Like any federal enclave, the federal government has plenary power over the District of Columbia. But Congress has delegated most of that power to local officials; it would take new laws to undo that.
there's no rule that says Abbott can't keep calling new sessions on the same issue. but the text of the Home Rule Act seems to maybe imply that if he wants another 30 days he at least has to come up with a new emergency.
the TikTok ban is obviously illegal but it's not clear who exactly could sue the government over; it's a diffuse and semi-hypothetical harm to national security, not something tangible and individual. whereas here the DC Mayor is directly harmed by having her employees diverted to other jobs, and maybe other people too (e.g., people arrested who otherwise wouldn't have been..? police forced to do jobs they didn't sign up for..?)
ultimately i think you're probably right about how it will shake out. but i think it's less clear-cut than the other two cases
Personally, observing everything Trump and his lackeys are doing in various other places like LA, it is clear he is setting the stage for further action of using federal law enforcement and the military to consolidate power. Both my husband and I, in our 70s, have always been independents (well-read, well-informed committed voters who have always tried to assess as best we can who would govern well and appoint quality people) and are not wild-eyed conspiracy mongers. However, having lived and worked in New York all of our careers and having observed Trump up close and personal for years, we had pretty much predicted everything that has happened in the last 10 years (and we don't think we are particularly prescient, just very clear-eyed about who the man is and who he would have around him this time around). So, we believe he is setting up conditions to not leave office, to remain physically ensconced in the White House even if he loses the election. And who knows what will happen in 2026? This regime is doing everything possible to rig elections going forward at the state level, But with DOJ's explicit backing. These activities to federalize DC are simply part and parcel and a first step of taking control of cities through federal law enforcement and the military. He's pushing the envelope and testing the waters, and certainly the Supreme Court isn't giving much pushback, at least where it really makes a difference. Do you think I am nuts?
As Sarah Kendzior says, Trump is part of a “transnational crime syndicate masquerading as government.”
The Supreme Court is now the Extreme Court and are part of this Republican-Federalist Coup Against America.
Project 2025 is wide open for reading and lawlessness ensues.
I hope the military stands up and doesn’t follow Trump’s orders. However, he used the National Guard. Let’s see how long courts will keep a lid on it .
In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville emphasized the existence and danger of "tyranny of the majority." John Stuart Mill echoed that idea in "On Liberty." Mere democracy (the mere will of the most influential majority) leads to tyranny. They wrote about the tyranny of the majority because they saw it. When they wrote, many people had the power to treat other people as property and the vast majority of people born in America were denied their right to vote.
Even the people who wrote or ratified our Constitution understood (and designed our Constitution to prevent) the grave danger in majority rule. In Federalist No. 47, James Madison put the issue plainly: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many" (i.e., in any legislature, on any court, in any branch of government, and among voters or even more broadly among any group of people) "may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
When it comes to Epstein, voters are with releasing all information but when it comes to Trump poll numbers are down. However, we are dependent on the process to remove/impeach. Have no idea how that leans🤷♀️
Our country was close to 50/50 so if ONLY half of a country resists, then what?
Plus, The Extreme Court, has locked in fascist moves.
I remember SCOTUS and hanging chads. Never should have happened. I wanted to leave the country then.
History and Hitler showed us that 34% of a population could be frenzied up and follow a demon.
What to do if (has it changed?!?) a nation is 50/50?
B, my comment, above, was meant primarily to support your comments. I was talking about the tyranny of the current majority on the Supreme Court, the current majority in Congress, the current majority on some state legislatures, and even what Trump refers to as his "mandate" (from the majority who voted in the presidential election) or what the people supporting or using Trump refer to as "the will of the people" (as purportedly expressed by them).
Regarding access to information about Epstein, the people advocating releasing information are supporting our Constitution--and they are supported by our Constitution, SCOTUS precedent, and the people who wrote or ratified our Constitution.
