran Khan and a 2024 election that resulted in a weak coalition government – have only strengthened the hand of Pakistan's military. Despite the Pakistani Army's position of power, Gen. Syed Asim Munir, the Chief of Army Staff, is someone who has tried to keep out of the spotlight. He is known as a very religious character – he is a Hafiz, meaning he has memorized the Quran. And he is seen as a tough, fairly inaccessible soldier. He is also a hawk when it comes to relations with India. Speaking after the Kashmir attack and before India's airstrikes, Munir warned, 'Let there be no ambiguity: Any military misadventure by India will be met with a swift, resolute, and notch-up response.' This approach is somewhat of a departure from that of the man he replaced in 2022, former Army Chief Qamar Javed Bajwa. Bajwa was more inclined to look for a peaceful resolution with India over Kashmir and other issues. Munir, by contrast, presents a a more belligerent front in the face of what many in Pakistan see as Indian aggression, while framing the rivalry between the two nations in religious terms. A lot has been made, especially in India, of comments that Munir made a few days before the attack in Pahalgam. Munir described Kashmir as Pakistan's 'jugular vein' and framed the long-running animosity between Pakistan and India in religious terms, invoking the 'two-nation' theory that states that India is a homeland for Hindus; Pakistan is one for Muslims. The theory, conveyed by much of India's media, is that Munir's was an inflammatory statement that encouraged the Pahalgam attack. But there is nothing in what he said that was entirely original or new: This has been the narrative of the Pakistani military for several decades. It is simply how they talk. None that India has presented as yet. India has blamed Pakistan for supporting the Kashmiri militants responsible – but hasn't articulated what the actual relationship is between Pakistan and the militant group, The Resistance Front. Certainly, Pakistan has in the past had ties to some of the many militant groups in Kashmir. For some groups, that has meant crossing over from Indian-controlled Kashmir to Pakistan for training. But the argument that 'Pakistan used to do it, so they must be doing it now' seems unsupported – certainly, Indian hasn't presented solid evidence to any international body. India is not on as strong of ground as it was in 2019, when a suicide bomber in Pulwama, Indian-administerd Kashmir, killed 40 members of the Central Reserve Police Force. On that occasion, the international community swung behind India, with the U.S. offering counterterrorism support while calling on Pakistan to stop sheltering terrorists. Without firm evidence of a link between the attack and Pakistan this time around, the international community has found it difficult to go with India's narrative of the attack. The U.S. has called on both sides to find a 'peaceful resolution.' Meanwhile China has indicated that it is standing by Pakistan in a statement in which it expressed 'regret over India's military actions' while also calling on both India and Pakistan to 'avoid taking actions that further complicate the situation.' In Pakistan, the view is this is India attempting to assert its dominance and create what analysts have called a 'new normal' in relationships between the two countries – one in which India will retaliate to any perceived Pakistani-linked terror attack with missile strikes on Pakistan's territory. The theory here is that India doesn't mind escalation, in fact it is seen as serving the Hindu nationalist aims of India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But I wouldn't describe it as public pressure on Pakistan's military to respond, it is more strategic pressure. Pakistan will need to prevent this 'new normal' happening, and so will, in my view, very likely respond in kind to the Indian airstrikes. Well, for starters it has, in theory, the capacity to hit over 200 Indian cities with its arsenal of missiles. But Pakistan Defense Minister Khawaja Muhammad Asif has already said that strikes would only target Indian military targets and not civilians. Pakistan also has to weigh how India may respond to any retaliatory strikes. But India has expanded the usual terms of engagement when it comes to Kashmir. Typically in recent years, fighting has been contained along the 'line of control' – the border between Indian- and Pakistani-controled Kashmir. But the Indian airstrike was deep within Pakistan. India says that the targets were all terrorist, but civilians were killed in the process – and Pakistan's military will not be able to just leave it at that. A response is very much expected, especially now that India has upped the ante by using Israeli made Harop drones in an attempt to target the Pakistani air defense system. Pakistan claims it has shot down 25 of these drones. Obviously the most pressing risk is that Pakistan and India are both nuclear states. If Pakistan retaliates in an escalatory way, and then India responds in a similar fashion, this gets to a point where the use of nuclear weapons is a very real risk. War would also hit Pakistan's economy at a time when it is seen to be improving after years of crisis. But that will likely be of secondary importance in the decision-making process for Pakistan's military if it believes that the country's integrity is being threatened. In addition, Pakistan's generals will likely be of the view that India, in attacking Pakistan, is trying to thwart any economic recovery in Pakistan – with the belief being that India's government fears a powerful, more economically stable rival. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Ayesha Jalal, Tufts University Read more: India-Pakistan: escalating conflict between two nuclear powers 'Everyone lives in fear': trapped between two warring nuclear giants, the people of Kashmir continue to suffer Indian airstrikes in Kashmir following tourist attack raises fears of a regional conflict Ayesha Jalal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
19-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's defiance of a federal court order fuels a constitutional crisis − a legal scholar unpacks the complicated case
