‘…Although Trump has exhibited some good intentions in regards to finishing the Ukrainian conflict, his cabinet, with very few exceptions, is not to be trusted and some of his picks will quite possibly try to sabotage his future actions….’
Might President Trump convene a Dept of Cabinet Efficiency to follow the outcomes of cabinet members work/efforts, so that nothing is slow-walked or stone-walled? I hope so.
If the unelected fourth branch of government, the administrative state, is not subject to the president, in effect, the People have no right to change policy through elections.
That notion is absurd.
I think the fear being exhibited by Congress and federal employees is proof that all executive power is vested in the president. It's way past time to clip the wings of the Deep State.
The Catholic Bishops never should have gotten in bed with the feds and taken their money. It’s their own fault that they find themselves in the fix they’re in. I won’t be kicking in extra when the basket is passed for a second collection.
Unbelievable. I looked it up and "audaciam traducis," "insolentia," "superbia," "impudentia" et al. just don't have the same ring to them as "chutzpah."
I did some pro bono work via Catholic Charities before I figured them out about two decades ago, figuring since that I'd successfully and unambiguously unplugged and unsubscribed. Just over the weekend, I suddenly received a "Dear Old Friend" letter from my (formerly) local CC office hitting me up for money "in these difficult times." I think I eye-rolled myself all the way back into January. They have completely lost the plot.
Good day and thanks for the upbeat start of my reading time. What Ms. Olga Bazova has written is just the facts; I like her frank, well spoken writing style. More and more, on the subject of "Trump moves" (what the words/actions mean, what real affect they're having in real time on every other player's moves...), I am just happy for the positive estimations being given by Alex Krainer, Ray McGovern, and Robert Barnes. Three men who root for Trump and give distinctive perspectives on why he may be doing as he does. Mr. Krainer gives a very big picture of re-aligning the world's nations' playing field during his conversation with Crypto Rich and Tom Luongo, three days ago....
Happy for RU to bring the receipts for what US politicians said back in the day to please their neocon masters. Neoconservatism was the religion of the Washington elite, and you did not succeed without confessing it.
But, I'm also happy to see that photo of Rubio sitting down at the table with Lavrov.
From Blinken's point of view, Rubio is sitting down at the middle school lunch table with the unpopular kids.
"Neoconservatism was the religion of the Washington elite, and you did not succeed without confessing it."
More correctly....until you put on a Yarmulke and weep at the wall. The wall is nothing but a retainer wall never really part of the Temple yet............... good grief.
I was very aware that the #1 criteria for "judging" Supreme Court nominees in Trump 1.0 was their view of the illegality of Chevron and their desire to reinstate the Unitary Executive in the presidency.
I'm not by birth but by family. My mother was Aussie with Brit/Welsh blood with a little Spanish mixed in. I think the Spanish strain had some Sephardic mixed in. Mom didn't talk a lot about her family history.
The headline yesterday was that only the President and Attorney General could interpret the law. That leaves out an important part: only the President and Attorney General can interpret the law FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
From the Order:
The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.
Correct. I was writing in a rush and realized I needed to be more precise. Each branch gets to interpret, but WITHIN the Executive Branch there is only one unified voice (because the AG is subordinate in the end to the POTUS).
Recall that at the founding, after the Articles of Confederation, the concerns were twofold, and can be reflected in the critique of Parliament in the Declaration. Parliament had taken severe actions against the colonies and the King had not blocked them.
Article 1 is first because the initial concern and assumption is that the Legislature could do anything it could get votes for. The people would be closer to their reps and the states would direct their senators. Article 1 prohibits Congress, not enables it. The idea being that Congress does not need to be enabled, it will act as a matter of course, interests.
Article 2 less defines what executive action means and more says that there are certain things the executive must do.
Article 3 is the shortest and lays out the limits of judicial power, which has been defined by later legislation.
It was understood in 1787 that Washington would be the first executive. After that, aside from a few instances with Jackson and Lincoln, Congress ran things into the 20th century. The President was not viewed as the head of the government.
