In 1932, FDR decided he had better use for the seat and summarily fired Humphrey. Humphrey sued but died five months later. The executor of his estate pressed the suit to recoup five months' salary. This spat was destined to become a landmark Supreme Court precedent called Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935), or just Humphrey's Executor. Mr. Humphrey's estate hit the jackpot.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court ruled: //

This ruling let independent agencies do whatever they wished. As rulemaking became a big deal, an independent agency in the hands of political opponents of the president with the power to interpret statutes and make legally binding regulations could engage in sabotage of the president's agenda. //

Shipwreckedcrew @shipwreckedcrew
.
Earlier today I posted a Substack article arguing that the TROs being sought against the Trump Admin are, in many respects, great opportunities for the Admin to assert its Article II authority over the Admin. state and push back against encroachments by Congress and the lower…

SCOTUS has danced around the continuing vitality of the Humphrey's decision for many many years. The issue is now squarely before them. This is a fight worth having at this moment in time.

And the most important part about fights worth having is that you need someone who will fight them. And we do. //

Musicman
6 hours ago
Let's pray we finally have a Supreme Court that cares about the Constitution. There are three branches and only three branches. Either each "independent" board reports to the Executive, the Legislative or the Judicial. Those are the only choices. The notion of any kind of board with any kind of power could exist apart from the three branches is simply unconstitutional. Period.

all executive departments and agencies, including so-called independent agencies, shall submit for review all proposed and final significant regulatory actions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the Executive Office of the President before publication in the Federal Register. //

The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General. //

If this order sticks, Trump has permanently and fundamentally changed the Executive Branch, as it has existed since 1935, in less than a month. //

bk
9 hours ago edited
Liberals: "Musk is unelected and therefore can't tell us what to do!"
Also libs: "How dare Trump interfere with tens of thousands of unelected bureaucrats who have been telling us what to do for decades!"

Congress illegally spent at least $516 billion in 2024 on programs for which there was no authorization. Yes, billion, with a "b." A stunning report by the Congressional Budget Office underscores the reason for the legal assault upon President Trump's right to audit payments by the Treasury Department.

In a report titled "Expired and Expiring Authorizations of Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2024," the CBO observes: "Historically, House and Senate rules restrict lawmakers from considering an appropriation if it lacks a current authorization." Nevertheless, "CBO estimates that $516 billion was appropriated for 2024 for activities with expired authorizations, which the agency identified for each House and Senate authorizing committee and appropriations subcommittee." That $516 billion in illegal payments cover "1,264 authorizations of appropriations that expired before the beginning of fiscal year 2024 and 251 authorizations of appropriations that were set to expire by the end of fiscal year 2024." The legal authority for some of these payments expired 40 — that's not a typo — years ago. //

Making this all the more intriguing is that it would seem that the President could stop those payments without worrying about violating the Impoundment Control Act as they are not legal appropriations by Congress's rules.

I will guarantee you that when DOGE really digs into this, they are going to find other ongoing illegal payments on a Biblical scale.

Kennedy's Executive Order 10973 named the USAID. But read the first line carefully.

By virtue of the authority vested in me by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (75 Stat. 424) and section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, and as President of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

This corresponds to a Congressional directive, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. That law required Kennedy to create a foreign aid organization to replace the hodgepodge then in existence. The law lists a wide range of international aid activities required by Congress and directs the president to put those functions under a single person.

The President may exercise any functions conferred upon him by this Act through such agency or officer of the United States Government as he shall direct. Tne head of any such agency or such officer may from time to time promulgate such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out such functions, and may delegate authority to perform any such functions, including, if he shall so specify, the authority successively to redelegate any of such functions to any of his subordinates. //

Such designation and authorization shall be in writing, shall be published in the Federal Register, shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as the President may deem advisable, and shall be revocable at any time by the President in whole or in part. //

From the beginning, the USAID administrator has required Senate approval and has had a budget.

Because Congress created the agency, President Trump will either gut it and leave the remnant alive or set off a direct conflict with Congress, which he may or may not want.

Holy cow! We're talking eight figures in many cases. Now, the time scale runs from 1990 to 2024; we might note that the guy in second place, Raphael Warnock (D-GA), wasn't elected until 2021. So in three years, the reverend managed to rake in Big Pharma bucks to the tune of $14 million and change. He's in second place - and guess who's in first?

