Yeah but … he does stuff because he knows no one will stop him. Who is going to sue to stop TSA workers from getting their fully earned wages? And getting the airports unsnarled? Nobody wants to be that guy, and Trump isn’t constrained by the law intrinsically.
I am conflicted here, wanting to see the TSOs get paid (and wondering why it took the President so long to exercise this option) but concerned with Trump's continuing power grabs. Your points are well thought out.
I have no reason to doubt your legal analysis. It is all too plausible that the administration would act in the manner you describe. However, telling people that their having to put up with airport chaos is evidence that "the system [is] working as designed" may simply suggest to them that the system needs to be changed. Given that both everyone seems to agree that TSA employees should receive their wages, the problem lies in the complexity (and imbecility?) of congressional procedures that prevent the presumably unanimous will of the Senators and Representatives from being enacted into law.
Yes, true. But we didn't tell people to put up with airport chaos. We are saying that some cures are worse in the long term than the disease at hand, especially when the disease has been self created. Notice that Trump is on the side of the House Reps who are in revolt over the Senate bill that will likely pass the House if allowed to come for a vote. This has been the Republican modus operandi for every effort at immigration reform in this century
I kept waiting for the article to get to the obvious and it didn't disappoint: “Congress does sometimes allow the executive branch to reallocate funds across accounts, under defined circumstances,” and that's that. The system already contains enormous discretionary space, and pretending otherwise just seems like cheap attempt to oppose Trump via "gotcha."
This nitpicking of technicalities misses the real issues we're facing. It’s not just about a clause here or a procedure there, it’s about a government that has expanded far beyond any constitutional foundation. This expansion hasn’t happened by accident, and it wasn't caused by Trump. It’s been enabled by a political commentary class that lacks the clarity to explain first principles to the public.
The US was founded as the world's first rights-protecting republic. Agencies like the TSA or FEMA shouldn't even exist. Until the fundamental political issues are addressed, articles like this are beside the point. If people don’t understand what the proper role of government is then why would it even matter how funding works?
Opposing authoritarianism is not just about opposing Trump via technicalities. It requires building a politically literate culture that understands and defends a rights-protecting system and the economic freedom that sustains it. Without that foundation, arguments over budget mechanisms are just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
"It requires building a politically literate culture that understands and defends a rights-protecting system and the economic freedom that sustains it."
It’s not at all clear how we get out of this. Many of the people we rely on to communicate politics seem to lack understanding of even the most basic concepts, including what “rights” actually mean.
In almost no other field would such gaps in fundamental knowledge be tolerated at scale, yet in politics it's the norm. The people shaping the public's understanding of politics today don't even know the basics.
This didn’t happen overnight. It’s the result of a long, gradual erosion of intellectual standards, compounded over generations. Problems this deep don’t lend themselves to quick fixes. We’re facing a situation where the time it would take to rebuild serious political thinking may be longer than the time we have to avoid the consequences of its absence.
I am not sure what difference this makes until after January 3, 2027, when it is possible that a Democratic majority MIGHT be able to change the situation. Republicans seem to be disinterested in asserting the power they have whether it comes to funding or waging war. As long as they defer to Trump's actions essentially they are sanctioning his illegal and unconstitutional behavior. In this case THEIR silence implies consent.
IF Democrats can win enough votes in the Senate they DO have the power to cut off all discretionary spending by the President. Trump of course would go to court and SCOTUS would probably decide that Trump can do as he pleases until the entire matter has worked its way through the Courts whereupon they will defer a decision until the very end of whatever term it is brought before them.
Obviously Congress COULD take the President to court but only if one or the other or both bodies act institutionally. The Democratic minority does not have standing to take Trump to court no matter how compelling the cause. And while the SCOTUS might find there were violations they will probably fall back on Congress needing to assert itself, and without that assertion, then the Executive is free to use his discretion about how to spend money or carry out national security matters. The SCOTUS will once again say it can't second guess why Congress is passive and the Executive's motives for deciding how he must act on behalf of the people.
The only remedy is impeachment and removal for continued and persistent violations of the law and Constitution. The impeachment clause is a dead letter law because it is theoretically enforceable but politically impossible in the current conditions to be actually used.
Basically James Madison can go suck rocks. This is Trump. The Great and Powerful Trump!