The advent of the Telegraph changed the culture: electric speed of life. Action. Eventually Woodrow Wilson writes about the need for the President to be the head of government and elections reflecting this.
Over time Congress, in a time of mass media, took the path of least resistance and stopped crafting detailed legislation (they used to do this). It essentially allowed the President to be the front man. The courts became the stop against executive powers, reflecting the larger resistance in the culture to “authority” and desire for democracy: I get to choose.
The executive became more about using the pulpit to try and form “opinion” and then allow Congress to do what it does: get paid as long as everyone is on the same page. It led to people not needing to be “responsible,” and no true “elites” after the 1960s.
We are now in a new Paradigm, driven by the ubiquitous adoption of Digital technology. The effects of this are: lack of agreement, thus trust, and concern for the “particulars” of people’s lives, as opposed to concern for the “public” or “masses.”
So now people are horrified to see what the “government” has actually been doing, which it has been doing for decades. This reflects the lack of responsibility anywhere (no one to really blame for the larger picture). So what is happening globally is a moved to executives. Trump becomes a reflection of this. He has in fact been an executive for decades now. He knows what that looks like.
Think of Federalist #1 and it’s talk about “safety.” In order to have the government work as they intended it, there has to be safety and broad agreement. We no longer have this. Hamilton, and Madison more subtly, understood that this would be the area for the Executive to act. Safety has to be present to have a normal functioning Republic. We don’t have that. And we are not likely to for a while. So Trump is putting himself out to be the “responsible” one.
The Court is keenly aware of what is happening. The Roberts era has been defined by a deference to letting politics take place. There are challenges with appointments that blend executive and judicial powers, say Comptroller. But generally, the Court is likely to give room for the Executive functions. Congress can take actions if it wants to, but they are risk adverse and will be for a while, and just because they take actions does not mean it is constitutional. Again, no broad agreement in the culture and lack of safety: a new version of wild west.
People don’t care that much about democracy now. They want answers to how to live their lives. This can bee seem broadly around the world.
The executive gets to interpret the constitution just as Congress and the Judiciary. Presidents have not pushed this to ultimate conclusions out of a fear of what Television/Media would say about them. But we don’t live in that environment anymore.
One can argue that the Founder’s wanted the Executive to be stronger in order for the federal government to function as intended. Hamilton argued that all executive powers needed for any circumstance are available in the Constitution (meaning it can’t be strictly defined and must be carried out to know if it has limits).
There you go again, Jeff, quoting the Constitution! Don't you realise that it's a living document which means whatever Judge Chutnut in One Street, Delaware decides it means?
The Courts are getting hemmed in. The culture no longer accepts these types of interpretations. The fantasy views of humans are quickly fading. The courts risk their reputation, which the USSC is quite aware of. They have no power of the purse or sword, only opinion, and opinion is no longer what it once was…
What is coming at us: increased calls for a new Constitution. Digital has blown things apart. All across the cultural and political spectrum there is a desire for a Constitutional structure that can deal with the changes coming at us. Right now, there really is no structure that can withstand anything. The current Constitution was part of modernity, which we have largely rejected, and had a certain view of humans: mechanical, progressive, sinners that cannot get past that spot. We are developing a different understanding of humans: ensouled beings. So get ready for the debates on a new constitution.
Agreed. That's why I try to stress that America is a country with two Liberal parties, Right and Left, that share a harmful view of humans. While the inadequacy of the Constitution is apparent, for now it's still better than the alternatives. The great trick would be to move the country to embrace a more originalist view that would allow then for incremental reform. But that won't happen without conversion.
Yes, I think that's the dynamic here. The courts are getting hemmed in. As you said above, Roberts understands that the judiciary functions WITHIN a political system--not somehow apart from it. Checks and balances function system wide. For that system to function the judiciary must respect the legitimate roles of the other branches. The judiciary can stand up against abuse of the constitutional order, but it must do so on the basis of definable principles.