If you guessed Sen. Bernie Sanders (I), the daffy old Boshevik from Vermont, you guessed right. The pharmaceutical companies and the organizations associated with them have been feeling the Bern to the tune of $23,193,451. "Medical Societies" are the biggest donor bribers; they're into Bernie for over half that amount, $12,749,883. When Sanders claims he hasn't taken any money from Big Pharma CEOs, we should notice that he's specifying CEOs because he's taking a lot of money from the medical societies that they doubtlessly belong to. //

The only thing Bernie gets right about what socialism claims to be is that, despite his massive net worth, he still looks and dresses like a flood victim.

I’m guessing it would take quite a lot to cross California Democrat Sen. Adam Schiff’s ethical line because in Donald Trump’s first term and in the subsequent corrupt J6 Committee, the long-necked Democrat proved that he was willing to do just about anything to “get Trump.” As fierce and nasty a partisan as you could find in The Swamp, Schiff was a leader of both impeachment trials against the 45th president—now the 47th president—and for years promised evidence of Russia collusion that he never produced.

We're still waiting, Adam.

He is so dishonest that the House censured him in 2023, making him only the 25th House lawmaker to face the punishment in U.S. history.

But evidently, Adam has found someone even more corrupt than himself: former (oh, I type that with such glee!) President Joe Biden, who has thrown out a slew of pardons in his waning days in office. Even Schiff was able to see that the pardons were not in the best interests of the country: //

He tries to claim that Biden’s J6 Committee pardons were “unnecessary” and “unwise” because he and fellow committee members, former Reps. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) and Liz Cheney (R-WY) did such “important work.” But if it was so important, why did Trump become president on Monday despite your stunning conclusions, and why does Biden feel the need to give you a preemptive pardon? A classic Shakespeare quote comes to mind, Adam: You "doth protest too much, methinks." //

When one of the most ethically challenged people ever to cast a cloud over Congress says you've crossed a line, you've really, really crossed a line. //

It wasnt me
43 minutes ago
He doesn't have to accept the Pardon.

Submitted by another.
In the 1915 Supreme Court case Burdick v. United States, the Court ruled that a pardon carries an "imputation of guilt". The Court also stated that accepting a pardon was "an admission of guilt". //

Black Magic
8 minutes ago
“I continue to believe that the grant of pardons to a committee that undertook such important work to uphold the law was unnecessary, and because of the precedent it establishes, unwise,”

Buuuut......I'll take it.

In January 2023, Pelosi unloaded more than $1.5 million worth of stock in Google’s holding company, Alphabet, just one month before the Justice Department announced an antitrust lawsuit against the tech giant. Just a coincidence? Sure, let's call it that. //

Speaking of members of Congress, Pelosi is far from the Lone Ranger with respect to her stellar 2024 portfolio performance. In fact, her results were surpassed by multiple other lawmakers. (Pelosi came in ninth.) As Unusual Whales noted earlier in January, U.S. politicians have outperformed the mark every year since 2020. //

Rufus McGee
5 hours ago
Buying call options is arguably the least consistently successful trading strategy for any long-term portfolio, akin to trying to get rich playing the lottery. No way it's legit.

Brandon Morse @TheBrandonMorse
·
That time Chris Farley, impersonating Newt Gingrich, came to congress to swear Gingrich in as the Speaker of the House.

What a great time in entertainment/politics when we could all laugh together.

3:53 PM · Jan 8, 2025

The battle of wits had begun. And Kinzinger clearly went into a gunfight with a spork.

“Just a quick point, both parties have always accepted the presidential election until one, four years ago,” Kinzinger falsely claimed.

Jennings countered, quite simply, “False, they have not."

Curtis Houck @CurtisHouck
·
PANTS ON FIRE: Adam Kinzinger falsely claims Scott Jennings lied in saying this was the first time in our lifetime both parties won't object to a presidential election result.

Kinzinger and Ashley Allison say Jennings mentioning 2000, 2004, and 2016 are why we're so divided

1:36 PM · Jan 6, 2025. //

Democrats have objected to election results in each of the Republican-won elections this century.

In 2000, 15 Democrats, including 12 members of the Congressional Black Caucus at the time, would object to counting Florida’s electoral votes.

This was after then-Vice President Al Gore refused to accept the free and fair election results and would not concede defeat to George W. Bush. He instead tied up the election process through litigation in the courts for months.