In our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign” and “the ability” (the power) “of the citizenry to make informed choices” about public servants and public issues “is essential.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010). “Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy;” it is “the means to hold officials accountable to the people” in our “republic where the people are sovereign.” Id.
“The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” Id. Accord id. at 339-341, 344-350. “Premised on mistrust of [all] governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor” the “subjects or viewpoints” of speech critical of public servants’ abuses or usurpations of power. Id. at 340.
“For these reasons,” our “political speech" (and access to information to facilitate such speech) "must prevail against” regulation “that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence,” so regulation “that burden[s] political speech” (and access to information necessary for such speech) is “subject to strict scrutiny,” which “requires the Government to prove” how concealing information about Epstein, his co-conspirators and accomplices (which may well include some of our past, present or potential public servants) “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Id.
The “citizenry is the final judge of the proper conduct of public business.” Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 495 (1975). Hamilton similarly emphasized that “[t]he two greatest securities” that “the people” have “for the faithful exercise of any delegated power” are “the restraints” imposed by “public opinion” and the public’s “opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness [official] misconduct” to facilitate officials’ “removal from office” or “punishment.” Federalist No. 70 (https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493457).
Thank you for the clarification and information about our Extreme Court majority ( sorry, can’t help myself) as I named and viewed this as a coup in 2016, titled it, The Republican-Federalist Coup Against America and was heavily criticized.
Please though, what do we do with a nation split in two?
Will the military buck Presidential orders?
Do the people protest SCOTUS and challenge its legitimacy in the face of so much doubt by citizens? Will citizens turn Citizens United out?
I will study what you wrote and appreciate you taking the time to educate!
"what do we do with a nation split in two" regarding what might be tempting to call "The Republican-Federalist Coup Against America"? I look for common ground with the many people (including Republicans, and sometimes even Trump supporters) who oppose Trump or at least oppose what he's doing (or what SCOTUS is doing) in particular instances. This fight is not for "democracy." It is not a fight for either Democrats or Republicans or for any particular party or faction. It is for our nation and all of us who support and defend our Constitution. For an example of what I mean, please see my long comment regarding this piece by Professor Vladeck.
True: Trump is part of a “transnational crime syndicate masquerading as government.” For example, he is abusing the FBI to help state legislators and the current SCOTUS majority commit crimes against Americans. See, e.g., "The Criminal Conspiracy between SCOTUS Justices and State Legislators to Defraud and Rob Americans of the Power of our Most Precious Rights" (Parts I and II)
No, you’re not nuts, and are right to be concerned as to what The Dearest Donald and his lackeys have as their ultimate goal for the DC takeover. Obviously, The Dearest Donald’s claim that he wants to clean up or fix DC is a pretext.
So what exactly does he have in mind by taking control over DC?
I don’t know for sure. But I do know that if The Dearest Donald and his lackeys were thinking about attempting another coup to retain power (or wanted to insulate him from being removed via impeachment or the 25th Amendment), they’d want to be able to quickly establish physical control over Washington DC and especially over the capital complex and the Pentagon. We here in the US—complacent and naive about how coups unfold—do not grasp how physical control over the national capital is essential to a coup’s success.
So when you contemplate the significance of Trump’s planned DC takeover, don’t just think in terms of the “normal” ways governmental power has been exercised in the US. Instead, think in terms of the absolute importance of immediate, direct, physical control of territory—most importantly the territory of the national capital.
Anyone who thinks my musing is far-fetched must have slept through J6, which would have gone much differently if Trump’s insurrectionists had the capital police, the DC National Guard, and the DC police ON THEIR SIDE.
"Whether it be law office or academia, how does one exercise the courts and navigate teaching?" By teaching the plain text and plain meaning of the Constitution, not merely what judges have said about it. Judges (including our current SCOTUS majority) too often are seeking to secure power to themselves or to people they support or are using. They proved again and again they cannot be trusted to tell us the truth. They cannot be trusted not to violate our Constitution.