I don't have any hope for the Democrats. That's why I said "MIGHT make a difference" but given the Presidential veto and the supine Supreme Court it is unlikely they can change the irrational hyper-partisan trajectory that we have been on since Newt Gingrich and his "Contract ON America." Trump is a symptom and not the problem. Irrational hyper-partisanship is the problem.
I don't read the New York Post opinion page so I'll just go with the headline. Everyone, having decided that politics is a zero-sum game, is psychologically predisposed to accept the abnormal, illegal and unconstitutional behavior of an imperial president acceptable so long as he is on their side. They, of course believe THEIR Emperor is a benevolent autocrat, and therefore the ends justify any means and that might makes right which even a kindergartner understands is poppycock in a civil society.
In the current political economy "the opposition" is not just wrong they are evil, demonic, insane. Their concerns have no legitimacy.
Democratic republics can only be sustained IF all stakeholders have some power to influence governance. This is only possible when negotiation and compromises can be reached between stakeholders. But how can one negotiate or compromise with someone one believes to be satanic, evil or inhuman? Rational self interest is driven out by irrational self interest. This thinking knows no party and is widespread on the left and right.
The ideological "true believers" on the left and right have both assumed that the future is, as Orwell described it in "1984," of "a boot smashing a human face---forever." If this is true then partisans on both sides want to be sure THEY are wearing the boots smashing the faces of "the others" they fear. It is existentially impossible to live in a political economy where "the others" are not utterly marginalized and without any power.
Trump is the logical "next step" in the devolution and deconstruction of our democratic republic. Having tasted the fruits of autocracy we are unlikely to go back to normative governance no matter who is in power. Having taken the wrecking ball to the political economy Trump has changed the landscape for ever.
Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in his preface to the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 had it absolutely right: "There was never any thing by the wit of man so well devised, or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted..."
That goes for constitutional republics just as it does for religions.
The problem is that everyone is partisan towards authoritarianism, itself a symptom of a lack of expertise in political commentary. Dems and GOP basically have the same positions, but GOP is more brazenly corrupt and destructive, but not by that much. In the absence of political literacy, everyone just supports their gang over the other gang, but without really disagreeing on anything important.
Hyper partisanship towards rights-protecting government and capitalism (AKA liberalism) would be a good thing, but professional political commentators today don't even understand concept, so there's no one advocating this.
Basically, we no longer have the knowledge in the mainstream required to build and maintain a modern civilization. Unless that changes, we're going back to pre-industrial horror.
I am just not sure, Peter. Authoritarianism seems to be the social political default for humans. 20th Century authoritarianism was a preview not just an episode. What distinguishes it from previous manifestations of authoritarian epochs was technology. Technology is also a distinguishing feature of our emerging authoritarianism. The dialectic is between hard authoritarianism and "a kinder gentler" authoritarianism. The New Deal was the authoritarianism of sociologists and bureaucrats. More benevolent perhaps than European authoritarianism but also coercive in its own way.
I am just thinking intuitively here but it looks like Hobbes may have been more right than Locke. The nonnegotiable demands that subjects expect from the sovereign are security, safety and civil order. When the sovereign fails to deliver these then they turn towards the authoritarian default. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, property and profit are of secondary concern.
Things fall part the centre cannot hold--- mere anarchy is loosed upon the world and then everything gets reassembled differently but also the same as we wait for the next unpredictable dialectical swing.
Authoritarianism is indeed a default. It's what we get when people stop thinking carefully about political ideas and start accepting whatever is most emotionally or culturally dominant. It’s the path of least resistance. It's easy.
To support liberal values depends on abstract principles, like individual rights and rights-protecting government. These have to be learned, understood, and defended. There's no “autopilot” that sustains them. This is hard and takes real effort.
Men were able to figure out political philosophy and apply it successfully before we even had electricity. Yet today, with all of human knowledge available on our smart phones, our mainstream political experts don't even know what "rights" are.
This is a truly moral and historical failure of expertise. Don't let them off the hook.
Yeah but … he does stuff because he knows no one will stop him. Who is going to sue to stop TSA workers from getting their fully earned wages? And getting the airports unsnarled? Nobody wants to be that guy, and Trump isn’t constrained by the law intrinsically.