Gore consistently lost his bid to overturn the election results in the lower courts and kept fighting in the Florida Supreme Court. He would not concede until mid-December of that year, a month and a half after Election Day.

In 2004, 31 Democrats voted in favor of rejecting electoral votes from Ohio, trying to delegitimize President Bush once again, despite the fact that he won the electoral count by a wider margin and the popular vote count over John Kerry.

In 2016, seven different Democrats objected 11 times to certifying the results of the 2016 presidential election victory for Donald Trump. Additionally, 67 Democrats boycotted Trump’s inauguration, with many claiming “his election was illegitimate.”

There was violence in the streets, and Democrat lawmakers were most assuredly trying to “obstruct, influence, impede or delay” the certification of the presidential election, just as Republicans are accused of doing on January 6.

Never forget. //

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and ten other senators objected to the certification of the 2020 election. It wasn't a unique tactic by any stretch. If anything, Democrats wrote the playbook on election denialism.

As provided by law, without objection, the 119th Congress formally counted the votes of the Electoral College, and, at 1:35 p.m. Eastern, having received 312 electoral votes, Donald Trump was certified as the 47th President of the United States (and JD Vance was certified as vice president). Vice President Kamala Harris presided over the session — something that places her in a somewhat exclusive (albeit not enviable) club.

The U.S. Census Bureau will now count refugees and border releases in its population estimates, a move that will affect congressional apportionment forecasts and demographic data. In a blog post Thursday announcing the change, the bureau noted, “a net of 2.8 million people migrated to the United States between 2023 and 2024. This is significantly higher than our previous estimates.”

The data offers a glimpse of how congressional apportionment maps could change by 2030. It also shows how, as U.S. citizens flee states with garbage leftist policies, the inclusion of noncitizens in census data allows those states to keep congressional seats because their population is propped up by illegal aliens. //

Domestically, people are leaving Democrat-led states in droves. California is down 239,575 domestically, but it gained 361,057 internationally. New York lost 120,917 people domestically and gained 207,161 internationally. Illegal immigration is slowing the loss of population and congressional seats in blues states. //

The 14th Amendment requires that “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state.” The “whole number” has traditionally been understood to provide congressional representation for every person in a district, not just citizens eligible to vote.

“Generally, we should want an apportionment that best reflects the people of the United States and where they live,” Kincaid said. “If people are voting with their feet and moving from California to Florida, that should be reflected in our apportionment.”

The new numbers illustrate how illegal immigration can shape the balance of power for U.S. voters.

The Census Bureau asks about citizenship in its annual American Community Survey, but asking about citizenship on its 10-year census became a political issue in 2018 when President Donald Trump called on the bureau to put the question “Are you a U.S. citizen?” back on the census, as it had been in past years. As Federalist contributor Ben Weingarten reported at the time, Democrats fought the request. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Trump on a technicality, and the question was not used in 2020.

The missing Congresswoman in question is Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX), who represents Texas' 12th Congressional District, which includes the Fort Worth area west of Dallas in Tarrant County. Granger's last known vote in the House appears to be in July when she voted "no" on HR8998, a bill that would reduce the salary of Deputy Assistant Administrator for Pesticides Program Ya-Wei (Jake) Lee to $1. Since then, she has no recorded votes. //

Fl family
@family_fl73222
·
Follow
Kay Granger has not been working for the past year why has she not been replaced?
2:22 PM · Dec 20, 2024. //

The newspaper discovered that Rep. Granger was now the resident of a local memory care and assisted living home and had been for some time after she was found confused and wandering around her neighborhood. Assistant Executive Director for the memory care/assisted living home, Taylor Manzeil, confirmed that Granger was a resident, saying, "This is her home."

Bo French is the Tarrant County Republican Chairman. He stated the obvious about this crucial time for Republicans in Congress, who need every vote.//

Granger's constituents are also concerned about Granger's absence in Washington. But the biggest question is, why has this situation gone on as long as it has, with no one appearing to notice or even care?

It appears that this is just another example of those in Washington on both sides of the aisle hanging onto power until they are literally incapable of doing so. It is exactly the kind of thing that the American people clearly said in November they are tired of.

Nancy Mace
@NancyMace
·
Follow
It’s not the number of pages that matter - it’s what’s in those pages.

This CR had the same level of spending today as it did yesterday, but the debt ceiling was suspended, meaning there was no limit on the debt. I don’t trust Congress or the government to spend responsibly… Show more
6:50 PM · Dec 19, 2024

"Do you often like the tweets you don't agree with?" Kennedy asked.