I said several years ago, when he first started blathering about running for president, that you could know everything you needed to know about Trump by keeping one thing in mind: He's a real estate salesman.
Here are 100 protest signs. The moment demands protest. To each it should be unmistakable—urgent and morally unassailable. I speak for justice, duty, and shared humanity. Act now for those we must protect. Rise. We have protests to do. Good trouble. Restack these signs to spread your wealth.
A piece at Slate discusses how the execution that no justice deigned to address, even with multiple orders providing an opportunity, was likely botched.
The bit about the location of where SCOTUS presides was interesting. Would it help if SCOTUS sometimes met outside D.C.?
So in essence, if the President wanted to "Federalize" DC "today," as he has claimed on Truth Social, he would need to find a way to legitimize the mustering and deployment of the US Military to DC. Absent that, he lacks the authority and manpower to effectively accomplish his goal re: Crime and Law/Order.
Which would be dangerously close to giving us our own brownshirts in Congress.
It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS allows King Trump to rule over DC as befits their ideal of a monarch. I suspect they'll stay any orders to the contrary for maximum time but will be reluctant to issue any ruling on the merits (shocking, I know).
Second, it will be interesting to see the effect on DC residents. I think the answer to Senate woes would be admitting the States of Columbia to the nation, as well as Puerto Rico. DC split into however many separate states as Democrats want, to give the Senate a large boost in membership, breaking both the Senate and the call for an Article V Constitutional Convention (made under the pretext that Wyoming's delegation would be equal to California's).
TL;DR: All it would take is a statute, especially if that statute *preserved* a distinct "seat of government" for, e.g., the area between the Supreme Court, the Capitol, and the White House.
In footnote 4 you refer to the “slave trade.” The international slave trade, of course, had long since been outlawed by the 1840s, so I suspect you may have meant to say simply that congress was considering abolishing slavery in DC in the 1840s, and that Alexandria may have been a hub for the domestic slave trade. You may want to consider clarification on these.
The *international* slave trade had been abolished, but *domestic* commerce in slaves had not. Thus, one prong of the Compromise of 1850 was abolishing commerce in enslaved persons within the District, but not abolishing slavery itself. Slavery itself was not abolished in the District of Columbia until April 16, 1862:
Speaking of slavery, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery except as punishment for a crime. Are there any federal or state laws that go further and forbid slavery altogether, or is slavery as punishment for a crime legal?
It wasn't until late in my life that I noticed the "except as punishment for a crime".
Thank you, Professor Vladeck, for your interesting, entertaining and insightful clarifications regarding the separation of powers and federalism vis-a-vis Washington, D.C. Trump (now and previously) invoked essentially necessity, so this seems like a good time also to recall what the Constitution says is "the rule of law" governing such issues. Trump's conduct (or threatened conduct) fails every relevant test in our Constitution. Part of the proof includes Trump's lies about the nature of the necessity. Part of the proof will be created by how he purports to remedy the necessity.
The language of the D.C. Home Rule Act states real standards that Congress used to limit the power of the president. He must be acting for legitimate "federal purposes" (authorized by our Constitution), and even then, the president may act only "in an emergency." We can judge for ourselves that no such emergency exists and Trump is not acting for any federal purpose.
The proper analysis of this issue is not new. This was one of the most passionately discussed topics when the Constitution was being discussed for ratification. Trump's lies (now and previously) about purported necessity to take extreme actions call to mind a very important part of the history of the Constitution (including specifically the Bill of Rights) emphasized by Leonard Levy in his book "Origins of the Bill of Rights:" The potential "necessary and proper" justification for federal action "was the most formidable in the array of national powers, therefore the most controversial, and the one most responsible, later, for the demand for a bill of rights to ensure that the [federal government] did not violate the rights of the people or of the states."
