Trump and Foley Are Wrong on the TikTok Law
There is no serious claim that the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act is unconstitutional.
I am no stranger to advising presidents that they can resist intrusions into their constitutional powers. Nevertheless, I couldn’t help but disagree with Elizabeth Price Foley’s op-ed “Trump’s Reprieve for TikTok Is Legitimate” (Jan. 27).
Article II of the Constitution vests the president with “the executive power” of the U.S. and recognizes his authority as commander in chief. As Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist No. 75, “the execution of the laws and the employment of the common strength either for this purpose or for the common defense, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate.” If Congress orders a war against the president’s wishes or makes an alliance he doesn’t seek, it has violated the Constitution.
But there is a world of difference between those cases and the TikTok law. Congress exercised its authority under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” There is no serious claim that the law is unconstitutional, especially after a unanimous Supreme Court rejected TikTok’s free-speech claims on Jan. 17. This renders off point the claim that President Trump can refuse to enforce the law because it is just like Congress forbidding him from firing cabinet officials or waging war in the most effective way.
Continue reading the entire article at the Wall Street Journal
Constitutionalism
The Case Against Birthright Citizenship
No one at the time or now has advanced a coherent explanation as to why birthright citizenship is desirable as a matter of principle.
.webp)
The Arrival of Legal Traditionalism
With a clearer view of what justifies its traditionalist intuitions, the Court has an opportunity to right many residual wrongs from its past misadventures.
