↓
 
Home » Please watch: Dershowitz says it perfectly

Please watch: Dershowitz says it perfectly

The New Neo Posted on by

As my regular readers are almost certainly aware, I have a law degree from a university that’s supposedly not too shabby. But it was a long long time ago that I sat in a law school classroom. I didn’t like most of my classes, although there were a few exceptions that I liked very much, such as what had traditionally been known as Jurisprudence. I finally realized even while in school that I probably wouldn’t be practicing law, for a host of reasons; one of them was the fact that at the time I was fairly shy.

Nevertheless I did somehow take in a lot of valuable knowledge, and I don’t mean “valuable” in the sense of earning money at the law – which I never did – but “valuable” in life. The same skill that got me through some exams where I didn’t really know the answer – that is, using a combination of gut intuition and some knowledge – stood me in good stead in life, when a friend would ask me a legal question and I’d answer, “Well, my knowledge of law is very old, and I’m not a member of the bar, and I don’t know the specific law at this point, but here’s my best guess … ” . And of course that rusty old knowledge enables me to at least understand most of the legal questions that pop up again and again when I blog.

If people had told me I’d be voluntarily writing legal papers several times a week, at my age, I’d say they’d lost their minds. Yet here we are.

Anyway, that’s all an introduction to the fact that I feel the weight of the need to write of what I think the issues are with Trump’s efforts at shrinking the federal government, versus what the MSM wants the public to think. The answers will be different for each agency, depending on what is being attempted by Trump and company, and whether the agency is wholly under the executive branch or whether Congress was involved (and in what way Congress was involved). It’s not simple; it’s complex, and the courts will undoubtedly get very involved, with some of the questions almost certain to end up being decided by SCOTUS. And all the way, the MSM will try to stir up hysteria on the left by claiming that Trump is doing something Hitlerian and dangerous.

I have some general thoughts on the matter that I was trying to formulate and organize when I happened to click on the following video by Alan Dershowitz, and I discovered – as has been the case so many times – that he summed up exactly what I was thinking, only he says it more elegantly and succinctly. I’ve cued up about a 21-minute segment that covers it nicely, and I urge you to listen (you can speed it up if you like; that’s what I usually do).

You might want to send it to people you know who are frantic about what’s happening. Will it help? I don’t know, but perhaps there’s a chance.

Comments

Please watch: Dershowitz says it perfectly — 15 Comments

  2. Heh, now that I’ve actually listened to this fascinating video I am ASTONISHED that Dershowitz did not once mention the extreme executive over-reach of the “Biden” administration—and its INCREDIBLE ACTIVISM (including ignoring court orders)—nor did he mention, in his longish disquisition on the Constitution’s purpose being to resolve crises—including all the many Constitutional crises throughout the country’s history—that “Biden”’s presidency was marked precisely by GOVERNMENT BY INTENTIONALLY CREATING CRISIS.

    Astonishing, indeed…and it demonstrates that Dershowitzes political preconceptions still hold in spite of the seemingly immense distance—brought about BY “BIDEN”’s EXCESSES AND ABUSES—that Dershowitz appears to have traveled….

    File under: Man of Iron[y]

  3. Heh, now that I’ve actually listened to this fascinating video I am ASTONISHED that Dershowitz did not once mention the extreme executive over-reach of the “Biden” administration—and its INCREDIBLE ACTIVISM (including ignoring court orders)—nor did he mention, in his longish disquisition on the Constitution’s purpose being to resolve crises—including all the many Constitutional crises throughout the country’s history—that “Biden”’s presidency was marked precisely by GOVERNMENT BY INTENTIONALLY CREATING CRISIS.

    Astonishing, indeed…and it demonstrates that Dershowitz’s political preconceptions still hold in spite of the seemingly immense distance—brought about PRECISELY BY “BIDEN”’s EXCESSES AND ABUSES—that Dershowitz appears to have traveled….

