President Trump posted a sentence on social media on Saturday, which seemed to encapsulate his attitude as he tested the legal and constitutional boundaries of the United States in the process of elevating the federal government and punishing his perceived enemies.
Mr. Trump first socializes on his social media platform Truth, and then wrote on Site X: “Those who save the country will not violate any law.”
By late afternoon, Mr. Trump had pinned the statement to the top of his Truth Social Feed, which clearly shows that it was not an outdated idea, but an idea he wanted people to absorb. The official White House account on X posted his message at night.
The offer is sometimes attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, although its origins are not yet known.
Nevertheless, this emotion is familiar: Mr. Trump repeatedly suggests surviving two assassination attempts through his words, actions and actions, proving that he has divine support to execute his will.
He has a more positive attitude towards the use of power in the White House than in his first term. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that his power to return to the presidency was supported, that any crime he committed against him that he might use official powers was considered exempt from prosecution.
In the first few weeks of his tenure, Mr. Trump signed a number of executive orders that, with a generally understood limit on presidential power, fired many officials and removed an agency with a clear violation of statutory restrictions and without clear authority The spending authorized by Congress was frozen under the circumstances. Many of his policy actions were at least temporarily frozen by the judge.
Such moves include attempts to unilaterally rewrite the definition of birthright citizenship as set out in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to exclude babies born to undocumented mothers and mass shootings by civil servants who ignore the Civil Service Protection Act. He almost shut down the agency responsible for foreign aid, dismissed the prosecutor who investigated him, and fired the Senate-confirmed regulator without properly notifying Congress or reason.
Mr. Trump’s team has accepted a wide version of the so-called unified enforcement theory, which says the ideology of the theory should be understood as prohibiting any restrictions on the president’s control over the executive branch, including the establishment of independent institutions, or restrictions. The president’s ability to temporarily fire any government official.
The Trump administration first did not provide the public legal principle, which was to provide various work protections to the officials Mr. Trump fired through regulations, including members of independent bodies such as the National Labor and Industrial Relations Commission.
But last week, the government provided some explanations. Acting Attorney General of the Justice Department, Sarah M., said the president cannot remove such officials at will, but only for specific reasons such as misconduct.
Ms. Harris’s letter does not use the term “unified implementation theory” but echoes the ideological purpose that the Constitution does not allow Congress to enact laws, “which prevents the president from fully overseeing the president of the executive branch, who executes it. The Presidential Representative of the Law Enforcement of Laws. “The Trump administration will try to make the Supreme Court overturn the opposite precedent in 1935.
At least it is a theory, at least what Mr. Trump does is legal: ignoring unconstitutional regulations is not illegal.
But, on the surface, Mr. Trump’s statement on Saturday further developed, suggesting that even if what he did clearly breaks the otherwise effective law, it doesn’t matter that he said his motivation was to save the country.
There are a few instances where other presidents claim to have the power to go beyond legal restrictions, but are usually limited to national security.
For example, in the early days of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended his habeas protection and summoned troops, otherwise it spent money, and Congress, which had not yet attended, had not been allocated.
When Congress reconvened, Lincoln sent them a letter telling them what he did, and famously asked: “Apart from one law, all laws are not enforced, and the government itself must do fragments to avoid being violated by a person. “He also said that what he did was “strictly legal or not” was necessary, and Congress retroactively approved his actions.
More than a century later, after President Richard Nixon resigned to avoid being shot in each of the Watergate scandals, he spoke in an interview about wiretapping and other steps that seem illegal but are promised to protect foreign threats. Nixon took Lincoln’s example as an example to say that if the president believes that doing so is in the national interest, he authorized government officials to violate the inherent power of the law.
“When the president does this, it means it’s not illegal,” Nixon said.
After the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush served as commander-in-chief.
Although national security cases are rarely filed, the Supreme Court has been skeptical to eliminate presidential power theory, for example, strike President Harry S.
Anyway, so far, Mr. Trump’s actions have largely not entered the field of national security. Instead, he has been trying to eliminate the independence bags that Congress has created within the executive branch in order to concentrate greater power in the White House, a problem with domestic policy in large part.
Mr. Trump and some of his allies have promoted the political argument that the country has been surrounded by the characteristics of leftist policies and values and has been trapped in a spiral decline of decline that must be reversed by any means necessary.
Russell Vought, the head of Mr. Trump’s budget, wrote an article in 2022, declaring that the United States is already in a “post-constitutional moment” and that in order to oppose liberals, it is necessary to discard it To be “radical” or to reconsider the legal paradigm of the ability to return us to the original constitution. ”