As always, the admonitions and warnings by James Madison (writing for the Virginia Assembly) in the Report of 1800 (regarding violations of our Constitution by Congress, the president and the judiciary) are vital. The Report of 1800 responded to the assertions of necessity underlying the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. So Madison emphasized that "a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is solemnly enjoined by most of the state constitutions, and particularly by our own [Constitution], as a necessary safeguard against the danger of degeneracy to which republics are liable." "The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind; and at no time perhaps more necessary than at the present."
Obviously, Article VI emphasizes that “the supreme Law of the Land” consists first and foremost of “this Constitution” and then federal “Laws” that have been “made in Pursuance” of our Constitution and “Treaties.” Article VI (and public servants’ oaths of office) further emphasized that all legislators “and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States” are “bound” to “support this Constitution” in all ways possible in all official conduct.
In Article I, the People emphasized that “All” (and ONLY those) “legislative Powers herein granted” (by the People) “shall be vested” in “Congress.” The People vested in our elected (chosen) representatives in Congress the power to “make all” (and ONLY) “Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” absolutely “all” the “Powers vested by this Constitution” in Congress or in any part of “the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including, obviously, the president, all executive branch officers, and all judges).
In the Report of 1800, Madison emphasized the meaning and significance of the Necessary and Proper Clause:
"The plain import of this clause is, that Congress shall have all the incidental or instrumental powers, necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the express powers; whether they be vested in the government of the United States, more collectively, or in the several departments, or officers thereof. It is not a grant of new powers to Congress, but merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution, those otherwise granted, are included in the grant.
Whenever, therefore a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular [federal] power; the first question is, whether the power be expressed in the constitution. If it be, the question is decided. If it be not expressed; the next enquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an express power, and necessary to its execution. If it be, it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not; Congress cannot exercise it."
In Article II the People “vested in a President” the “executive Power.” Then, the People declared the limits of all such executive power. We vested in the president primarily the power to merely “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But because exigencies and emergencies will expose gaps in legislation created by Congress (and because treaties must be negotiated by the executive branch and the president is the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces), we vested in the president the power to take all other actions (to the extent that necessary and proper) to “preserve, protect and defend” our “Constitution” to “the best” of the president’s “Ability."
Especially whenever the president purports to act not merely to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” but to exercise discretion in fulfilling his duty to “preserve, protect and defend” our “Constitution” to “the best” of the president’s “Ability," the president's powers necessarily are governed by the limitations, above, governing Congress. All such actions must be “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the “Powers" actually "vested by this Constitution.”
What exactly is "Federal Takeover" of DC law enforcement supposed to accomplish. As many have pointed out, the FBI and National Guard are not trained in normal policing (which would include responding to a frickin teen age carjacking.) The answer simply has to be "Because I say I can." Intimidation 101.
I'd love to see a poll in which people are asked: Who would you rather deal with local crime in your area: the local police or the FBI/military.
As I suggested in another comment, it's possible that Trump's takeover of D.C. is a preemptive move in preparation for actions that will lead to riots, such as deporting U.S. citizens (e.g., black criminals in D.C.). We don't know what his plans are, but we should think about all possibilities.
Federalize the DC police for 30 days, and then another 30 days, and then another…?
Like Trump’s multiple 90-day TikTok extensions, or Abbott’s threat to hold multiple 30-day special sessions of the TX legislature.
there's no rule that says Abbott can't keep calling new sessions on the same issue. but the text of the Home Rule Act seems to maybe imply that if he wants another 30 days he at least has to come up with a new emergency.
the TikTok ban is obviously illegal but it's not clear who exactly could sue the government over; it's a diffuse and semi-hypothetical harm to national security, not something tangible and individual. whereas here the DC Mayor is directly harmed by having her employees diverted to other jobs, and maybe other people too (e.g., people arrested who otherwise wouldn't have been..? police forced to do jobs they didn't sign up for..?)
ultimately i think you're probably right about how it will shake out. but i think it's less clear-cut than the other two cases
You might want to consider what the Constitution says about such conduct (as addressed in my long comment).