President Donald Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act on March 15, 2025, and deported about 200 Venezuelan immigrants his administration alleged have ties to a Venezuelan gang. U.S. District Court Judge James Bloasberg verbally issued an order that same day telling the government that the planes carrying the deportees must return to the United States. The U.S. government, though, allowed the flights to continue and for the Venezuelans to be detained at a facility in El Salvador infamous for its mistreatment of prisoners. The subsequent legal back-and-forth, which is still going on, intensified so quickly and dramatically that many legal scholars say the U.S. is past the point of a constitutional crisis, as the Trump administration appears to be defying a federal court order, for which Boasberg may hold the government in contempt. Trump has also called for Bloasberg to be impeached. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts then issued a rare public statement that day rejecting Trump's statement. 'For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,' Roberts said in a written statement on March 18. Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., posed a few questions to Cassandra Burke Robertson, a scholar of civil proceedings and legal ethics, to break down some of the dynamics of this complex, evolving case. Is it rare for a Supreme Court justice to weigh in on politicians' activities or statements? It's uncommon for a Supreme Court justice to publicly contradict a president. Roberts has typically shown great respect for the separation of powers between branches of government. He has also consistently recognized that presidents have broad authority to run the federal government. However, this isn't the first time Roberts has spoken up to protect judicial independence. During Trump's first term in 2018, the president criticized rulings as coming from 'Obama judges.' Roberts responded publicly, and said, 'We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.' Why is Roberts' statement of note, and what influence does he have in this situation? Roberts leads the U.S. Supreme Court. He also oversees all federal courts across the country. Roberts takes this leadership role very seriously. He has been willing to speak up when he believes something threatens judicial operations and independence. Since Roberts was confirmed as chief justice in 2005, he has often spoken publicly about why judges need to remain independent from political pressure. He has pointed out four main threats to judges' independence: 'violence, intimidation, disinformation and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.' When Roberts makes a public statement, it carries weight because he speaks as the top judicial officer in the country. His words are a reminder about the importance of keeping courts free from political interference. What is most important for people to understand about the Alien Enemies Act case that Judge Boasberg is currently considering? First, Trump is using a rarely used wartime law, the Alien Enemies Act. This law allows for deportations during a time of war without the normal legal protections like court hearings. Some legal experts argue that Trump doesn't have the authority to use this law since the U.S. isn't officially at war with Venezuela or with the gang the administration has cited, Tren de Aragua. They worry that invoking the Alien Enemies Act inappropriately expands presidential power beyond constitutional limits and could be misused to target other immigrant groups. Second, Boasberg ordered a stop to these deportations on March 15. But the Trump administration went ahead with the deportations anyway. It later claimed it did not violate the judge's order because the planes were over international waters. Under our legal system, the executive branch must obey valid court orders. This case raises concerns about whether the president is respecting the authority of the courts. Third, Trump has publicly called for Boasberg to be impeached, saying the judge overstepped his authority by ruling against the president's actions. There's no evidence that Boasberg acted corruptly or improperly – he simply made a legal ruling the president disagreed with. The case touches on fundamental questions about the balance of power between presidents and courts, and what happens when an administration chooses not to follow a judge's orders. This confrontation between branches represents one of the most direct challenges to judicial authority by a president in American history. What would it take for a judge to be impeached, and what is the precedent for doing so, based on disagreements about a case? Federal judges can only be impeached by Congress for 'high crimes and misdemeanors.' That generally means serious wrongdoing, not just making unpopular decisions. The impeachment process for judges works just like it does for presidents. First, the House of Representatives votes to impeach, needing just a simple majority. Then, the Senate holds a trial where a two-thirds majority is needed to remove the judge. Only 15 federal judges have ever been impeached in the U.S., and of those, only eight were convicted by the Senate. The only two judicial impeachments during this century involved very serious misconduct – including a judge who lied about sexually abusing two female employees in 2009. Only judges who have serious misconduct have been impeached and removed from office – not those involved in cases of political disagreements about judicial decisions. What are the most important legal and ethical questions that this case raises? This case raises important questions about the rule of law in the U.S. A key American belief is that no one, not even the president, is above the law. As Thomas Paine famously wrote in 1776, 'In America, the law is king.' This doesn't mean every court decision is always right. That's why the legal system has appellate courts, as Roberts pointed out – so decisions people disagree with can be challenged through an appeal in proper channels. My scholarly research on the right to appeal explores how this process serves as a crucial safeguard in the country's legal system. Twenty years ago, Roberts also stressed how important the rule of law is, saying it 'protects the rights and liberties of all Americans.' When a government chooses to ignore court orders instead of appealing them through the legal system, it creates a serious threat to this principle. The current situation raises concerns about whether the federal government will continue to respect the boundaries established by the Constitution in the country's legal system. