DOJ's move to toss out a lawsuit against xAI for illegally operating gas-burning turbines to power data centers turns on a dangerous new constitutional claim.
I wonder if any argument can be made that the natsec linkage is disclaimed by xAI itself, as they are selling the Colossus compute to Anthropic per their S-1 (creating a win-win as both companies IPO, a discounted compute rate for Anthropic and some positive revenue for xAI as part of SpaceX)
The most fundamental problem is highlighted by the executive branch's argument that "the claim in an FCA case belongs to the sovereign; Polansky simply held that the sovereign can reclaim a claim that belonged to it in the first place." That argument is based on fundamental, profound and egregious misrepresentations about who and what is "sovereign" according to our Constitution and why and how powers were divided and allocated in our Constitution.
As many SCOTUS justices have acknowledged, the federal government is not sovereign. As the first words (and much more) of the Constitution established , "We the People of the United States" are sovereign. All federal officials are only public servants whose duty is to represent our interests.
The primary principle of our Constitution (the real meaning of the word "revolution") was overturning old-world attitudes about power (including the power of royals, nobles and clerics over the people). Our Constitution converted "the people" from mere "subjects" (of other people's power) into the true sovereign. So the People, ourselves, are the first power and everyone in any government is a representative of the people, a public servant. The People, collectively, are sovereign, as Justice James Wilson and Chief Justice John Jay emphasized in 1793 in Chisholm v. Georgia (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/2us419) and as many SCOTUS justices have emphasized, e.g., in Alden v. Maine in 1999 (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/98-436) and in Citizens United in 2010 (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205).
Irrefutably and clearly, “the Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people” inasmuch as “the people” did “ordain and establish the Constitution.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 759 (1999). This was “an assertion that sovereignty belongs” to “the whole of the people.” Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. 128, 152 (2019) (Gorsuch, Thomas JJ., Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
“In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 741 (2015) (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, JJ., dissenting). “[T]he critical postulate” of our Constitution is “that sovereignty is vested in the people.” United States Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 794 (1995). “[T]he animating principle of our Constitution” was “that the people” are sovereign and the “source of all the powers of government.” Arizona State Legis. v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 813 (2015).
In 2019, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas in Gundy v. United States published a dissenting opinion to emphasize the following about the separation of powers and how it was designed to serve and support the liberty and the sovereignty of the people, not to protect the mere turf of any of our public servants:
"Our founding document begins by declaring that 'We the People . . . ordain and establish this Constitution.' At the time, that was a radical claim, an assertion that sovereignty belongs not to a person or institution or class but to the whole of the people. From that premise, the Constitution proceeded to vest the authority to exercise different aspects of the people’s sovereign power in distinct entities. In Article I, the Constitution entrusted all of the federal government’s legislative power to Congress. In Article II, it assigned the executive power to the President. And in Article III, it gave independent judges the task of applying the laws to cases and controversies."
The people who wrote or ratified our Constitution knew and believed that "enforcing the separation of powers isn’t about protecting institutional prerogatives or governmental turf. It’s about respecting the people’s sovereign choice to vest [certain] power in Congress alone. And it’s about safeguarding a structure designed to protect [the people's] liberties, minority rights, fair notice, and the rule of law." Clearly, "the framers afforded [judges] independence from the political branches in large part to encourage exactly [the] 'fortitude . . . to do [our] duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution.' ”
In Federalist No. 47, Madison elaborated on why powers were divided as they were in our Constitution. It was to protect the People from tyranny of purported public servants such as Trump and those who support his (and other presidents') unconstitutional usurpations of power:
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many" (no matter how they are given or usurp such power) "may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." "[T]he preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu."
"Montesquieu" was famous for emphasizing the following. "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. " "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR.
Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR."
As they are in this case, Trump and his supporters often merely presume or pretend that the principles of and text in our Constitution are irrelevant. Our Constitution was put into writing and made the paramount law of the land precisely to govern (and protect the People from) such false public servants.
Elegantly put. And accurate. But, sadly, anathema to the present Administration and its purchasers. And supported by masses of uneducated , unread, and uncaring Americans. I can just imagine their reaction when this all comes home to roost on their doorsteps.
Carl Schmitt is alive and well and busy creating the Dual State at the Department run by Todd Blanche (it can no longer be called the Department of Justice). Thanks for highlighting this outrageous argument.
I am sure that Alito and Thomas, who live in a sort of constitutional Buzarro-world, will find a way to argue that "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" means "take care that the laws not be executed."
Right. As Justice Kagan argued in her Seila Law dissent, the Take Care Clause imposes a duty, rather than granting a power. And it appears to me to be a positive duty at that.
But here the government seems to be on a quest to obtain a passive aggressive power even stronger than the "block" used in Occupy movement meetings, by which (as I understand it) a single member could scuttle a proposal by merely crossing their arms. Revolutionary maybe, but one we should confer on DOJ?
Trump's pretense that "citizen suits are really the government’s cases in disguise" mistake or misrepresent what our Constitution accomplished. One of the primary points of the Tenth Amendment was to emphasize that all operations of the federal government merely represent the People, collectively. Of course, "by the Constitution," the People established that LIMITED "powers" were "delegated to the United States," but that limited delegation of powers cannot overpower the fact that many "powers" also were "reserved [ ] to the people."
The duty of the federal government is to represent the People, collectively, but that is no reason to presume or pretend that people who are capable of adequately representing themselves or each other in court CANNOT exercise such powers because of the mere delegation of similar powers to the executive branch. Trump's position (his usurpation of tyrannical powers) flies in the face of the plain text and plain meaning of our Constitution and common sense.