I am conflicted here, wanting to see the TSOs get paid (and wondering why it took the President so long to exercise this option) but concerned with Trump's continuing power grabs. Your points are well thought out.
You have a Congress who has lost control and given it to a mad man
I have no reason to doubt your legal analysis. It is all too plausible that the administration would act in the manner you describe. However, telling people that their having to put up with airport chaos is evidence that "the system [is] working as designed" may simply suggest to them that the system needs to be changed. Given that both everyone seems to agree that TSA employees should receive their wages, the problem lies in the complexity (and imbecility?) of congressional procedures that prevent the presumably unanimous will of the Senators and Representatives from being enacted into law.
Yes, true. But we didn't tell people to put up with airport chaos. We are saying that some cures are worse in the long term than the disease at hand, especially when the disease has been self created. Notice that Trump is on the side of the House Reps who are in revolt over the Senate bill that will likely pass the House if allowed to come for a vote. This has been the Republican modus operandi for every effort at immigration reform in this century
.
Charles I? Isn't he the one who got beheaded?
I kept waiting for the article to get to the obvious and it didn't disappoint: “Congress does sometimes allow the executive branch to reallocate funds across accounts, under defined circumstances,” and that's that. The system already contains enormous discretionary space, and pretending otherwise just seems like cheap attempt to oppose Trump via "gotcha."
This nitpicking of technicalities misses the real issues we're facing. It’s not just about a clause here or a procedure there, it’s about a government that has expanded far beyond any constitutional foundation. This expansion hasn’t happened by accident, and it wasn't caused by Trump. It’s been enabled by a political commentary class that lacks the clarity to explain first principles to the public.
The US was founded as the world's first rights-protecting republic. Agencies like the TSA or FEMA shouldn't even exist. Until the fundamental political issues are addressed, articles like this are beside the point. If people don’t understand what the proper role of government is then why would it even matter how funding works?
Opposing authoritarianism is not just about opposing Trump via technicalities. It requires building a politically literate culture that understands and defends a rights-protecting system and the economic freedom that sustains it. Without that foundation, arguments over budget mechanisms are just rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.
"It requires building a politically literate culture that understands and defends a rights-protecting system and the economic freedom that sustains it."
Well, then we are definitely fucked.
It’s not at all clear how we get out of this. Many of the people we rely on to communicate politics seem to lack understanding of even the most basic concepts, including what “rights” actually mean.
In almost no other field would such gaps in fundamental knowledge be tolerated at scale, yet in politics it's the norm. The people shaping the public's understanding of politics today don't even know the basics.
This didn’t happen overnight. It’s the result of a long, gradual erosion of intellectual standards, compounded over generations. Problems this deep don’t lend themselves to quick fixes. We’re facing a situation where the time it would take to rebuild serious political thinking may be longer than the time we have to avoid the consequences of its absence.
I am not sure what difference this makes until after January 3, 2027, when it is possible that a Democratic majority MIGHT be able to change the situation. Republicans seem to be disinterested in asserting the power they have whether it comes to funding or waging war. As long as they defer to Trump's actions essentially they are sanctioning his illegal and unconstitutional behavior. In this case THEIR silence implies consent.
IF Democrats can win enough votes in the Senate they DO have the power to cut off all discretionary spending by the President. Trump of course would go to court and SCOTUS would probably decide that Trump can do as he pleases until the entire matter has worked its way through the Courts whereupon they will defer a decision until the very end of whatever term it is brought before them.
Obviously Congress COULD take the President to court but only if one or the other or both bodies act institutionally. The Democratic minority does not have standing to take Trump to court no matter how compelling the cause. And while the SCOTUS might find there were violations they will probably fall back on Congress needing to assert itself, and without that assertion, then the Executive is free to use his discretion about how to spend money or carry out national security matters. The SCOTUS will once again say it can't second guess why Congress is passive and the Executive's motives for deciding how he must act on behalf of the people.
The only remedy is impeachment and removal for continued and persistent violations of the law and Constitution. The impeachment clause is a dead letter law because it is theoretically enforceable but politically impossible in the current conditions to be actually used.
Basically James Madison can go suck rocks. This is Trump. The Great and Powerful Trump!