Personally, observing everything Trump and his lackeys are doing in various other places like LA, it is clear he is setting the stage for further action of using federal law enforcement and the military to consolidate power. Both my husband and I, in our 70s, have always been independents (well-read, well-informed committed voters who have always tried to assess as best we can who would govern well and appoint quality people) and are not wild-eyed conspiracy mongers. However, having lived and worked in New York all of our careers and having observed Trump up close and personal for years, we had pretty much predicted everything that has happened in the last 10 years (and we don't think we are particularly prescient, just very clear-eyed about who the man is and who he would have around him this time around). So, we believe he is setting up conditions to not leave office, to remain physically ensconced in the White House even if he loses the election. And who knows what will happen in 2026? This regime is doing everything possible to rig elections going forward at the state level, But with DOJ's explicit backing. These activities to federalize DC are simply part and parcel and a first step of taking control of cities through federal law enforcement and the military. He's pushing the envelope and testing the waters, and certainly the Supreme Court isn't giving much pushback, at least where it really makes a difference. Do you think I am nuts?
As Sarah Kendzior says, Trump is part of a “transnational crime syndicate masquerading as government.”
The Supreme Court is now the Extreme Court and are part of this Republican-Federalist Coup Against America.
Project 2025 is wide open for reading and lawlessness ensues.
I hope the military stands up and doesn’t follow Trump’s orders. However, he used the National Guard. Let’s see how long courts will keep a lid on it .
No, you’re very much sane!
In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville emphasized the existence and danger of "tyranny of the majority." John Stuart Mill echoed that idea in "On Liberty." Mere democracy (the mere will of the most influential majority) leads to tyranny. They wrote about the tyranny of the majority because they saw it. When they wrote, many people had the power to treat other people as property and the vast majority of people born in America were denied their right to vote.
Even the people who wrote or ratified our Constitution understood (and designed our Constitution to prevent) the grave danger in majority rule. In Federalist No. 47, James Madison put the issue plainly: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many" (i.e., in any legislature, on any court, in any branch of government, and among voters or even more broadly among any group of people) "may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
When it comes to Epstein, voters are with releasing all information but when it comes to Trump poll numbers are down. However, we are dependent on the process to remove/impeach. Have no idea how that leans🤷♀️
Our country was close to 50/50 so if ONLY half of a country resists, then what?
Plus, The Extreme Court, has locked in fascist moves.
I remember SCOTUS and hanging chads. Never should have happened. I wanted to leave the country then.
History and Hitler showed us that 34% of a population could be frenzied up and follow a demon.
What to do if (has it changed?!?) a nation is 50/50?
B, my comment, above, was meant primarily to support your comments. I was talking about the tyranny of the current majority on the Supreme Court, the current majority in Congress, the current majority on some state legislatures, and even what Trump refers to as his "mandate" (from the majority who voted in the presidential election) or what the people supporting or using Trump refer to as "the will of the people" (as purportedly expressed by them).
Regarding access to information about Epstein, the people advocating releasing information are supporting our Constitution--and they are supported by our Constitution, SCOTUS precedent, and the people who wrote or ratified our Constitution.
In our “republic” clearly “the people are sovereign” and “the ability” (the power) “of the citizenry to make informed choices” about public servants and public issues “is essential.” Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010). “Speech is an essential mechanism of democracy;” it is “the means to hold officials accountable to the people” in our “republic where the people are sovereign.” Id.
“The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information” is essential “to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.” Id. Accord id. at 339-341, 344-350. “Premised on mistrust of [all] governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor” the “subjects or viewpoints” of speech critical of public servants’ abuses or usurpations of power. Id. at 340.
“For these reasons,” our “political speech" (and access to information to facilitate such speech) "must prevail against” regulation “that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence,” so regulation “that burden[s] political speech” (and access to information necessary for such speech) is “subject to strict scrutiny,” which “requires the Government to prove” how concealing information about Epstein, his co-conspirators and accomplices (which may well include some of our past, present or potential public servants) “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” Id.