Trump's pretense that people cannot represent themselves or each other in court in this case also flies in the face of the plain text and plain meaning of our Constitution and common sense in another vital respect.
I like to quote Justice Scalia sometimes, in part, because he often spoke the truth, and in part, because other people like to rely on Justice Scalia to pretend to justify egregiously unconstitutional executive powers. Regarding the rule of law, and separation of powers, Justice Scalia put it pretty well in 1988 in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson (echoing James Madison in 1788).
"That is what this suit is about. Power. The allocation of power [ ] in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium [that the People by] the Constitution sought to establish—so that 'a gradual concentration of [ ] powers' [Federalist No. 51 (J. Madison)] can effectively be resisted."
"It is the proud boast of our democracy that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.' " That comes from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 regarding the separation of powers between legislative, executive and judicial departments. "The Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison wrote that “[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” Justice Scalia emphasized, "Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless."
Justice Scalia also highlighted that in Federalist No. 51 Madison emphasized the following crucial and dispositive truth about our Constitution and how the People chose to vest less power in the Executive and Judicial branches than in the Legislative branch: “it is not [even] possible to give to each department an equal power[. Moreover, i]n republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
In Article I of our Constitution, the People expressly emphasized that the People vested in Congress the power "To make all Laws" that turn out to be "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution in" Congress or "the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" (including judicial officers). Of course, Congress can make laws that expressly emphasize the right of people to speak for themselves and for each other (exercise the freedom of speech) in court, even in cases in which the executive branch also has the power to speak for the People.
Raise your heads above the weeds and see the field: this is the NAACP vs Musk, and is about whether SCOTUS will raise its racist flag even higher, now that it has stopped pretending that neither the text nor the meaning of the US Constitution is white supremacy. Next week we reach America's 250th birthday. Last week the National Parks announced that signed copies of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th amendment will be on display for a year at a new $50 million Lincoln Memorial exhibit, and a judge ordered NP historical markers restored that Trump had ordered "removed" like the Nazis had ordered books about freedom burnt. The Trump Kennedy Memorial once sounded like an impossible lie to tell, but then came the Roberts's court. Will it bow out, or will it double down?
It's not even the 13th Amendment, it's the 14th Amendment, that we should celebrate. In 1866 (160 years ago), the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Schuyler Colfax publicly proclaimed that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was “the gem of the Constitution . . . because it is the Declaration of Independence placed immutably and forever in our Constitution.”
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (arguably) is “the gem of the Constitution" because in fact and in law (the paramount law of the land) it accomplished far more by "our Constitution" than was proclaimed in "the Declaration of Independence." It established much more than merely that all men--and much more than merely that black and white--are equal and have equal rights. It established that all citizens born or naturalized in the U.S. are equal and have equal rights regardless of arbitrary factors such as skin color or sex.
But even Speaker Colfax overlooked a vital aspect of our Constitution. The First Amendment (securing our freedom to speak for ourselves or for each other in court cases) also placed "in our Constitution" the principle demonstrated by "the Declaration of Independence" as well as by the Constitution that "We the People of the United States" have the right and even the duty to speak for ourselves regarding the society that we want "for ourselves and our Posterity" (Preamble).
Kevin, exactly. Abolishing slavery was consistent with the Declaration of Independence, but it didn't even come close to fulfilling the full promise of the Declaration. The 14th Amendment did. It does far more than guarantee birthright citizenship. The reason Speaker Colfax what he said was because Section 1 of the 14th Amendment clarified what citizenship means: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" are entitled to all "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," which includes "equal protection of the laws." Thus, our Constitution (not merely the Declaration) said that all men have equal rights, privileges and immunities. Moreover, it said that all citizens (regardless of sex or skin color) have equal rights, privileges and immunities.
The 13th is appropriate for the Lincoln Memorial exhibit. The Constitution says all America's citizens are entitled to the enumerated rights, and the 14th grants everyone born in America citizenship and more. Lincoln understood that all persons are created equal in God's eyes, which is great to bear in mind when we are worn down in the face of our individual shortcomings, imho. God only asks that we try not to hurt anyone.
Kevin, I agree that the 13th Amendment is appropriate for the Lincoln Memorial exhibit. My point was that it's woefully inadequate. Better than almost anyone else before him or after him, Lincoln understood the power and importance of the principles in the Declaration of Independence. So he would have been among the first and loudest to recognize that the 14th Amendment (far better than the 13th Amendment) exemplifies his and our accomplishments and the purpose of his efforts. Lincoln didn't live to see his efforts bear their full fruit, but the 14th Amendment is nonetheless the fruit of Lincoln's awesome efforts and sacrifices.
"I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered" the "sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence."
Consider how Lincoln's last words at that address declared the personal sacrifice he was willing to make (and did make): "I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by and, if it be the pleasure of Almighty God, die by."
Btw, it's true that 14th Amendment made formerly enslaved people citizens. But it's not true regarding the vast majority of people that the 14th Amendment granted citizenship. The vast majority of the people it covered already were citizens. Instead, the 14th Amendment served, in part, as a sort of dictionary, i.e., to define the word "citizen," i.e., who was a citizen and what citizenship meant with respect to "privileges and immunities."
Jefferson's major slave holdings and extreme care and eloquence signify to me that he meant all white men in the world, and that he meant to be misunderstood. His colleagues knew it, and Lincoln perhaps pretended to misunderstand as a skilled lawyer, and truthfully declared that this is what he is willing to live by: hope, because Lincoln lived and died for all persons everywhere.
