Gets the imageIn the first weeks of his second term, President Donald Trump did not spend time flexing his political muscle. This is a lot of understanding.
Since his post in January, he ordered to stop all new claims against the shelter, abolished the relocation of refugees, the government and expenses, stretched by Congress, banned gender assistance for teenagers and offered ransom for hundreds of federal federal workers.
The whirlwinds of unilateral actions on his promises pushed the borders of the presidential power – and caused the legal problems of the Democrats, trade unions and legal groups. So far, the federal courts have been the only significant block -block for Trump’s agenda, as the judges have temporarily suspended some of the most controversial proposals, including automatic citizenship for those born in the US.
But Trump presses on – and seems to go to disassemble with the judicial system, which may eventually end in the Supreme Court on Earth. This week Judge Rod -Ayland said the Trump administration was Obviously and openly giving up your court order to thaw billions in federal funds. The White House replied, saying that “every action” that the president started was “completely legal”.
When Trump’s orders reach the US Supreme Court, six of the nine judges – including three, appointed by Trump in his first term, are conservative. Only in the last term did the court ruled Trump and all future presidents, largely insured against persecution for official actions while being in office.
At the time, it was a landmark expansion of the presidential bodies. But some observers have suggested that the last steps of Trump may become part of the strategy for expanding their powers even more. If the Supreme Courts agree to defend some of its executive orders, it can strengthen its ability to accept changes in politics without the help of Congress.
And even when the courts go against the president, says that Ilya Shapiro, a constitutional expert at the Manhattan Institute, these legitimate defeats can be politically beneficial.
“There may be political benefits to be disputed in court, and then even lose in court because you can run for judges and make political hay.”
However, there is another scenario. Trump could simply refuse to execute any court that tries to stop the free presidential power.
In the comments of the oval office on Tuesday, the President hinted that this could be an option, usually his oblique way.
“We want to weaken corruption,” Trump said. “And it seems hard to believe that the judge can say that we don’t want you to do it.”
“We may have to look at the judges,” he continued. “I think this is a very serious violation.”
On Sunday, Trump Vice President, JD Vance, was even more stupid.
“The judges are not allowed to control the legitimate power of the executive power,” he posted on the social media website X. This opinion was similar to one Vnes, expressed in the podcast of 2021 with any court order that prevented him from dismissing federal workers.
However, directly releasing the court ruling, however, would abandon the centuries of US history and make up the entrance skirmishes in the constitutional crisis, which stands for the president against the Government Branch aimed at establishing and interpreting the Earth’s law.
“I read that President Trump is checking the external boundaries that he can escape by doing many things that brazenly against the law, and possibly some things closer to the line,” said Fred Smith, “Fred Smith. Professor of the Emora Law School.
“They violate a lot of norms,” Smith added from the administration Trump. “Why he does it, only he knows completely. But he does it.”
Gets the imageSo far, Trump and his allies have expressed aggressive comments regarding adverse court decisions in society and legal statements, but not yet sanctioned for disobeying the court. When Trump was the goal of many persecution over the last four years, he often questioned the legitimacy of the presidents, but his lawyers in the courtroom adhered to the law and legal procedures.
Federal Judge in Rod -Ailled, who put Trump’s temporary detention on Monday to freeze some federal expenses, warned in court on Monday that the administration violated its temporary restraint but stopped them in contempt.
Conservative Legal Scientist Ed Wilan wrote on X that it would be “extremely serious” that the Trump administration refused the ruling of the federal court.
“I am open to the argument that really extraordinary circumstances (the production of wild hypothetical) can justify the challenge,” Mr. Wilan wrote. “But in our constitutional system there should be a predominant presumption in favor of fulfilling the execution of the federal court orders.”
If Trump did not obey, which means delegitimizing, the courts, this decision can return to bite it when the time comes to see that his own legal agenda is fulfilled, some legal experts say. For example, democratic states, such as California, may be inclined to ignore the White House directives and federal laws that they do not like – and Trump will be difficult to use the courts to bring them to the heel.
“If the executive power decides that it will comply with some court rulings, but not others, it will reveal that it will not receive any court rulings that want to comply,” said Philip Bobbit, a constitutional scientist at the Colombian Law School. “I just don’t think they thought about it.”
When Donald Trump reworked an oval cabinet in January, he reinstalling President Andrew Jackson’s portrait, which hung on the wall in the first time.
The seventh US president was remembered at a critical moment of the US Supreme Court. When the judges decided the dispute between the Georgian state and the Indian governments in 1832, Jackson seemed not interested in fulfilling his direction.
Jackson allegedly said about the ruling of the chief judge: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him make him!”
Almost 200 years later, Trump himself was on his own collision with the judicial system of America.