The “citizenry is the final judge of the proper conduct of public business.” Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S. 469, 495 (1975). Hamilton similarly emphasized that “[t]he two greatest securities” that “the people” have “for the faithful exercise of any delegated power” are “the restraints” imposed by “public opinion” and the public’s “opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness [official] misconduct” to facilitate officials’ “removal from office” or “punishment.” Federalist No. 70 (https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493457).
Thank you for the clarification and information about our Extreme Court majority ( sorry, can’t help myself) as I named and viewed this as a coup in 2016, titled it, The Republican-Federalist Coup Against America and was heavily criticized.
Please though, what do we do with a nation split in two?
Will the military buck Presidential orders?
Do the people protest SCOTUS and challenge its legitimacy in the face of so much doubt by citizens? Will citizens turn Citizens United out?
I will study what you wrote and appreciate you taking the time to educate!
"what do we do with a nation split in two" regarding what might be tempting to call "The Republican-Federalist Coup Against America"? I look for common ground with the many people (including Republicans, and sometimes even Trump supporters) who oppose Trump or at least oppose what he's doing (or what SCOTUS is doing) in particular instances. This fight is not for "democracy." It is not a fight for either Democrats or Republicans or for any particular party or faction. It is for our nation and all of us who support and defend our Constitution. For an example of what I mean, please see my long comment regarding this piece by Professor Vladeck.
True: Trump is part of a “transnational crime syndicate masquerading as government.” For example, he is abusing the FBI to help state legislators and the current SCOTUS majority commit crimes against Americans. See, e.g., "The Criminal Conspiracy between SCOTUS Justices and State Legislators to Defraud and Rob Americans of the Power of our Most Precious Rights" (Parts I and II)
https://open.substack.com/pub/blackcollarcrime/p/the-criminal-conspiracy-between-scotus?r=30ufvh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
https://open.substack.com/pub/blackcollarcrime/p/the-criminal-conspiracy-between-scotus-21b?r=30ufvh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
No, you’re not nuts, and are right to be concerned as to what The Dearest Donald and his lackeys have as their ultimate goal for the DC takeover. Obviously, The Dearest Donald’s claim that he wants to clean up or fix DC is a pretext.
So what exactly does he have in mind by taking control over DC?
I don’t know for sure. But I do know that if The Dearest Donald and his lackeys were thinking about attempting another coup to retain power (or wanted to insulate him from being removed via impeachment or the 25th Amendment), they’d want to be able to quickly establish physical control over Washington DC and especially over the capital complex and the Pentagon. We here in the US—complacent and naive about how coups unfold—do not grasp how physical control over the national capital is essential to a coup’s success.
So when you contemplate the significance of Trump’s planned DC takeover, don’t just think in terms of the “normal” ways governmental power has been exercised in the US. Instead, think in terms of the absolute importance of immediate, direct, physical control of territory—most importantly the territory of the national capital.
Anyone who thinks my musing is far-fetched must have slept through J6, which would have gone much differently if Trump’s insurrectionists had the capital police, the DC National Guard, and the DC police ON THEIR SIDE.
Spot on! I’ve asked a million times, with such outright, widespread lawlessness what happens to the, “business of law”?
Whether it be law office or academia, how does one exercise the courts and navigate teaching?
"Whether it be law office or academia, how does one exercise the courts and navigate teaching?" By teaching the plain text and plain meaning of the Constitution, not merely what judges have said about it. Judges (including our current SCOTUS majority) too often are seeking to secure power to themselves or to people they support or are using. They proved again and again they cannot be trusted to tell us the truth. They cannot be trusted not to violate our Constitution.
So you voted for a idealess cackling fool.
What makes you say that? I certainly didn’t vote for The Dearest Donald. I rather stick a red-hot poker in my one good eye.
Guess who will be waiting in DC when protestors arrive after the rigged Midterms an '28 Presidential election?
I said several years ago, when he first started blathering about running for president, that you could know everything you needed to know about Trump by keeping one thing in mind: He's a real estate salesman.