It is important to see that this case is very much about the rights and freedoms secured by the First Amendment. The conduct that Trump is attacking consists of essential and extremely fundamental exercises of "the freedom of speech" and "the press" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" regarding what matters people have the power to litigated for themselves and each other in court. Trump is arguing that we must sit silently and allow our representatives in government do all (or any) talking on in court regarding certain subjects.
Trump's position flies in the face of the plain text of the First Amendment and common sense about how people have historically exercised such rights. As James Madison emphasized in his Report of 1800 (pertaining to First Amendment rights and freedoms) and as SCOTUS emphasized in 1964 in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: "the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon" always has "been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right." Obviously, doing so in litigation and defending our rights and interests in court is an essential exercise of "the freedom of speech" and "the press" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
By our Constitution and state constitutions, people delegated to federal or state authorities the power and the duty to speak for people to represent the collective interests of the people of a nation or a state. But nothing about such limited delegations of power allowed any executive at any level of government to usurp exclusive power to speak for all people in all cases, even when governing legislation expressly authorized people to speak for themselves and for each other in court in particular cases. Such legislation is an express written acknowledgment of a power that was reserved to the people.
I don't agree that the T.M. decision is one "only law professors could love." Rooker-Feldman may seem like a subject belonging to some dark corner of federal jurisdiction, but as a practical matter it comes up all the time. People who sue in state courts and lose then often sue in U.S. district court, looking to have some beleaguered federal judge revisit the dispute. I mean, it happens constantly. But the Saudi Basic decision (clarifying, or attempting to clarify, Rooker-Feldman) says "state court losers" don't get to do that, and T.M. elaborates on when a state court loser has in fact lost. T.M. answered that question incorrectly, in my view, but at least it gave an answer. That will aid federal trial judges who, again, face this problem all the time.
In related legal news: On May 29th, the OMB released its manifesto detailing how the Trump Administration has the absolute right to unilaterally defund or deny funding for any federal grant if it conflicts with any policy of the Trump Administration. This would further transfer the power of the Purse from Congress to the President. The Unitary Executive gone wild.
Coming up this week on June 25th, Minnesota state and county attorneys are set to file a Motion for Summary Judgment for gaining access to the federal government's records regarding the evidence for the fatal shootings of Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and the non-fatal shooting of Julio Sosa-Celis. Simultaneously, the DOJ and DHS are due to file a Motion to Dismiss.
June 5th, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty:
“The federal government’s written responses to our demands for evidence in the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, as well as the non-fatal shooting of Julio Sosa-Celis, indicates that they will continue withholding evidence related to the conduct of their agents in those incidents.
It was obstruction in January and it is obstruction in June."
Will the Justice Department assert its right to deny permission to file civil and criminal charges because they haven't determined that the federal officers' actions fell outside of their rights to qualified immunity? If the DOJ doesn't investigate a shooting, are states and individuals barred from filing criminal charges or civil lawsuits?
It's not legally possible to "transfer" any part of "the power of the Purse from Congress to the President" in any manner that is contrary to our Constitution. Such an assertion highlights an important issue that was being discussed and addressed emphatically by those who wrote or ratified our Constitution. Purporting to reassign any power in violation of our Constitution is not a "transfer of power." It is a usurpation of power by whoever purports to transfer or acquiesce in such transfer. See, e.g., https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/07/james-madison-on-abuse-and-usurpation/.
Chief Justice Marshall (writing for SCOTUS) in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 emphasized the plain meaning of the language from our Constitution Article VI about "the supreme Law of the Land" and the oaths (duty) of public servants "to support [our] Constitution."
"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men."
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by [our Constitution]."
"[T]he constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law. . . . The constitution is [necessarily the] superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means. . . . Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
The same principles and logic, above, establishing that any law that is “repugnant to the constitution is void” (even if it was made either with the President’s approval or with the approval of two-thirds of each house) necessarily confirms that any decision or opinion by any quantity or quality of judges that is “repugnant to the constitution is void.” No purported “precedent” or purported “doctrine” made by any quantity or quality of executive or judicial officers (much less any mere judge’s or executive official's mere opinion) can lawfully contradict, override or overrule our Constitution. Any presumption or pretense to the contrary is not the rule of law. It is rule by outlaws. It is rule by outlaws who are enemies of the Constitution, violating their own oaths to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
I'm probably grasping at straws here, but isn't (repeated) violation of one's oath to the Constitution an impeachable offense? (Sorry, but without a change in personnel at SCOTUS via impeachment and/or expansion, I don't see how any other measures can succeed.)
Judges would argue that violations of an oath of office aren't enough to justify impeachment. But, for starters, I think that our Constitution is clear that judges need not be impeached to be removed from office.
Article II addresses impeachment. See https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-4. "Impeachment" clearly is for "Treason" (defined by the People in our Constitution) and whatever conduct Congress defines in legislation as "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Impeachment is for "[t]he President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States." "Civil officers" excludes officers of the U.S. Armed Forces.
In striking contrast, judges' removal from office is addressed in Article III. See https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#article-3-section-1. Section 1 of Article III emphasizes that all "[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices [only] during good Behaviour."
Just as Article VI expressly distinguishes between "executive and judicial Officers," Article II governs to executive officers and Article III governs judicial officers. Obvious functional reasons account for (and virtually require) the difference in treatment between executive officers and judicial officers. The chief executive is elected. Moreover, he's elected for only a 4 year term. He can be removed from office within 4 years for behavior that is not good, and he also cannot occupy the office of president for more than 8 years.
