Washington – President Trump has started his second term in order to urge his authority, the government by dismissing federal officials, the termination of diversity guidelines and the deportation of immigrants who have illegally deported in this country.
Despite violent criticism, he will probably be successful in these fronts, since the constitution and the laws generally put these powers in the hands of the president.
“According to our constitution, the executive authority – all of it – is transferred to a president.” Supreme judge John G. Roberts Jr. said in 2020. And this includes the president of the president of officials in the entire government, which is almost “unrounded”, he said.
The conservative majority of the court also reflected the policies of the racial diversity of universities and repeatedly said that the president had a comprehensive authority to enforce immigration laws.
In some areas, however, Trump seems to claim powers that go far beyond the president's authority.
He says that after the execution mandate he could rewrite the 14th change from 1868 and some children who are born in the United States of parents who are not citizens, refuse citizenship.
And this week, the White House claimed to temporarily freeze federal expenditure that was approved by the congress to determine whether it corresponds to “presidential priorities”.
The constitution gives the congress the constitution, which is often referred to as “power of the wallet”. While the president may suggest a household and veto expenditure calculations, which he rejects, the congress can ultimately decide how much is issued and what.
The current expenditure measures came from the Republican House of Representatives. Nevertheless, Trump's office for management and budget in his two -sided memo said that it had to pause to prevent the use of federal money in order to drive “Marxist equity, transgenderism and green New Deal Social Engineering”.
Despite these new claims, the conflicts about expenditure are not new.
The presidents often disagree with the congress on household matters, and the dispute built in the early 1970s when President Nixon refused to spend money on social programs that had been supported by the Democrats of Congress.
In response to this, the Congress passed the 1974 fighting law to solve disputes. It is said that the president could try to temporarily “postpone” some of the expenses or to lift it completely if the congress agrees. This stop or a break can take 45 days.
According to this law, the Trump administration was able to ask the congress to rethink some issues. But if the congress rejects, the law says that the money has to be paid out.
However, Trump insisted on the fact that the Reflection Act is unconstitutional, and he was determined to question it. On his campaign website, the restrictions of the law against the powers of the President to “destroy the deep state”.
In addition, he said: “The leading constitutional scientists agree that the president is an inherent power.”
Stanford Law Professor Michael M. McConnell, a former judge of the Federal Court of Appeal, which was appointed by President George W. Bush and the director of his constitutional law center, states that the claim is questionable.
“I don't know a single scholar who believes that the President has the constitutional authority to violate the fight against combating attention,” said McConnell.
A federal judge in Seattle has temporarily blocked Trump's command to end citizenship, and described it as “obviously unconstitutional”.
On Tuesday, a federal judge in Washington, DC, temporarily blocked the government's “break” of the government for federal expenditure.
These disputes can soon reach the Supreme Court if Trump's lawyers submit emergencies to question the judges that blocked Trump's instructions.
You will believe in a dish with six conservative judges who are Republicans and the strong executive power.
Last year, judges surprised many legal experts when they have largely decided that an ex-president in the White House cannot be prosecuted for “official acts”.
“According to our constitutional structure of separate powers”, the President must not be punished in court for the “exercise of his core constitutional powers”. Roberts wrote in Trump against us
Now the court can decide whether the president's powers go far beyond the core tasks of his office.