Here are 100 protest signs. The moment demands protest. To each it should be unmistakable—urgent and morally unassailable. I speak for justice, duty, and shared humanity. Act now for those we must protect. Rise. We have protests to do. Good trouble. Restack these signs to spread your wealth.
https://hotbuttons.substack.com/p/100-free-protest-signs?r=3m1bs
Phck
A piece at Slate discusses how the execution that no justice deigned to address, even with multiple orders providing an opportunity, was likely botched.
The bit about the location of where SCOTUS presides was interesting. Would it help if SCOTUS sometimes met outside D.C.?
Thanks, this is what I needed to know.
So in essence, if the President wanted to "Federalize" DC "today," as he has claimed on Truth Social, he would need to find a way to legitimize the mustering and deployment of the US Military to DC. Absent that, he lacks the authority and manpower to effectively accomplish his goal re: Crime and Law/Order.
Which would be dangerously close to giving us our own brownshirts in Congress.
What about declaring martial law?
Who care about crime statistics? The obvious motivation for this is that Big Balls got beaten up by a teenage boy and girl.
Thanks for the laugh. They were unarmed also. So, now we have tiny hands helping big balls.
Fascinating. And very helpful.
It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS allows King Trump to rule over DC as befits their ideal of a monarch. I suspect they'll stay any orders to the contrary for maximum time but will be reluctant to issue any ruling on the merits (shocking, I know).
Second, it will be interesting to see the effect on DC residents. I think the answer to Senate woes would be admitting the States of Columbia to the nation, as well as Puerto Rico. DC split into however many separate states as Democrats want, to give the Senate a large boost in membership, breaking both the Senate and the call for an Article V Constitutional Convention (made under the pretext that Wyoming's delegation would be equal to California's).
Steve, would love to see a review of what the law says about making DC a state, if that requires normal legislation, presidential signature, etc.
Thanks! I linked in the post to the longest thing I've written about statehood, but here it is again:
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/why-gop-so-adamantly-against-d-c-statehood-n1264299
TL;DR: All it would take is a statute, especially if that statute *preserved* a distinct "seat of government" for, e.g., the area between the Supreme Court, the Capitol, and the White House.
Thank you for your expertise, Steve.
Professor Vladeck-
Extremely apt and informative, as always.
In footnote 4 you refer to the “slave trade.” The international slave trade, of course, had long since been outlawed by the 1840s, so I suspect you may have meant to say simply that congress was considering abolishing slavery in DC in the 1840s, and that Alexandria may have been a hub for the domestic slave trade. You may want to consider clarification on these.
Thanks Steve!
The *international* slave trade had been abolished, but *domestic* commerce in slaves had not. Thus, one prong of the Compromise of 1850 was abolishing commerce in enslaved persons within the District, but not abolishing slavery itself. Slavery itself was not abolished in the District of Columbia until April 16, 1862:
https://emancipation.dc.gov/page/ending-slavery-district-columbia
Speaking of slavery, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery except as punishment for a crime. Are there any federal or state laws that go further and forbid slavery altogether, or is slavery as punishment for a crime legal?
It wasn't until late in my life that I noticed the "except as punishment for a crime".
Thank you, Professor Vladeck, for your interesting, entertaining and insightful clarifications regarding the separation of powers and federalism vis-a-vis Washington, D.C. Trump (now and previously) invoked essentially necessity, so this seems like a good time also to recall what the Constitution says is "the rule of law" governing such issues. Trump's conduct (or threatened conduct) fails every relevant test in our Constitution. Part of the proof includes Trump's lies about the nature of the necessity. Part of the proof will be created by how he purports to remedy the necessity.
The language of the D.C. Home Rule Act states real standards that Congress used to limit the power of the president. He must be acting for legitimate "federal purposes" (authorized by our Constitution), and even then, the president may act only "in an emergency." We can judge for ourselves that no such emergency exists and Trump is not acting for any federal purpose.
