“When I write or speak about the alarming things I see as an Exvangelical in an America where Christian nationalism is ascendant, I sometimes receive indignant replies. I’ll be asked if I actually mean what I said, or if I’m perhaps exaggerating. If I say something in earnest, I mean what I write. I was asked recently if I actually think there is a real movement to repeal the 19th Amendment. Yes. There is.” (02/24/26)
“Tax and expenditure limitations in state constitutions — known to cognoscenti as ‘TELs’ — vary in their scope. But if effective in curbing government fiscal powers, they are invariably controversial, and courts and legislatures regularly seek ways to undermine them. The average effective lifespan of most TELs is only five years. A particularly famous TEL is Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR), inserted into the state constitution by popular vote in 1992. Despite dire warnings that TABOR would destroy the state — and continued charges that it is starving government — Colorado has prospered since it took effect.” (02/24/26)
“China has prohibited the export of dual-use items to 20 Japanese entities that it says supply Japan’s military, the commerce ministry said Tuesday, in the latest escalation of a dispute with Tokyo. China is using its influence over supply chains to ratchet up pressure on Tokyo even after Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi, who angered Beijing with comments about Taiwan in November, won a sweeping mandate in a landslide election victory this month. The measures target units of major Japanese industrial conglomerates such as Mitsubishi Heavy Industries’ shipbuilding and aero engines divisions, the ministry said. The rules effectively cut companies off from the seven rare earths and associated materials currently on China’s dual-use control list, along with a swath of other controlled critical minerals.” (02/24/26)
“The nondelegation doctrine says that Congress may delegate its legislative authority to the president only under certain limited circumstances. Those limits are there to enforce the constitutional separation of powers. Thomas would eliminate many of those limits. In his view, the nondelegation doctrine simply should not apply when a case involves what he characterizes as a non-core legislative power. What is a non-core legislative power? Thomas offered a few examples, including ‘the powers to raise and support armies’ and ‘to regulate foreign commerce.’ According to Thomas, because these powers originally descended from the kingly authority of the British crown, it is entirely proper for Congress to surrender them without limit to the executive branch. One problem with this argument is that it runs counter to the text of the Constitution.” (02/24/26)
“On Friday, the Supreme Court struck down sweeping tariffs that President Trump had imposed globally. Trump had claimed authority under a 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). But the IEEPA did not mention tariffs and, in a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump exceeded his authority. Trump, in a fit of pique, immediately announced that he was imposing a new 10% global tariff, citing Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. The next day, Trump raised the tariff to 15%. Several prominent outlets falsely reported that the Trade Act gives Trump the legal authority to impose temporary tariffs of up to 15% in response to trade deficits …. Section 122 of the Trade Act gives the president the authority to temporarily impose tariffs in response to ‘large and serious United States balance-of-payments deficits,’ not trade deficits. The United States does not have a balance-of-payments deficit, much less a large and serious one.” (02/24/26)
“The Supreme Court’s decision in Learning Resources v. Trump will have immediate political effects, substantial economic effects, and more subtle but long-run effects on the shape of the law. Doctrinally, its significance may seem limited because the opinions fracture on nearly everything beyond a single issue under a specific statute — the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). Six members of the Court agreed only that IEEPA does not authorize the president to impose tariffs. Even on that conclusion, however, the justices split into two camps: one relied on the major questions doctrine, namely that because of the extraordinary power claimed, Congress had to speak more clearly than it did, while the other concluded the president’s lack of authority was manifest without reliance on any clear-statement rule. Nevertheless, the case is still significant for the separation of powers.” (02/24/26)