    File under: Man of Iron[y]

  4. Sorry about the double post, which I suspect it was caused by those pesky bots…

    Neo, if possible kindly delete the first one. TIA…

  5. neo

    If people had told me I’d be voluntarily writing legal papers several times a week, at my age, I’d say they’d lost their minds. Yet here we are.

    Too bad you ain’t a criminal – you would’ve made a *GREAT* Jailhouse Lawyer…

  7. I asked GROK 2 “Is the 1974 Impoundment Act constitutional?”

    It’s reply:

    The constitutionality of the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act has been a subject of debate, primarily due to how it interacts with the separation of powers:

    Separation of Powers: The U.S. Constitution divides federal power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. One key aspect relevant to the Impoundment Control Act is the President’s power over the execution of laws, including the spending of funds appropriated by Congress. The Act was passed to limit the President’s ability to impound funds, which means to refuse to spend money Congress has allocated for specific purposes.
    The Act’s Purpose: The 1974 Act was designed to reinforce Congress’s control over the budget process by establishing procedures for budget formulation, approval, and oversight. It includes mechanisms like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to provide independent analysis and the requirement for the President to submit a detailed budget proposal.
    Constitutional Challenges: Critics argue that the Act might infringe on the executive’s constitutional authority under Article II, which states that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Impoundment was seen by some Presidents as part of this execution authority, allowing them to manage fiscal policy more effectively or to veto parts of spending they opposed.
    Legal Precedents and Interpretations:
    Train v. City of New York (1975): This case upheld the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act, affirming Congress’s power to control spending through legislation. The Supreme Court did not directly address the separation of powers issue in this context but supported the legislative framework for budget control.
    Line Item Veto Act: Later, in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), the Supreme Court struck down a law giving the President line-item veto power over appropriations, arguing it violated the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7), which requires that every bill passed by Congress must be presented to the President for approval or veto in its entirety. While this case doesn’t directly address the 1974 Act, it underscores the Court’s view on maintaining the legislative-executive balance in budget control.
    Political and Scholarly Debate: There’s ongoing debate among scholars and politicians about where the line should be drawn between Congress’s appropriation authority and the President’s execution authority. Some argue that the Act properly restores balance by preventing executive overreach, while others see it as an unnecessary constraint on executive flexibility in managing federal spending.

    In summary, while there have been no direct Supreme Court rulings declaring the 1974 Impoundment Control Act unconstitutional, its alignment with the separation of powers doctrine remains a topic of scholarly and political discussion. The Act has functioned within the political system for decades, suggesting a general acceptance of its constitutionality, but the debate reflects broader tensions about checks and balances in government.

    The Professor talks about Truman’s impoundment of funds for military equipment no longer necessary at the end of WWII, which I think would be relevant to the idea that the Executive branch has no say over appropriated funds.

    If in fact appropriated funds are being used in a manner that is fraudulent/wasteful/counter to the understood goals of Congress, I can’t imagine the SC saying the Executive Branch has no say about those funds.

    One of the comments on the video noticed the The Professor never answered the question–“Trump versus the courts: who will win?”

  8. I can’t imagine that Congressional appropriations are so specific that the President has no latitude in how or whether all the money is spent, for example the USAID-funded drag shows in Peru I really doubt were a line item in an appropriation.

  9. I don’t know if this is germane, but Congress passes an annual budget that funds that year’s spending. Can one Congress obligate spending for succeeding Congresses?

    So I asked GROK 2: did supreme court strike down law that encumbered future congresses?