Great, great stuff Mark. Your quick overview matches a front section of the Chicago Tribune from back in the day (absent Mike Royko and the weather page, of course).
I love the Russian view. Please, hold our feet to the fire and make Trump take irreversible actions (specifically closing military bases). Alex Krainer said recently that the US will become a part of BRICS (but of course, the name will have to change to TRUMPRICS or something like that). Letter to the editor: We are heading to that level of tectonic change.
Are their infantry going to use a bigger type of broomstick? Or was that the Germans? It will be interesting to see the public reaction to this kind of stuff in the countries concerned. Personally, I can't see many of today's young people being willing to sign on to this.
Oh, and the size of their army is 16'000 full time and 44'000 reserves. It's obvious that Putin didn't think things through when he decided to take on NATO! :)
‘…Although Trump has exhibited some good intentions in regards to finishing the Ukrainian conflict, his cabinet, with very few exceptions, is not to be trusted and some of his picks will quite possibly try to sabotage his future actions….’
Might President Trump convene a Dept of Cabinet Efficiency to follow the outcomes of cabinet members work/efforts, so that nothing is slow-walked or stone-walled? I hope so.
These commissions you cite, they have been defanged by SCOTUS, in terms of regulatory enactments.
If the unelected fourth branch of government, the administrative state, is not subject to the president, in effect, the People have no right to change policy through elections.
That notion is absurd.
I think the fear being exhibited by Congress and federal employees is proof that all executive power is vested in the president. It's way past time to clip the wings of the Deep State.
I wonder if the power extends to rescinding existing interpretations.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/02/yale-scientists-link-covid-shot-rare-alarming-syndrome/
Terrifying - longer explanation
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/yale-proved-covid-vax-injury-exists?
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/usccb-sues-trump-administration-for-halting-funding-for-refugee-resettlement/
https://redstate.com/streiff/2025/02/19/catholic-bishops-sue-trump-demanding-guaranteed-income-n2185749
The Catholic Bishops never should have gotten in bed with the feds and taken their money. It’s their own fault that they find themselves in the fix they’re in. I won’t be kicking in extra when the basket is passed for a second collection.
Good grief. Sounds like the Bishops are worried about paying their bookies.
Unbelievable. I looked it up and "audaciam traducis," "insolentia," "superbia," "impudentia" et al. just don't have the same ring to them as "chutzpah."
I did some pro bono work via Catholic Charities before I figured them out about two decades ago, figuring since that I'd successfully and unambiguously unplugged and unsubscribed. Just over the weekend, I suddenly received a "Dear Old Friend" letter from my (formerly) local CC office hitting me up for money "in these difficult times." I think I eye-rolled myself all the way back into January. They have completely lost the plot.
The Church has lost not just the plot, but their reason for being. Where's St. Francis when he is needed?
Rehearsing his funeral.
Good day and thanks for the upbeat start of my reading time. What Ms. Olga Bazova has written is just the facts; I like her frank, well spoken writing style. More and more, on the subject of "Trump moves" (what the words/actions mean, what real affect they're having in real time on every other player's moves...), I am just happy for the positive estimations being given by Alex Krainer, Ray McGovern, and Robert Barnes. Three men who root for Trump and give distinctive perspectives on why he may be doing as he does. Mr. Krainer gives a very big picture of re-aligning the world's nations' playing field during his conversation with Crypto Rich and Tom Luongo, three days ago....
https://rumble.com/v6l96oa-the-hidden-war-between-britain-and-america-with-tom-luongo-and-alex-krainer.html
Happy for RU to bring the receipts for what US politicians said back in the day to please their neocon masters. Neoconservatism was the religion of the Washington elite, and you did not succeed without confessing it.
But, I'm also happy to see that photo of Rubio sitting down at the table with Lavrov.
From Blinken's point of view, Rubio is sitting down at the middle school lunch table with the unpopular kids.
God speed Mr. Rubio.
"Neoconservatism was the religion of the Washington elite, and you did not succeed without confessing it."