We don't get to choose or remove federal judges by voting, and they have no set term limit. As Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 79, federal “judges” who “behave properly, will be secured in their places for life.” So our Constitution emphasizes that they can be removed for behavior that is not good. If they knowingly violate their oath of office, they clearly cannot claim good behavior, so they can be removed consistent with our Constitution.
Obviously, not everyone would agree with the foregoing analysis. So Congress should enact legislation establishing process of law governing how judges can be removed for knowingly violating their oath of office. As Article I emphasized, the People vested in our representatives in Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" (i.e., governing) absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" (including the president and federal judges).
I understand what you mean when you characterize these as my thoughts, but the truth is that I'm merely re-discovering the thoughts of the people who wrote and ratified various parts of our Constitution. The truth often is radically different from the assertions of our purported public servants, including officers of the executive branch or of the judicial branch (judges and lawyers).
Yes, transfer implies the ability to delegate power, which in this case should be ruled an unconstitutional delegation. On the other hand, our current Supreme Court could use their unitary executive theory to rule that executive power extends to deciding on the funding of all federal grants.
I would not dare to predict that the current SCOTUS majority would not violate the Constitution (or that they would not lie about our Constitution) because they already have done so repeatedly. But in recently ruling (in Learning Resources) that Trump's tariffs violated our Constitution, they already highlighted that they knew of and understood the vital importance of the people vesting in our directly-elected representatives in Congress the power of the purse. In that regard, it's important to bear in mind that every 2 years, the people directly have the power to remove the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate.
James Madison in Federalist No. 58 emphasized the following crucial principles (at which the majority opinion in Learning Resources barely hinted):
"The [People vested in the] House of Representatives [the power to] refuse, [and vested in the House] alone [the power] propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. [The People vested in Congress, alone, the power to] hold the purse [which is a most] powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, [the] representation of the people gradually [attaining the power of] reducing [ ] all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government [i.e., the executive and judicial branches]. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance [against the executive or judicial branch] and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure [including those governing the executive or judicial branches]."
I'd be surprised if the federal government has any evidence on the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti beyond the videos that have been seen by the public. They openly and obscenely celebrated those killings, so I can't imagine that they have opened any investigations into them. On the other hand, they do know the identity of the thugs who killed Alex Pretti and then ran away, and it would be good for the public to have that information. I suspect that many ICE "agents" were merely hired thugs.
Over the weekend, the Saturday morning Lectures in American History segment on C-SPAN discussed the first federal appellate court involving prizes. It didn't go into much detail, spending much of the time discussing a specific case. So, I appreciate the further discussion.
As you note, Article II states that the President shall “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” How is it that the Executive can refuse to enforce a law because it doesn't like that law (i.e, that the law doesn't conform to the Executive's policy preferences)? What rights does a citizen have to sue the Executive branch when it refuses to enforce the law? As Jack Jordan notes below, the citizens are sovereign, not the Executive branch.
Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention! I knew about the suit that NAACP is filing, but I did not know this response from DOJ, which is even for them, a huge step too far.
Thank you, Mr. Vladek, for these excellent analyses of the latest shenanigans by the regime. Their overbearing stance in the xAI case is frightening, and I believe it means exactly what you think it means. Important things happen between the headlines. They are trying very diligently to destroy our democracy to make a dictatorship. Even the vp thinks no court can constrain the president. WTH.
There's an extra bit of irony in the xAI case. This case and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) were both filed by citizens of Memphis. Overton Park, where a citizen group sued to block a highway that would run through a city park, despite a law allowing such a path only when no feasible alternative was available, is considered an important precedent in establishing the right of citizen groups to sue to compel government agencies to enforce existing law.
Jackson asserted today on the dreadlocks case (quoting cnn.com): *that the court’s rationale effectively reduced “some of Congress’s greatest legislative achievements — federal laws that secure civil rights, environmental stability, healthcare, and more — to nothing more than the wheelings-and-dealings of an especially wealthy private party.”*
I wonder if any argument can be made that the natsec linkage is disclaimed by xAI itself, as they are selling the Colossus compute to Anthropic per their S-1 (creating a win-win as both companies IPO, a discounted compute rate for Anthropic and some positive revenue for xAI as part of SpaceX)
The most fundamental problem is highlighted by the executive branch's argument that "the claim in an FCA case belongs to the sovereign; Polansky simply held that the sovereign can reclaim a claim that belonged to it in the first place." That argument is based on fundamental, profound and egregious misrepresentations about who and what is "sovereign" according to our Constitution and why and how powers were divided and allocated in our Constitution.
As many SCOTUS justices have acknowledged, the federal government is not sovereign. As the first words (and much more) of the Constitution established , "We the People of the United States" are sovereign. All federal officials are only public servants whose duty is to represent our interests.
The primary principle of our Constitution (the real meaning of the word "revolution") was overturning old-world attitudes about power (including the power of royals, nobles and clerics over the people). Our Constitution converted "the people" from mere "subjects" (of other people's power) into the true sovereign. So the People, ourselves, are the first power and everyone in any government is a representative of the people, a public servant. The People, collectively, are sovereign, as Justice James Wilson and Chief Justice John Jay emphasized in 1793 in Chisholm v. Georgia (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/2us419) and as many SCOTUS justices have emphasized, e.g., in Alden v. Maine in 1999 (https://www.oyez.org/cases/1998/98-436) and in Citizens United in 2010 (https://www.oyez.org/cases/2008/08-205).