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Cassandra Burke Robertson, Case Western Reserve University Read more: Trump is using the Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants – but the 18th-century law has been invoked only during times of war What's a constitutional crisis? Here's how Trump's recent moves are challenging the Constitution's separation of powers Donald Trump's nonstop news-making can be exhausting, making it harder for people to scrutinize his presidential actions Cassandra Burke Robertson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
12-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Is the US heading for a government shutdown? 5 essential reads to occupy the mind while we wait to find out
Brinkmanship, a political scramble to keep the lights on in Washington and finger-pointing over who is to the blame – we've been here before, right? The threat of government shutdowns seems to be a regular feature of modern American politics. And while this is not good for the nerves – or sleep patterns – of politicians, economists and a weary public, it does mean that The Conversation U.S. has a wealth of articles in the archive explaining what a shutdown is, why they happen and what the consequences are. So while we watch the process play out in Washington, D.C. – at the time of writing, a spending bill was heading to the U.S. Senate after being passed by the House – we have gathered a few essential reads on the subject of shutdowns. Should Congress fail to pass a spending bill by the end of March 14, 2025, the government will fall into a shutdown – and not for the first time. There have been about 21 government shutdowns in the U.S. Three of these took place during the first Trump administration, the longest starting three days before Christmas in 2018 and lasting 34 days. But what is the economic cost of these shutdowns? Northwestern finance scholar Scott R. Baker examined the short- and long-term effects of a shutdown in 2013. Baker wrote that the most immediate impact of a shutdown is on the government's day-to-day operations. 'Many national museums and parks are closed, immigration hearings are being postponed, and the Food and Drug Administration isn't doing routine inspections of domestic food-processing facilities,' Baker wrote. Whether a shutdown has a longer-term economic impact, Baker explained, depends on 'how long the shutdown lasts and whether employees are paid their forgone wages after its conclusion.' Read more: As a researcher who studies people's wealth, Jay L. Zagorsky understands that the loss of a single paycheck can be devastating for many American families. During the 2019 partial shutdown, about 800,000 federal workers were either furloughed or working without pay. 'Going without a paycheck for a few weeks is hard enough,' Zagorsky wrote. 'If the shutdown lasts months or years, the situation could get very dire for the average government worker.' Zagorsky noted that there is a bit of good news. 'Congress tends to give all affected workers back pay, regardless of whether they worked during the impasse,' he wrote. Read more: Of course, the current shutdown showdown comes as federal workers are already fretting over their job security thanks to President Donald Trump's agenda of cutting down government. A 2023 article by Susannah Bruns Ali, assistant professor of public policy and administration at Florida International University, explains how a shutdown might actually make it a little easier for the new administration to trim the federal workforce – but that might not be so great for the public. 'Shutdowns lead to more people being more likely to leave government employment – and higher workloads and lower motivation for those who remain,' Ali wrote. 'These conditions may feed Republican political goals, but they harm the millions of Americans who depend on competent, timely assistance from the public servants on the government payroll. This ultimately leads to lower work performance and employee retention problems.' Read more: As Ali's article alludes to, the harm of a shutdown is felt throughout the wider public. In a 2019 article, American University's Morten Wendelbo expanded on one key area that's affected: Americans' health and safety. Wendelbo explained that shutdowns make it harder for key U.S. agencies to respond to and prepare for disasters – due to the effects of a pause in funding, but also due to the impact shutdowns have on the retention and recruitment of public servants. Writing on the impact of the then-ongoing 2019 shutdown, Wendelbo noted: 'The shutdown weakens the government's ability to foresee, prevent and respond to upcoming natural disasters. For example, hurricane modelers with NOAA, the agency chiefly responsible for storm forecasts, are furloughed.' Read more: Given the economic and societal risks of a government shutdown, why have they become a feature of modern politics? In a 2023 interview, Northwestern University political scientist Laurel Harbridge-Yong explained: 'Since the 1970s, both the House and Senate have become much more polarized. Members of the two parties are more unified internally and further apart from the opposing party. You don't have the overlap between parties now that existed 50 years ago.' In addition, electoral and congressional politics have shifted to increase the pressure on Republican lawmakers to appease a conservative base, 'which has both individual and collective reasons to oppose a compromise.' Democrats, too, are less likely to compromise 'both because they don't want to gut programs that they put in place and also because they don't want to make this look like a win for Republicans, who have been able to play chicken and get what they wanted,' Harbridge-Yong wrote. Read more: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation's archives and includes sections previously included in The Conversation articles.