More correctly....until you put on a Yarmulke and weep at the wall. The wall is nothing but a retainer wall never really part of the Temple yet............... good grief.
Do you think Rubio is taking notes?
To paraphrase, the wailing wall is the Uniparty at prayer.
Rubio is being schooled in diplomacy at Lavrov University.
He's teachable!
Every time I see or hear Olga I always end up laughing at her brutal honesty and penetrating intelligence. I wish there were ten more of her.
I was very aware that the #1 criteria for "judging" Supreme Court nominees in Trump 1.0 was their view of the illegality of Chevron and their desire to reinstate the Unitary Executive in the presidency.
In other words, "Do you believe in the Constitution and that the only role of the SCOTUS is to uphold the Constitution?"
OOOOh, for a guy in Switzerland you are certainly wired in, Steg!
Well, I'm a Brit by birth, Cos, and a lover of America, so I try to stay in touch.
I'm not by birth but by family. My mother was Aussie with Brit/Welsh blood with a little Spanish mixed in. I think the Spanish strain had some Sephardic mixed in. Mom didn't talk a lot about her family history.
The headline yesterday was that only the President and Attorney General could interpret the law. That leaves out an important part: only the President and Attorney General can interpret the law FOR THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH.
From the Order:
The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.
Correct. I was writing in a rush and realized I needed to be more precise. Each branch gets to interpret, but WITHIN the Executive Branch there is only one unified voice (because the AG is subordinate in the end to the POTUS).
Well done Mark.
Recall that at the founding, after the Articles of Confederation, the concerns were twofold, and can be reflected in the critique of Parliament in the Declaration. Parliament had taken severe actions against the colonies and the King had not blocked them.
Article 1 is first because the initial concern and assumption is that the Legislature could do anything it could get votes for. The people would be closer to their reps and the states would direct their senators. Article 1 prohibits Congress, not enables it. The idea being that Congress does not need to be enabled, it will act as a matter of course, interests.
Article 2 less defines what executive action means and more says that there are certain things the executive must do.
Article 3 is the shortest and lays out the limits of judicial power, which has been defined by later legislation.
It was understood in 1787 that Washington would be the first executive. After that, aside from a few instances with Jackson and Lincoln, Congress ran things into the 20th century. The President was not viewed as the head of the government.
The advent of the Telegraph changed the culture: electric speed of life. Action. Eventually Woodrow Wilson writes about the need for the President to be the head of government and elections reflecting this.
Over time Congress, in a time of mass media, took the path of least resistance and stopped crafting detailed legislation (they used to do this). It essentially allowed the President to be the front man. The courts became the stop against executive powers, reflecting the larger resistance in the culture to “authority” and desire for democracy: I get to choose.
The executive became more about using the pulpit to try and form “opinion” and then allow Congress to do what it does: get paid as long as everyone is on the same page. It led to people not needing to be “responsible,” and no true “elites” after the 1960s.
We are now in a new Paradigm, driven by the ubiquitous adoption of Digital technology. The effects of this are: lack of agreement, thus trust, and concern for the “particulars” of people’s lives, as opposed to concern for the “public” or “masses.”
So now people are horrified to see what the “government” has actually been doing, which it has been doing for decades. This reflects the lack of responsibility anywhere (no one to really blame for the larger picture). So what is happening globally is a moved to executives. Trump becomes a reflection of this. He has in fact been an executive for decades now. He knows what that looks like.
Think of Federalist #1 and it’s talk about “safety.” In order to have the government work as they intended it, there has to be safety and broad agreement. We no longer have this. Hamilton, and Madison more subtly, understood that this would be the area for the Executive to act. Safety has to be present to have a normal functioning Republic. We don’t have that. And we are not likely to for a while. So Trump is putting himself out to be the “responsible” one.
The Court is keenly aware of what is happening. The Roberts era has been defined by a deference to letting politics take place. There are challenges with appointments that blend executive and judicial powers, say Comptroller. But generally, the Court is likely to give room for the Executive functions. Congress can take actions if it wants to, but they are risk adverse and will be for a while, and just because they take actions does not mean it is constitutional. Again, no broad agreement in the culture and lack of safety: a new version of wild west.