"Those were not my words," Keys insisted.

"You can't make this cat walk backwards," Kennedy finally declared. //

Kennedy cuts through the palaver and gets down to the nitty gritty again in pointing out the difference between what witnesses say and what they do. He's not shy about holding their feet to the fire and exposing hypocrisy, and it's a great thing to see. //

Michael Piz
a day ago
My favorite Kennedy quote is "Kale tastes like I'd rather be fat.". //

Dennis
a day ago
Kennedy is the Mark Twain of today. One could literally write a book of quotes, funny and epic exchanges that man has had in the past decade alone

Hakeem Jeffries
·
Dec 18, 2024
@RepJeffries
·
House Republicans have been ordered to shut down the government.

And hurt the working class Americans they claim to support.

You break the bipartisan agreement, you own the consequences that follow.

Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
You seem to think the public is dumb.

They are not.
4:51 PM · Dec 18, 2024 //

Elon Musk @elonmusk
·
The voice of the people was heard.

This was a good day for America.

Chad Pergram @ChadPergram
GOP KY Rep Barr on CR: The phone was ringing off the hook today. And you know why? Because they were reading the tweets, the X from musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, and they were telling me that they were, that they were listening to them.. this shows the influence that president,…
5:12 PM · Dec 18, 2024

I'm asking congressional Republicans to read this slowly because it might confuse them, but they have a majority. That means they can now pass a clean CR. If Democrats then vote it down, angry that they didn't get their pork-filled 1,500-page monstrosity, then they will be the ones shutting the government down. Jeffries would be forced to eat his own words about hurting "everyday Americans."

The same thing applies to all the emotional pleas about "disaster relief."

Again, make Democrats own this. If they want to make disaster relief a marker, then pass a standalone bill and make them vote it down. What excuse would they have to do so after they proclaimed how vital it is? And if Democrats do scuttle it, then Republicans can go to the podium and place the blame where it belongs.

It's so simple, and I'm at a loss as to why that wasn't the plan in the first place. If Republicans can't grow a backbone and play hardball now, especially when the opportunity is being handed to them on a silver platter, then when can they? Democrats have no leverage, and it's long past time they are made to understand what losing actually entails. It means not getting all your priorities passed because you scream "crisis" every few months after refusing to govern in a normal fashion.

Republicans need to put their differences aside and come together to do the smart thing. Pass a clean CR and force the hand of Democrat leadership.

Townhall.com @townhallcom
·
.@RepChipRoy: "SWAMP'S GONNA SWAMP!"

"We're just fundamentally un-serious about spending. As long as you got a blank check you can't shrink government. If you can't shrink government you can't live free!"

10:51 AM · Dec 17, 2024 //

This is not the Way. And how long has it been, by the way, since Congress approved an actual budget? Oh, that's right - 1997. It would almost be funny if it wasn't so alarming; it's like they aren't even trying. //

We, and our elected representatives, would do well to remember the words of the late Barry Goldwater:

I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed" before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. //

TheAmericanExperiment
3 hours ago edited
"I'll go one step further and say that we must reduce not only the deficit but the national debt. "

Ward,

The national debt is a fiction. The interest however is very real and the owners of The Federal Reserve System (fancy name for private -for profit corporation) are raking it in.

JP Morgan financed two American wars in the late 1800s. How did he do it. He loaned the Federal Government actual dollars from his bank reserves. in the early 1900s he had an idea for the most lucrative business in the history of the world. Financing the Federal Government with monopoly money.

In 1910 he got together with eight other titans of banking and crafted the plan for The Fed. 15 regional banks all plugged into a central bank in DC but ultimately run by The Fed in New York.

What's cost of printing money? Inflation.

If the Federal government was printing money into existence that would be the cost. Inflation.

So why do we have a national debt in addition to inflation? The Mandrake Mechanism. The Federal Government doesn't print money. In 1913 they granted The Fed a charter to do that and then loan the money to the government at interest. The Fed literally creates money out of this air and then loans it to the American people. Now The Fed can only finance debt and what was their model? Financing wars. The US Congress was very debt averse but one thing you could count on them for... financing a war. The story goes on and on.

For the last 110 years we've had a State Department and CIA fomenting trouble all over the world. Starting fires and then putting them out. And back home we have an FBI always vigilant for any member of Congress, the press or the public for that matter who questions the lucrative arrangement.