Yahoo
05-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
Learning ethics − one Marvel movie at a time
Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching. Ethics in the MCU As a die-hard fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I rewatch the movies and series on a regular basis. As an ethicist, I can't help but notice that the MCU raises some really tough moral questions. Yes, the movies are about monsters and magic and things exploding, but they are also about racial prejudice, power and obligation, artificial intelligence, biotechnological enhancement and colonization. They center complicated questions about right and wrong, moral character and unintended consequences. The more I rewatched them, the more I was convinced that this would be a great way to introduce students to the study of ethics. So when my time came again to offer a first-year seminar, I constructed one around watching superheroes at work. Leading new college students through an ethical analysis of Marvel movies seemed like an opportunity to work on useful intellectual skills in a low-pressure environment. Not a bad way to start college! I structured the course around specific moral questions and then used an MCU film or series to get the students thinking about those questions. For instance, the challenges faced by the female protagonist in 'Captain Marvel' gave us an opportunity to talk more broadly about gender, empowerment and respect for women's leadership, as did the brutal reaction to the movie by some comic book bros. The antagonist in 'Black Panther' takes over the African country of Wakanda in order to ignite a global anticolonial uprising, and we used his perspective to think about the ethics of racial oppression, reparations and violent resistance. Captain America's best friend, Bucky Barnes, who was captured and brainwashed into serving as a covert assassin for decades, has to deal with the consequences of his actions once he recovers his true self. Bucky's situation invited us to talk about the relationship between intention and complicity in our moral judgments. And the most fascinating conversation I had in the entire semester was about the utilitarian calculus of the supervillain Thanos, who appears in the 'Infinity War' and 'Endgame' films. Overpopulation led to the destruction of Thanos' home planet, and his fear that the whole cosmos could meet a similar fate drives him to wipe out half of all life in the universe. Was he justified? Our discussions explored the ethical limits of utilitarian calculations. To my shock, half of the class eventually came to the conclusion that Thanos may have had a moral point. While it is helpful to talk about moral responsibility theoretically, or with reference to real headlines, narrative is another useful way to get students to think about the ethical choices people make and how we make them. This is one way the arts and humanities can serve the liberal arts project, preparing young people for democratic citizenship. Stories serve as fictional but concrete 'case studies' through which students can think about themselves and others as moral actors. By focusing on other characters, stories encourage our moral imagination and empathy. Rather than reducing ethical issues to abstraction, stories remind us that moral choices are made within particular circumstances and relationships. Our main 'texts' for the semester were movies and series we watched and discussed with certain moral questions in mind. In conjunction, we read short pieces on ethical theory to give students a tool kit for analyzing those issues. Authors ranged from classical writers such as Aristotle and 19th-century philosopher John Stuart Mill to more modern perspectives such as Martin Luther King Jr., theologian James Cone and philosopher Martha Nussbaum. We also read parts of two awesome books making similar connections: 'The Politics of the Marvel Cinematic Universe,' edited by Nicholas Carnes and Lilly J. Goren, and 'Marveling Religion,' edited by Jennifer Baldwin and Daniel White Hodge. I hope the course provides students a fun chance to develop capacities for ethical thinking at the beginning of their college career. Public discourse in the United States, which is the focus of my teaching and scholarship, could use more citizens with greater skill in moral discernment, and these days we all could use more fun. Why not do something that is entertaining but also has intellectual integrity and social usefulness? This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: James Calvin Davis, Middlebury Read more: Holy voter suppression, Batgirl! What comics reveal about gender and democracy America's postwar fling with romance comics Future lawyers learn key lessons from studying poetry in parks in this course James Calvin Davis does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Yahoo
03-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
What's a constitutional crisis? Here's how Trump's recent moves are challenging the Constitution