Irrefutably and clearly, “the Constitution begins with the principle that sovereignty rests with the people” inasmuch as “the people” did “ordain and establish the Constitution.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706, 759 (1999). This was “an assertion that sovereignty belongs” to “the whole of the people.” Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. 128, 152 (2019) (Gorsuch, Thomas JJ., Roberts, C.J., dissenting).
“In our system of government, ultimate sovereignty rests with the people, and the people have the right to control their own destiny.” Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 741 (2015) (Alito, Scalia, Thomas, JJ., dissenting). “[T]he critical postulate” of our Constitution is “that sovereignty is vested in the people.” United States Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 794 (1995). “[T]he animating principle of our Constitution” was “that the people” are sovereign and the “source of all the powers of government.” Arizona State Legis. v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Comm’n, 576 U.S. 787, 813 (2015).
In 2019, Justice Gorsuch, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Thomas in Gundy v. United States published a dissenting opinion to emphasize the following about the separation of powers and how it was designed to serve and support the liberty and the sovereignty of the people, not to protect the mere turf of any of our public servants:
"Our founding document begins by declaring that 'We the People . . . ordain and establish this Constitution.' At the time, that was a radical claim, an assertion that sovereignty belongs not to a person or institution or class but to the whole of the people. From that premise, the Constitution proceeded to vest the authority to exercise different aspects of the people’s sovereign power in distinct entities. In Article I, the Constitution entrusted all of the federal government’s legislative power to Congress. In Article II, it assigned the executive power to the President. And in Article III, it gave independent judges the task of applying the laws to cases and controversies."
The people who wrote or ratified our Constitution knew and believed that "enforcing the separation of powers isn’t about protecting institutional prerogatives or governmental turf. It’s about respecting the people’s sovereign choice to vest [certain] power in Congress alone. And it’s about safeguarding a structure designed to protect [the people's] liberties, minority rights, fair notice, and the rule of law." Clearly, "the framers afforded [judges] independence from the political branches in large part to encourage exactly [the] 'fortitude . . . to do [our] duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution.' ”
In Federalist No. 47, Madison elaborated on why powers were divided as they were in our Constitution. It was to protect the People from tyranny of purported public servants such as Trump and those who support his (and other presidents') unconstitutional usurpations of power:
"The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many" (no matter how they are given or usurp such power) "may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." "[T]he preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct. The oracle who is always consulted and cited on this subject is the celebrated Montesquieu."
"Montesquieu" was famous for emphasizing the following. "There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates," or, "if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers." "When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person or body," says he, "there can be no liberty, because apprehensions may arise lest THE SAME monarch or senate should ENACT tyrannical laws to EXECUTE them in a tyrannical manner. " "Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR.
Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR."
As they are in this case, Trump and his supporters often merely presume or pretend that the principles of and text in our Constitution are irrelevant. Our Constitution was put into writing and made the paramount law of the land precisely to govern (and protect the People from) such false public servants.
Elegantly put. And accurate. But, sadly, anathema to the present Administration and its purchasers. And supported by masses of uneducated , unread, and uncaring Americans. I can just imagine their reaction when this all comes home to roost on their doorsteps.
Carl Schmitt is alive and well and busy creating the Dual State at the Department run by Todd Blanche (it can no longer be called the Department of Justice). Thanks for highlighting this outrageous argument.
I am sure that Alito and Thomas, who live in a sort of constitutional Buzarro-world, will find a way to argue that "take care that the laws be faithfully executed" means "take care that the laws not be executed."
They only have to argue that "execute" doesn't mean "to carry out; put into effect", but rather "to kill".
LOL!
Right. As Justice Kagan argued in her Seila Law dissent, the Take Care Clause imposes a duty, rather than granting a power. And it appears to me to be a positive duty at that.
But here the government seems to be on a quest to obtain a passive aggressive power even stronger than the "block" used in Occupy movement meetings, by which (as I understand it) a single member could scuttle a proposal by merely crossing their arms. Revolutionary maybe, but one we should confer on DOJ?
President Trump has taken great care that the laws are faithfully executed -- their corpses lie strewn across the political landscape.
Isn't that data mining center in Memphis the one Elon Musk used to change the result of the 2024 election?
See: https://thiswillhold.substack.com/p/how-a-last-minute-change-to-election?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email#media-405090c0-de08-471e-b965-93b6d6ab9d9e
Trump's pretense that "citizen suits are really the government’s cases in disguise" mistake or misrepresent what our Constitution accomplished. One of the primary points of the Tenth Amendment was to emphasize that all operations of the federal government merely represent the People, collectively. Of course, "by the Constitution," the People established that LIMITED "powers" were "delegated to the United States," but that limited delegation of powers cannot overpower the fact that many "powers" also were "reserved [ ] to the people."
The duty of the federal government is to represent the People, collectively, but that is no reason to presume or pretend that people who are capable of adequately representing themselves or each other in court CANNOT exercise such powers because of the mere delegation of similar powers to the executive branch. Trump's position (his usurpation of tyrannical powers) flies in the face of the plain text and plain meaning of our Constitution and common sense.
Trump's pretense that people cannot represent themselves or each other in court in this case also flies in the face of the plain text and plain meaning of our Constitution and common sense in another vital respect.