People don’t care that much about democracy now. They want answers to how to live their lives. This can bee seem broadly around the world.
The executive gets to interpret the constitution just as Congress and the Judiciary. Presidents have not pushed this to ultimate conclusions out of a fear of what Television/Media would say about them. But we don’t live in that environment anymore.
One can argue that the Founder’s wanted the Executive to be stronger in order for the federal government to function as intended. Hamilton argued that all executive powers needed for any circumstance are available in the Constitution (meaning it can’t be strictly defined and must be carried out to know if it has limits).
There you go again, Jeff, quoting the Constitution! Don't you realise that it's a living document which means whatever Judge Chutnut in One Street, Delaware decides it means?
The Courts are getting hemmed in. The culture no longer accepts these types of interpretations. The fantasy views of humans are quickly fading. The courts risk their reputation, which the USSC is quite aware of. They have no power of the purse or sword, only opinion, and opinion is no longer what it once was…
What is coming at us: increased calls for a new Constitution. Digital has blown things apart. All across the cultural and political spectrum there is a desire for a Constitutional structure that can deal with the changes coming at us. Right now, there really is no structure that can withstand anything. The current Constitution was part of modernity, which we have largely rejected, and had a certain view of humans: mechanical, progressive, sinners that cannot get past that spot. We are developing a different understanding of humans: ensouled beings. So get ready for the debates on a new constitution.
Agreed. That's why I try to stress that America is a country with two Liberal parties, Right and Left, that share a harmful view of humans. While the inadequacy of the Constitution is apparent, for now it's still better than the alternatives. The great trick would be to move the country to embrace a more originalist view that would allow then for incremental reform. But that won't happen without conversion.
well said, Mark!
Yes, I think that's the dynamic here. The courts are getting hemmed in. As you said above, Roberts understands that the judiciary functions WITHIN a political system--not somehow apart from it. Checks and balances function system wide. For that system to function the judiciary must respect the legitimate roles of the other branches. The judiciary can stand up against abuse of the constitutional order, but it must do so on the basis of definable principles.
Great, great stuff Mark. Your quick overview matches a front section of the Chicago Tribune from back in the day (absent Mike Royko and the weather page, of course).
I love the Russian view. Please, hold our feet to the fire and make Trump take irreversible actions (specifically closing military bases). Alex Krainer said recently that the US will become a part of BRICS (but of course, the name will have to change to TRUMPRICS or something like that). Letter to the editor: We are heading to that level of tectonic change.
The choice is BRICS or PRICKS.
It’s amazing that the SEC to my knowledge has never investigated stock market inside-trading by senior Congressional members. Looking at you Nancy..!
Unfortunately it’s legal per the rules Congress set for themselves
Additional details--legal guys have yet to way in. This big news--implied in many earlier EOs--is catching people off guard:
https://redstate.com/streiff/2025/02/19/the-trump-executive-order-wipes-out-90-years-of-practice-and-permanently-changes-the-executive-branch-n2185746
"The formerly independent agencies must clear all regulations through OMB."
Not The Onion, not the Babylon Bee:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/denmark-set-announce-massive-rearmament-plans
Interesting. Versus shifting to a neutral posture, staying out of the limelight or shutting their mouths. That’s worth at least $7B.
Are their infantry going to use a bigger type of broomstick? Or was that the Germans? It will be interesting to see the public reaction to this kind of stuff in the countries concerned. Personally, I can't see many of today's young people being willing to sign on to this.
Don't they have mandatory military service already?
Oh, and the size of their army is 16'000 full time and 44'000 reserves. It's obvious that Putin didn't think things through when he decided to take on NATO! :)
Just checked, Jeff. Yes, they do. 4-12 months mandatory. I hope they don't terrify Vlad too much by increasing it to 14 months.
Head for the bunkers!
Just when I thought it as safe to come out again after Covid too! :)