I think hoping for the democrats to change the situation is like hoping that pouring fuel will put out a fire: https://nypost.com/2026/03/29/opinion/the-left-loves-kings-the-ones-with-d-after-their-name/
I don't have any hope for the Democrats. That's why I said "MIGHT make a difference" but given the Presidential veto and the supine Supreme Court it is unlikely they can change the irrational hyper-partisan trajectory that we have been on since Newt Gingrich and his "Contract ON America." Trump is a symptom and not the problem. Irrational hyper-partisanship is the problem.
I don't read the New York Post opinion page so I'll just go with the headline. Everyone, having decided that politics is a zero-sum game, is psychologically predisposed to accept the abnormal, illegal and unconstitutional behavior of an imperial president acceptable so long as he is on their side. They, of course believe THEIR Emperor is a benevolent autocrat, and therefore the ends justify any means and that might makes right which even a kindergartner understands is poppycock in a civil society.
In the current political economy "the opposition" is not just wrong they are evil, demonic, insane. Their concerns have no legitimacy.
Democratic republics can only be sustained IF all stakeholders have some power to influence governance. This is only possible when negotiation and compromises can be reached between stakeholders. But how can one negotiate or compromise with someone one believes to be satanic, evil or inhuman? Rational self interest is driven out by irrational self interest. This thinking knows no party and is widespread on the left and right.
The ideological "true believers" on the left and right have both assumed that the future is, as Orwell described it in "1984," of "a boot smashing a human face---forever." If this is true then partisans on both sides want to be sure THEY are wearing the boots smashing the faces of "the others" they fear. It is existentially impossible to live in a political economy where "the others" are not utterly marginalized and without any power.
Trump is the logical "next step" in the devolution and deconstruction of our democratic republic. Having tasted the fruits of autocracy we are unlikely to go back to normative governance no matter who is in power. Having taken the wrecking ball to the political economy Trump has changed the landscape for ever.
Archbishop Thomas Cranmer in his preface to the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 had it absolutely right: "There was never any thing by the wit of man so well devised, or so sure established, which in continuance of time hath not been corrupted..."
That goes for constitutional republics just as it does for religions.
The problem is that everyone is partisan towards authoritarianism, itself a symptom of a lack of expertise in political commentary. Dems and GOP basically have the same positions, but GOP is more brazenly corrupt and destructive, but not by that much. In the absence of political literacy, everyone just supports their gang over the other gang, but without really disagreeing on anything important.
Hyper partisanship towards rights-protecting government and capitalism (AKA liberalism) would be a good thing, but professional political commentators today don't even understand concept, so there's no one advocating this.
Basically, we no longer have the knowledge in the mainstream required to build and maintain a modern civilization. Unless that changes, we're going back to pre-industrial horror.
I am just not sure, Peter. Authoritarianism seems to be the social political default for humans. 20th Century authoritarianism was a preview not just an episode. What distinguishes it from previous manifestations of authoritarian epochs was technology. Technology is also a distinguishing feature of our emerging authoritarianism. The dialectic is between hard authoritarianism and "a kinder gentler" authoritarianism. The New Deal was the authoritarianism of sociologists and bureaucrats. More benevolent perhaps than European authoritarianism but also coercive in its own way.
I am just thinking intuitively here but it looks like Hobbes may have been more right than Locke. The nonnegotiable demands that subjects expect from the sovereign are security, safety and civil order. When the sovereign fails to deliver these then they turn towards the authoritarian default. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, property and profit are of secondary concern.
Things fall part the centre cannot hold--- mere anarchy is loosed upon the world and then everything gets reassembled differently but also the same as we wait for the next unpredictable dialectical swing.
Authoritarianism is indeed a default. It's what we get when people stop thinking carefully about political ideas and start accepting whatever is most emotionally or culturally dominant. It’s the path of least resistance. It's easy.
To support liberal values depends on abstract principles, like individual rights and rights-protecting government. These have to be learned, understood, and defended. There's no “autopilot” that sustains them. This is hard and takes real effort.
Men were able to figure out political philosophy and apply it successfully before we even had electricity. Yet today, with all of human knowledge available on our smart phones, our mainstream political experts don't even know what "rights" are.
This is a truly moral and historical failure of expertise. Don't let them off the hook.
Surviving on a hope that a Democrat Congress can find the brains and spines to stop this destruction of our republic.