    The U.S. Supreme Court has indeed struck down laws that were seen to encumber or constrain the legislative powers of future Congresses, primarily based on the doctrine of separation of powers and the principle that one Congress cannot bind another. Here are some key instances:

    INS v. Chadha (1983): This is one of the most significant cases regarding the legislative veto, where Congress had attempted to retain control over executive actions through a veto mechanism that did not require the President’s signature or a full legislative process. The Supreme Court ruled that the legislative veto was unconstitutional because it violated the Presentment Clause of Article I, which mandates that all legislative actions must be presented to the President for approval or veto. This decision effectively meant that one Congress cannot impose procedures or requirements on future Congresses that bypass the constitutional process for legislation.
    City of New York v. Clinton (1998): In this case, the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act of 1996, which allowed the President to cancel certain provisions of appropriations bills without having to veto the entire bill. The Court ruled that this act violated the Presentment Clause because it allowed the President to amend or repeal parts of a law passed by Congress, thereby allowing one branch to alter the legislative process set by another. This decision reinforced the principle that each Congress must have the full power to legislate without constraints from past Congresses through such mechanisms.

    These rulings underscore a fundamental principle of U.S. constitutional law: that each session of Congress should have the capacity to legislate freely according to the needs of its time without being unduly constrained by the decisions of past ones. This ensures flexibility and responsiveness in lawmaking but also means that attempts to lock in long-term fiscal or policy commitments through legislation can be legally challenged if they overstep these constitutional boundaries.

    It does seem that one Congress can’t constrain future sessions would also enter the discussion of legislative action binding future administrations.

  10. I would gladly listen to the video, except You Tube won’t let me. It wants me to sign in.

    I’ll have to wait until/if you write that piece, Neo.

  11. I need to amend my comment. When I click on the video on your main page, You Tube thinks I’m a bot. But when I clicked on the video on this page with the comment chain, I can hear it.

    It’s an interesting walk through American history. I think that many of Trump’s EOs and other pronouncements are aimed at getting controversial questions into the courts and getting them settled. On the ones on which he loses, he will try to get Congress to act.

    The leftist theory that the bureaucracy is independent of the executive is clearly unconstitutional, however. There may be some twists and turns on the road, but Trump is going to win the majority of these battles. And along the way, win or lose, we are seeing the corruption hauled out of the shadows and exposed for all to see. That exposure is even more important than who wins the individual battles.

  12. @Brian E:Can one Congress obligate spending for succeeding Congresses?

    No Act of Congress can bind a future Congress. That’s very settled law. Whatever one Congress can do, another can undo. The same thing is in Blackstone regarding Parliaments.

    An example is the Medicare “doc fix”. Every year from 2003 to 2015, the CBO would score the budget, and then Congress would pass the “doc fix” and undo the legally mandated cut to physician payments. Like clockwork.

  13. Another change towards which I hope this Trump term will lead us is the abolishment of public sector unions and the reform of the Civil Service.

  14. JD Vance sends constitutional law experts into meltdown amid fears Trump will defy judges

    President Donald Trump’s public challenge to the judicial branch of government is triggering a liberal meltdown among Democrats and constitutional scholars across the country.

    Those DEMs should watch the Dershowitz video provided here by neo…

    Vice President JD Vance – who studied law at Yale – has raised the stakes and criticized judges on social media for issuing rulings to halt Trump’s executive orders and actions.

    ‘If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,’ Vance said. ‘If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal.’

    Trump agreed with Vance’s assertion, while speaking on Air Force One.

    ‘The day you’re not allowed to look for theft and fraud etcetera, then we don’t have much of a country,’ he said in response to a question from DailyMail.com. ‘No judge should be allowed to make that kind of decision. It’s a disgrace.’

    Maybe the liberal meltdown will force the SC to move faster on such actions by politically activist judges…

  15. “Train v. City of New York (1975): This case upheld the constitutionality of the Impoundment Control Act, affirming Congress’s power to control spending through legislation. The Supreme Court did not directly address the separation of powers issue in this context but supported the legislative framework for budget control.”

    I keep seeing this but not the specifics of the case. I presume that it meant that if Congress makes an appropriation for a *specific* purpose the President must spend the money. Not the case for USAID which seems to have been a huge slush fund, I’m sure Congress nowhere mandated funds going to drag shows and left-wing media outlets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