So there is no national debt. It's all stolen money. Call it the crime of the last century. //

Leitmotif Sam Grant
an hour ago
Understood. And I do not disagree that the Creature From Jekyll Island has been a manifest cancer on the body politic of the republic
But, I'm less inclined to agree that it's principal goal has been to forment foreign wars.

Rather, it's principal goal has been to privatize the profits of big member banks, while simultaneously socializing xing the risks and financial busts that are a direct result of the inherently fraudulent fractional reserve banking paradigm that is, alas, at the very core of our modern financial system. //

anon-qacb Billy Wallace
4 hours ago edited
In 2008 our National Debt was around 10 Trillion, that's the year Obumer took office. The Democrats have held the Presidency 12 out of the last 16 years and our deficit is now 36 Trillion. So it took us 240 years to get to 10 trillion and only 16 years to add another 26 trillion more. How does that even happen, That is NUTS ! Regardless of which party you belong to we all should have enough brains to realize this can't continue. Name calling does nothing to help the cause and bring people together.

Despite her age and frailty, she comes from a solidly blue San Francisco area district that would send a chicken pot pie to Congress if there was a "D" carved into the crust, so she's probably safe to hold her seat as long as she wants.

And, we must also note, she has grown monstrously rich while in office, in no small part due to uncanny success in investing; the Pelosis, Nancy and her husband Paul, have an investment portfolio that has returned an uncanny 700 percent over the last 10 years. //

(N)o.(B)ody.(C)ares
10 hours ago
Crooks? I’m inclined to think “Crooks” is small potatoes term for small crimes.
Pelosi’s grift makes the mafia look tame. Clinton’s know to ride Auntie Nans coat tails.
They are the quintessential “Government Mob” Bosses. They know where the bodies are buried and know how to keep their money flowing.
If one considers how Public Officials become Multimillionaires while in office, need to follow the money and how it flows. They sent Martha Stewart to prison for the very thing they have perfected.
They hate competition, and the laws prove it

Another line of criticism focuses on Hegseth’s personal life. To be sure, Hegseth wouldn’t meet the qualifications to serve as an elder or pastor in a church, and he has admitted to poor decisions in the past. But this raises a broader cultural question: When did Americans stop celebrating redemption stories? Today, Hegseth is happily married, active in his church, and a devoted father who embraces classical homeschooling. He served his country in combat and earned the respect and loyalty of those who worked with him in both military and civilian life.

Redemption is a deeply American ideal, but it often seems selectively applied. I recall reading about convicted bank robber Shon Hopwood, who, after release, earned a law degree and went on to teach at the Georgetown University Law Center—a story presented as an inspiring tale of growth and perseverance. But do the same people who applauded that story extend the same grace to Hegseth, a man who has overcome personal failings to achieve admirable success? If we value growth and change, shouldn’t we apply this principle consistently?

Evaluating someone’s past for predictions of future behavior is fair, but the recent past matters just as much as the distant past. //

Ultimately, the debate over Hegseth’s nomination reflects deeper societal tensions: between forgiveness and accountability, between ideological loyalty and open-mindedness, and between traditional and unconventional leadership. Whether or not one believes Hegseth to be the right person to serve as the next secretary of defense, this debate forces us to confront how we choose leaders and what values we prioritize in doing so.

As for me in this moment, I echo what Abraham Lincoln said of Ulysses S. Grant. “I can’t spare this man, he fights!” The bureaucrats had their turn. We would do well to have a warrior like Pete Hegseth leading the military as soon as possible.

Steven Dennis @StevenTDennis
·
In one of their final acts in office, Sinema and Manchin nuke a Biden pick for the National Labor Relations Board in a big loss for organized labor.
1:57 PM · Dec 11, 2024. //

Well, payback is rarely kind, and Sinema and Manchin just delivered a well-deserved helping of it. Voters rejected the Democratic Party labor agenda in November. Giving McFerran another five-year term would have been a slap in the face to the American people who do not want unions being given special carveouts at a cost to everyone else.

Consider this another example of Democrats overplaying their hand. They don't know how to do anything in moderation, and in their lust for power, they gave up two formerly solid votes (when it comes to confirmations) to appease the far-left. Those chickens have come home to roost. I don't know where Sinema and Manchin go from here now that they are leaving office, but their preservation of the filibuster and rejection of the Democrat status-quo has done the country a great service.