U.S. President Donald Trump and Ohio Republican U.S. Senator JD Vance. (Photo by.) , In a short few weeks, President Donald Trump has upended many core parts and functions of the U.S. government. He dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development and fired thousands of government employees. He has also fired several inspectors general and board members of independent agencies. Additionally, Trump's administration has violated court orders to unfreeze federal funding. And Trump has issued an unprecedented number of executive orders, including one that aims to end the practice of birthright citizenship, something that is guaranteed by the plain text of the U.S. Constitution. Legal experts have said that all of these actions and more are leading up to, or have already sparked, a constitutional crisis. There is not one clear definition of what a constitutional crisis actually is. And, as constitutional law scholar Jeffrey Schmitt explains in an interview with Amy Lieberman, politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., there is also no comparable historical example for Trump's exercise of executive power. I think legal experts are concerned that Trump is expanding executive power beyond anything we have known in American history. And as executive power continues to expand, we may eventually hit a tipping point that threatens the structure of the government, as laid out in the Constitution. If the Constitution has one central feature, it is the separation of powers. The Constitution divides power between the states and the federal government, and federal power is divided between the three branches of government – the executive, judicial and legislative. Now, Trump appears to be taking over Congress' core powers, including taxing and spending. Typically, Congress passes a budget, and the president can sign or veto the bill. Once the budget is passed into law, the president cannot refuse to spend the allocated money. There is some history to this. President Richard Nixon refused in the 1970s to spend money Congress had appropriated, and the U.S. Supreme Court then ordered the federal government to spend the money. Federal law now prohibits what's called 'impoundment.' Trump is freezing spending on things he does not support politically, like foreign aid. He also is trying to place new conditions on the disbursement of federal funds as a way to control state and private institutions. For example, a recent letter from his administration threatens to withhold federal funding from schools that do not abandon DEI programs. Trump has also fired top officials at independent agencies such as a member of the independent National Labor Relations Board, when federal law and Supreme Court precedent indicate that he has no constitutional authority to do so. He has also fired agency watchdogs without following legal requirements to give Congress 30 days notice. When he fired most USAID employees and froze the agency's foreign aid payments, he shuttered an entire agency established by Congress. And his firing of thousands of federal workers isn't just about who works in government – cuts like this make an agency unable to perform its mission. The federal courts are intervening in some cases, but they are blocking only a small fraction of the president's actions. President Abraham Lincoln and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt both led the country during periods of constitutional change, and they both clashed with the Supreme Court. Slavery in the federal territories was the constitutional crisis that precipitated the Civil War. This issue dominated politics throughout the 1850s because people thought it would determine the future of slavery as new states were admitted to the Union. When Congress was unable to reach an agreement, the Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for Congress to prohibit slavery in the territories in the infamous case of Dred Scott v. Sandford. But opposition to the expansion of slavery was the unifying principle of the young Republican Party. So, during the election of 1860, Lincoln argued that Dred Scott was not binding on the country because it was not settled precedent. He acknowledged, though, that the court's decisions are binding in the case before it. When Lincoln campaigned for president in 1860, he promised to appoint judges who would overrule Dred Scott and to work with Congress to ban slavery in the territories. When Lincoln realized that constitutional change was necessary, he worked tirelessly to get the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery, ratified in 1865. Franklin Roosevelt also worked within the constitutional system to expand the role of the federal government in the New Deal, a series of domestic public works programs in the 1930s. When the Supreme Court ruled against early New Deal programs, FDR complained that the justices were old and out of touch. So Roosevelt in 1937 proposed packing the Supreme Court with new justices in a transparent attempt to push the court into accepting his broad reading of federal power. This proposed change never became law, but the Supreme Court changed its views on federal power at roughly the same time, ending the crisis. The country overwhelmingly supported the New Deal's expansion of federal power in several national elections. Unlike Lincoln or Roosevelt, Trump is trying to seize the powers of Congress and unilaterally transform the federal government. Roosevelt worked with Congress to pass legislation and eventually convince the Supreme Court to accept his views. And while Lincoln rejected the court's proslavery reading of the Constitution, Trump may be rejecting its central feature – the structural balance of power. Aside from Trump deciding to change course, there is not much that can be done. Courts can issue orders, but they do not have a military and cannot easily enforce them. Congress has the power to remove the president, via impeachment. As we learned during Trump's first term, however, impeachment is not easy. If the president decides to ignore the courts – and Congress continues to do nothing – the final constitutional check on Trump's power will be the next federal election. Jeffrey Schmitt, Professor of Law, University of Dayton This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
