Trump And Vance Aren’t Defying The Constitution, They’re Following It
Democrats and pundits have exaggerated Vice President J.D. Vance’s remarks into a ‘constitutional crisis.’
Under the Constitution, “the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion.” For his decisions, “he is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience.” His choices cannot be questioned in court because “the subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and being entrusted to the executive, the decision of the executive is conclusive.”
Who penned these outrageous words? Democrats and many pundits might answer Vice President J.D. Vance. Over the weekend, Vance provoked an onslaught of criticism for suggesting that federal district judges “aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
But the usual suspects would be wrong. The right answer is John Marshall, the greatest chief justice in Supreme Court history. And he did not squirrel this view away in a private journal. Instead, Marshall publicly explained that courts could not review presidential decisions on “political” subjects “entrusted to the executive” in a Supreme Court opinion.
Constitutionalism
Amicus Brief: Hon. William P. Barr and Hon. Michael B. Mukasey in Support of Petitioners
Former AGs Barr and Mukasey Cite Civitas in a SCOTUS Brief
Rational Judicial Review: Constitutions as Power-sharing Agreements, Secession, and the Problem of Dred Scott
Judicial review and originalism serve as valuable commitment mechanisms to enforce future compliance with a political bargain.
.avif)
What’s Wrong with a Military Campaign Against the Drug Trade
Trump’s boat strikes against the cartels risk crossing the line between law enforcement and war.
The Long History of Presidential Discretion
The Framers did not expect Congress to preauthorize every use of force or to manage military campaigns.
.avif)
.avif)
.webp)
Judge Oldham's Olson Lecture: Yet Another FedSoc Debate or an Existential Challenge?
Judge Andrew S. Oldham’s Olson lecture reminds us that what worked for the Federalist Society in 1985 may not work in 2025 — and almost certainly won’t in 2065.
Ban the Filibuster — But Only for Continuing Budget Resolutions
Suspending the filibuster for continuing resolutions may have benefited Republicans this time, but the reform makes sense regardless of which party holds power.
.webp)