The proper analysis of this issue is not new. This was one of the most passionately discussed topics when the Constitution was being discussed for ratification. Trump's lies (now and previously) about purported necessity to take extreme actions call to mind a very important part of the history of the Constitution (including specifically the Bill of Rights) emphasized by Leonard Levy in his book "Origins of the Bill of Rights:" The potential "necessary and proper" justification for federal action "was the most formidable in the array of national powers, therefore the most controversial, and the one most responsible, later, for the demand for a bill of rights to ensure that the [federal government] did not violate the rights of the people or of the states."
As always, the admonitions and warnings by James Madison (writing for the Virginia Assembly) in the Report of 1800 (regarding violations of our Constitution by Congress, the president and the judiciary) are vital. The Report of 1800 responded to the assertions of necessity underlying the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. So Madison emphasized that "a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is solemnly enjoined by most of the state constitutions, and particularly by our own [Constitution], as a necessary safeguard against the danger of degeneracy to which republics are liable." "The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over constitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind; and at no time perhaps more necessary than at the present."
Obviously, Article VI emphasizes that “the supreme Law of the Land” consists first and foremost of “this Constitution” and then federal “Laws” that have been “made in Pursuance” of our Constitution and “Treaties.” Article VI (and public servants’ oaths of office) further emphasized that all legislators “and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of [all] States” are “bound” to “support this Constitution” in all ways possible in all official conduct.
In Article I, the People emphasized that “All” (and ONLY those) “legislative Powers herein granted” (by the People) “shall be vested” in “Congress.” The People vested in our elected (chosen) representatives in Congress the power to “make all” (and ONLY) “Laws” that are “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” absolutely “all” the “Powers vested by this Constitution” in Congress or in any part of “the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including, obviously, the president, all executive branch officers, and all judges).
In the Report of 1800, Madison emphasized the meaning and significance of the Necessary and Proper Clause:
"The plain import of this clause is, that Congress shall have all the incidental or instrumental powers, necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the express powers; whether they be vested in the government of the United States, more collectively, or in the several departments, or officers thereof. It is not a grant of new powers to Congress, but merely a declaration, for the removal of all uncertainty, that the means of carrying into execution, those otherwise granted, are included in the grant.
Whenever, therefore a question arises concerning the constitutionality of a particular [federal] power; the first question is, whether the power be expressed in the constitution. If it be, the question is decided. If it be not expressed; the next enquiry must be, whether it is properly an incident to an express power, and necessary to its execution. If it be, it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not; Congress cannot exercise it."
In Article II the People “vested in a President” the “executive Power.” Then, the People declared the limits of all such executive power. We vested in the president primarily the power to merely “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” But because exigencies and emergencies will expose gaps in legislation created by Congress (and because treaties must be negotiated by the executive branch and the president is the commander-in-chief of our Armed Forces), we vested in the president the power to take all other actions (to the extent that necessary and proper) to “preserve, protect and defend” our “Constitution” to “the best” of the president’s “Ability."
Especially whenever the president purports to act not merely to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” but to exercise discretion in fulfilling his duty to “preserve, protect and defend” our “Constitution” to “the best” of the president’s “Ability," the president's powers necessarily are governed by the limitations, above, governing Congress. All such actions must be “necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” the “Powers" actually "vested by this Constitution.”
What exactly is "Federal Takeover" of DC law enforcement supposed to accomplish. As many have pointed out, the FBI and National Guard are not trained in normal policing (which would include responding to a frickin teen age carjacking.) The answer simply has to be "Because I say I can." Intimidation 101.
I'd love to see a poll in which people are asked: Who would you rather deal with local crime in your area: the local police or the FBI/military.
As I suggested in another comment, it's possible that Trump's takeover of D.C. is a preemptive move in preparation for actions that will lead to riots, such as deporting U.S. citizens (e.g., black criminals in D.C.). We don't know what his plans are, but we should think about all possibilities.