I like to quote Justice Scalia sometimes, in part, because he often spoke the truth, and in part, because other people like to rely on Justice Scalia to pretend to justify egregiously unconstitutional executive powers. Regarding the rule of law, and separation of powers, Justice Scalia put it pretty well in 1988 in his (famous) dissenting opinion in Morrison v. Olson (echoing James Madison in 1788).
"That is what this suit is about. Power. The allocation of power [ ] in such fashion as to preserve the equilibrium [that the People by] the Constitution sought to establish—so that 'a gradual concentration of [ ] powers' [Federalist No. 51 (J. Madison)] can effectively be resisted."
"It is the proud boast of our democracy that we have 'a government of laws and not of men.' " That comes from the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 regarding the separation of powers between legislative, executive and judicial departments. "The Framers of the Federal Constitution similarly viewed the principle of separation of powers as the absolutely central guarantee of a just Government. In No. 47 of The Federalist, Madison wrote that “[n]o political truth is certainly of greater intrinsic value, or is stamped with the authority of more enlightened patrons of liberty.” Justice Scalia emphasized, "Without a secure structure of separated powers, our Bill of Rights would be worthless."
Justice Scalia also highlighted that in Federalist No. 51 Madison emphasized the following crucial and dispositive truth about our Constitution and how the People chose to vest less power in the Executive and Judicial branches than in the Legislative branch: “it is not [even] possible to give to each department an equal power[. Moreover, i]n republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.”
In Article I of our Constitution, the People expressly emphasized that the People vested in Congress the power "To make all Laws" that turn out to be "necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution in" Congress or "the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" (including judicial officers). Of course, Congress can make laws that expressly emphasize the right of people to speak for themselves and for each other (exercise the freedom of speech) in court, even in cases in which the executive branch also has the power to speak for the People.
Raise your heads above the weeds and see the field: this is the NAACP vs Musk, and is about whether SCOTUS will raise its racist flag even higher, now that it has stopped pretending that neither the text nor the meaning of the US Constitution is white supremacy. Next week we reach America's 250th birthday. Last week the National Parks announced that signed copies of the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th amendment will be on display for a year at a new $50 million Lincoln Memorial exhibit, and a judge ordered NP historical markers restored that Trump had ordered "removed" like the Nazis had ordered books about freedom burnt. The Trump Kennedy Memorial once sounded like an impossible lie to tell, but then came the Roberts's court. Will it bow out, or will it double down?
It's not even the 13th Amendment, it's the 14th Amendment, that we should celebrate. In 1866 (160 years ago), the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Schuyler Colfax publicly proclaimed that Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment was “the gem of the Constitution . . . because it is the Declaration of Independence placed immutably and forever in our Constitution.”
Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment (arguably) is “the gem of the Constitution" because in fact and in law (the paramount law of the land) it accomplished far more by "our Constitution" than was proclaimed in "the Declaration of Independence." It established much more than merely that all men--and much more than merely that black and white--are equal and have equal rights. It established that all citizens born or naturalized in the U.S. are equal and have equal rights regardless of arbitrary factors such as skin color or sex.
But even Speaker Colfax overlooked a vital aspect of our Constitution. The First Amendment (securing our freedom to speak for ourselves or for each other in court cases) also placed "in our Constitution" the principle demonstrated by "the Declaration of Independence" as well as by the Constitution that "We the People of the United States" have the right and even the duty to speak for ourselves regarding the society that we want "for ourselves and our Posterity" (Preamble).
Hi Jack. The 13th amendment, ratified in 1865, abolished slavery. The 14th amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees birthright citizenship and more.
Kevin, exactly. Abolishing slavery was consistent with the Declaration of Independence, but it didn't even come close to fulfilling the full promise of the Declaration. The 14th Amendment did. It does far more than guarantee birthright citizenship. The reason Speaker Colfax what he said was because Section 1 of the 14th Amendment clarified what citizenship means: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" are entitled to all "the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," which includes "equal protection of the laws." Thus, our Constitution (not merely the Declaration) said that all men have equal rights, privileges and immunities. Moreover, it said that all citizens (regardless of sex or skin color) have equal rights, privileges and immunities.
The 13th is appropriate for the Lincoln Memorial exhibit. The Constitution says all America's citizens are entitled to the enumerated rights, and the 14th grants everyone born in America citizenship and more. Lincoln understood that all persons are created equal in God's eyes, which is great to bear in mind when we are worn down in the face of our individual shortcomings, imho. God only asks that we try not to hurt anyone.
Kevin, I agree that the 13th Amendment is appropriate for the Lincoln Memorial exhibit. My point was that it's woefully inadequate. Better than almost anyone else before him or after him, Lincoln understood the power and importance of the principles in the Declaration of Independence. So he would have been among the first and loudest to recognize that the 14th Amendment (far better than the 13th Amendment) exemplifies his and our accomplishments and the purpose of his efforts. Lincoln didn't live to see his efforts bear their full fruit, but the 14th Amendment is nonetheless the fruit of Lincoln's awesome efforts and sacrifices.
Consider, for example, Lincoln's Address in Independence Hall right before he took office (https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/philadel.htm):
"I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered" the "sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence."
Consider how Lincoln's last words at that address declared the personal sacrifice he was willing to make (and did make): "I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by and, if it be the pleasure of Almighty God, die by."
Btw, it's true that 14th Amendment made formerly enslaved people citizens. But it's not true regarding the vast majority of people that the 14th Amendment granted citizenship. The vast majority of the people it covered already were citizens. Instead, the 14th Amendment served, in part, as a sort of dictionary, i.e., to define the word "citizen," i.e., who was a citizen and what citizenship meant with respect to "privileges and immunities."
