The Article I Section 4 was drafted by the Framers specifically to grant primary authority to regulate elections to the states, to the state legislatures. It also gave the authority to Congress to act directly, but one entity it didn't give any authority whatsoever to was the President of the United States.
Tulsi Gabbard's statement here is totally false. Her effort to lie to Congress and the public to justify an unauthorized, unconstitutional war is shameless. She could have said: The only person who is commander in chief of the Armed Forces is the president. That still would have been a dodge, but at least it would have been true.
Trump wins 69% of cases before Trump-appointed district judges. Now compare that to: 21% win rate before non-Trump Republican appointees and 38.6% win rate before Democratic appointees. Earlier Republican-appointed judges rule against Trump at a rate approaching four out of five cases. That means Trump's 69% success rate before his own appointees isn't some partisan alignment, but rather a notable statistical anomaly.
When the Framers conceived of the separation of powers, they never planned for, 'what if one branch doesn't want any powers?' The Senate voted to NOT have a vote on approving Iran strikes, creating constitutional uncertainty about how the system functions when branches decline to exercise their designated authorities and responsibilities.
Democracy in the United States, and its institutions, are certainly under pressure. They are holding, but under strain. What is unusual is that Congress often absolves itself of its normal responsibility to serve as a co-equal branch of government in the legislative process and in overseeing the executive branch. This has been seen in debates including tariffs, the use of military force, and the elimination of institutions like USAID that were congressionally mandated.
But if you view the year through the lens of the president's powers, all of that action comes to seem more circumscribed. By neglecting some of the most significant formal and informal tools at his disposal, Trump has largely failed to advance durable policy change, at least on domestic matters. He has dominated a lot of news cycles, but at the expense of shaping the future-for good or ill.
When a president says his authority is limited only by his own morality, the Constitution has already been violated. The oath of office binds the president to law, not conscience, not instinct, not personal judgment. Claiming otherwise is a declaration that constitutional limits are optional. This is not rhetoric. It is an imminent danger. A president who believes only he restrains himself is asserting personal sovereignty. That is the definition of autocracy.
Canada's Liberal government is pushing through sweeping new legislation targeting refugees that observers fear will usher in a new era of US-style border policies, fueling xenophobia and the scapegoating of immigrants.
In just the past 11 months, his administration has canceled billions of dollars in foreign aid, frozen billions of dollars in research grants, imposed new conditions on other grants and contracts, slashed agency staffs, and even sought to claw back certain prior grant payments. At the same time, it has employed military resources to assist immigration enforcement, offered civil-service buyouts without statutory authority, and reportedly used a private donation to help pay military salaries during this fall's government shutdown.
On September 2, United States President Donald Trump released grainy footage of a missile obliterating a fishing boat off Venezuela's coast. Eleven people died instantly. The administration called them narcoterrorists. Venezuelan sources identified them as fishermen. Since then, the US military has conducted at least 22 strikes, killing 87 people, with investigations revealing that the first attack included a second strike to kill two survivors clinging to wreckage a potential war crime under international law.
Peering wide-eyed and black-turtlenecked from a shelf load of magazine covers. Honored as a "Woman of the Year" by Glamour. Touted as one of Time's "100 Most Influential People." At age 30, Holmes was regarded as a preternatural business talent - and, more impressively, described as the youngest self-made female billionaire in history - owing to her founding and stewardship of Theranos, a Silicon Valley start-up that promised to revolutionize health care by diagnosing a host of maladies with just a pinprick's worth of blood.
President Donald Trump may be stretching executive power to its outermost bounds, but in one very significant area he is simply not getting his way: criminal prosecutions. In many cases-such as those of former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, charges against whom were thrown out by a federal judge in Virginia today-the basic, ground-level machinery of the criminal-justice system has thwarted the administration.
As he hosted Republican senators at the White House, Trump offered some initial thoughts on the Democratic victories across the country on election night. Last night, it was not expected to be a victory, it was very Democrat areas. But I don't think it was good for Republicans, he said. I'm not sure it was good for anybody. He added: We had an interesting evening, and we learned a lot, and we're going to talk about that.