Jefferson's major slave holdings and extreme care and eloquence signify to me that he meant all white men in the world, and that he meant to be misunderstood. His colleagues knew it, and Lincoln perhaps pretended to misunderstand as a skilled lawyer, and truthfully declared that this is what he is willing to live by: hope, because Lincoln lived and died for all persons everywhere.
It is important to see that this case is very much about the rights and freedoms secured by the First Amendment. The conduct that Trump is attacking consists of essential and extremely fundamental exercises of "the freedom of speech" and "the press" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble" regarding what matters people have the power to litigated for themselves and each other in court. Trump is arguing that we must sit silently and allow our representatives in government do all (or any) talking on in court regarding certain subjects.
Trump's position flies in the face of the plain text of the First Amendment and common sense about how people have historically exercised such rights. As James Madison emphasized in his Report of 1800 (pertaining to First Amendment rights and freedoms) and as SCOTUS emphasized in 1964 in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan: "the right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people thereon" always has "been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right." Obviously, doing so in litigation and defending our rights and interests in court is an essential exercise of "the freedom of speech" and "the press" and "the right of the people peaceably to assemble."
By our Constitution and state constitutions, people delegated to federal or state authorities the power and the duty to speak for people to represent the collective interests of the people of a nation or a state. But nothing about such limited delegations of power allowed any executive at any level of government to usurp exclusive power to speak for all people in all cases, even when governing legislation expressly authorized people to speak for themselves and for each other in court in particular cases. Such legislation is an express written acknowledgment of a power that was reserved to the people.
Really nice work, Jack Jordan, all that you've taken the considerable time and effort to lay out here.
Surely the Southern District of New York is the D.N.Y.'s descendant or successor rather than its ancestor?
Indeed it is. My bad.
I don't agree that the T.M. decision is one "only law professors could love." Rooker-Feldman may seem like a subject belonging to some dark corner of federal jurisdiction, but as a practical matter it comes up all the time. People who sue in state courts and lose then often sue in U.S. district court, looking to have some beleaguered federal judge revisit the dispute. I mean, it happens constantly. But the Saudi Basic decision (clarifying, or attempting to clarify, Rooker-Feldman) says "state court losers" don't get to do that, and T.M. elaborates on when a state court loser has in fact lost. T.M. answered that question incorrectly, in my view, but at least it gave an answer. That will aid federal trial judges who, again, face this problem all the time.
In related legal news: On May 29th, the OMB released its manifesto detailing how the Trump Administration has the absolute right to unilaterally defund or deny funding for any federal grant if it conflicts with any policy of the Trump Administration. This would further transfer the power of the Purse from Congress to the President. The Unitary Executive gone wild.
Coming up this week on June 25th, Minnesota state and county attorneys are set to file a Motion for Summary Judgment for gaining access to the federal government's records regarding the evidence for the fatal shootings of Renee Good, Alex Pretti, and the non-fatal shooting of Julio Sosa-Celis. Simultaneously, the DOJ and DHS are due to file a Motion to Dismiss.
June 5th, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty:
“The federal government’s written responses to our demands for evidence in the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, as well as the non-fatal shooting of Julio Sosa-Celis, indicates that they will continue withholding evidence related to the conduct of their agents in those incidents.
It was obstruction in January and it is obstruction in June."
Will the Justice Department assert its right to deny permission to file civil and criminal charges because they haven't determined that the federal officers' actions fell outside of their rights to qualified immunity? If the DOJ doesn't investigate a shooting, are states and individuals barred from filing criminal charges or civil lawsuits?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aej3572
https://www.hennepinattorney.org/news/news/2026/May/federal-order
https://www.hennepinattorney.org/news/news/2026/June/fed-response
It's not legally possible to "transfer" any part of "the power of the Purse from Congress to the President" in any manner that is contrary to our Constitution. Such an assertion highlights an important issue that was being discussed and addressed emphatically by those who wrote or ratified our Constitution. Purporting to reassign any power in violation of our Constitution is not a "transfer of power." It is a usurpation of power by whoever purports to transfer or acquiesce in such transfer. See, e.g., https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/07/james-madison-on-abuse-and-usurpation/.
For very good reason, the People in our Constitution required every public servant to support and defend our Constitution. See, e.g., the Oath Clause of Article II (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-1-clause-8) and the Oath Clause of Article VI (https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-6/#article-6-clause-3). Incidentally, all attorneys admitted to practice in any state or federal court are "judicial officers" who are subject to the Article VI Oath Clause.
Chief Justice Marshall (writing for SCOTUS) in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 emphasized the plain meaning of the language from our Constitution Article VI about "the supreme Law of the Land" and the oaths (duty) of public servants "to support [our] Constitution."
"The government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men."
"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by [our Constitution]."
"[T]he constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law. . . . The constitution is [necessarily the] superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means. . . . Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void."
The same principles and logic, above, establishing that any law that is “repugnant to the constitution is void” (even if it was made either with the President’s approval or with the approval of two-thirds of each house) necessarily confirms that any decision or opinion by any quantity or quality of judges that is “repugnant to the constitution is void.” No purported “precedent” or purported “doctrine” made by any quantity or quality of executive or judicial officers (much less any mere judge’s or executive official's mere opinion) can lawfully contradict, override or overrule our Constitution. Any presumption or pretense to the contrary is not the rule of law. It is rule by outlaws. It is rule by outlaws who are enemies of the Constitution, violating their own oaths to support and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Thank you!
I'm probably grasping at straws here, but isn't (repeated) violation of one's oath to the Constitution an impeachable offense? (Sorry, but without a change in personnel at SCOTUS via impeachment and/or expansion, I don't see how any other measures can succeed.)
Judges would argue that violations of an oath of office aren't enough to justify impeachment. But, for starters, I think that our Constitution is clear that judges need not be impeached to be removed from office.
Article II addresses impeachment. See https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/#article-2-section-4. "Impeachment" clearly is for "Treason" (defined by the People in our Constitution) and whatever conduct Congress defines in legislation as "Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Impeachment is for "[t]he President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States." "Civil officers" excludes officers of the U.S. Armed Forces.
In striking contrast, judges' removal from office is addressed in Article III. See https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#article-3-section-1. Section 1 of Article III emphasizes that all "[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices [only] during good Behaviour."
Just as Article VI expressly distinguishes between "executive and judicial Officers," Article II governs to executive officers and Article III governs judicial officers. Obvious functional reasons account for (and virtually require) the difference in treatment between executive officers and judicial officers. The chief executive is elected. Moreover, he's elected for only a 4 year term. He can be removed from office within 4 years for behavior that is not good, and he also cannot occupy the office of president for more than 8 years.
We don't get to choose or remove federal judges by voting, and they have no set term limit. As Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 79, federal “judges” who “behave properly, will be secured in their places for life.” So our Constitution emphasizes that they can be removed for behavior that is not good. If they knowingly violate their oath of office, they clearly cannot claim good behavior, so they can be removed consistent with our Constitution.
Obviously, not everyone would agree with the foregoing analysis. So Congress should enact legislation establishing process of law governing how judges can be removed for knowingly violating their oath of office. As Article I emphasized, the People vested in our representatives in Congress the power to "make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution" (i.e., governing) absolutely "all" the "Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" (including the president and federal judges).
Thank you so much for this thorough answer, Jack - I appreciate your willingness to share your thoughts and expertise!
I'm happy to try to help, Mary.
I understand what you mean when you characterize these as my thoughts, but the truth is that I'm merely re-discovering the thoughts of the people who wrote and ratified various parts of our Constitution. The truth often is radically different from the assertions of our purported public servants, including officers of the executive branch or of the judicial branch (judges and lawyers).
Yes, transfer implies the ability to delegate power, which in this case should be ruled an unconstitutional delegation. On the other hand, our current Supreme Court could use their unitary executive theory to rule that executive power extends to deciding on the funding of all federal grants.
I would not dare to predict that the current SCOTUS majority would not violate the Constitution (or that they would not lie about our Constitution) because they already have done so repeatedly. But in recently ruling (in Learning Resources) that Trump's tariffs violated our Constitution, they already highlighted that they knew of and understood the vital importance of the people vesting in our directly-elected representatives in Congress the power of the purse. In that regard, it's important to bear in mind that every 2 years, the people directly have the power to remove the entire House of Representatives and 1/3 of the Senate.
James Madison in Federalist No. 58 emphasized the following crucial principles (at which the majority opinion in Learning Resources barely hinted):
"The [People vested in the] House of Representatives [the power to] refuse, [and vested in the House] alone [the power] propose, the supplies requisite for the support of government. [The People vested in Congress, alone, the power to] hold the purse [which is a most] powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, [the] representation of the people gradually [attaining the power of] reducing [ ] all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government [i.e., the executive and judicial branches]. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance [against the executive or judicial branch] and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure [including those governing the executive or judicial branches]."
I'd be surprised if the federal government has any evidence on the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti beyond the videos that have been seen by the public. They openly and obscenely celebrated those killings, so I can't imagine that they have opened any investigations into them. On the other hand, they do know the identity of the thugs who killed Alex Pretti and then ran away, and it would be good for the public to have that information. I suspect that many ICE "agents" were merely hired thugs.
Over the weekend, the Saturday morning Lectures in American History segment on C-SPAN discussed the first federal appellate court involving prizes. It didn't go into much detail, spending much of the time discussing a specific case. So, I appreciate the further discussion.
As you note, Article II states that the President shall “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” How is it that the Executive can refuse to enforce a law because it doesn't like that law (i.e, that the law doesn't conform to the Executive's policy preferences)? What rights does a citizen have to sue the Executive branch when it refuses to enforce the law? As Jack Jordan notes below, the citizens are sovereign, not the Executive branch.
Asking for a friend.
Thank you so much for bringing this to our attention! I knew about the suit that NAACP is filing, but I did not know this response from DOJ, which is even for them, a huge step too far.
Thank you, Mr. Vladek, for these excellent analyses of the latest shenanigans by the regime. Their overbearing stance in the xAI case is frightening, and I believe it means exactly what you think it means. Important things happen between the headlines. They are trying very diligently to destroy our democracy to make a dictatorship. Even the vp thinks no court can constrain the president. WTH.
There's an extra bit of irony in the xAI case. This case and Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971) were both filed by citizens of Memphis. Overton Park, where a citizen group sued to block a highway that would run through a city park, despite a law allowing such a path only when no feasible alternative was available, is considered an important precedent in establishing the right of citizen groups to sue to compel government agencies to enforce existing law.
Jackson asserted today on the dreadlocks case (quoting cnn.com): *that the court’s rationale effectively reduced “some of Congress’s greatest legislative achievements — federal laws that secure civil rights, environmental stability, healthcare, and more — to nothing more than the wheelings-and-dealings of an especially wealthy private party.”*