Debates over the proper scope of executive power in the United States have been a feature of U.S. law and politics dating back to before the nation’s founding. Article II of the Constitution vests the president with “the executive power” and the power to act as the military’s Commander in Chief, but the post-9/11 presidency has been characterized as a striking expansion of executive power, particularly in the area of national security.
Latest in Executive Power
The New York Times reports that White House Counsel Don McGahn has interviewed extensively with the special counsel, cooperating with the president’s consent but perhaps more extensively than Mr. Trump may have anticipated.
Richard Nixon’s fall came after it became clear that he had “broken faith” with core public expectations of presidential leadership. Donald Trump appears headed for the same fate.
Former CIA director John Brennan would have little difficulty persuading a court that his clearance was revoked in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights.
On Monday, Judge Dabney Friedrich of the the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled against a motion challenging the constitutionality of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s appointment. The full order is below:
A little-noticed Watergate-era opinion addresses “Presidential Amenability to Judicial Subpoenas.”
Two complementary articles in the most recent issue of the Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics assess the role of the president’s legal advisers in times of crisis.
On Aug. 2, Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia affirmed the constitutionality of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's appointment under the Appointments Clause, denying a witness's motion to quash subpoenas issued by the special counsel's office.
On July 26, a bipartisan coalition of senators introduced legislation that would require congressional approval for any effort to withdraw the United States from NATO. The bill also authorizes counsel to litigate any effort to withdraw absent its consent. The document is available in full below:
Can President Trump really end U.S. participation in the alliance? And if so, what can Congress do about it?
A D.C. Circuit opinion from today suggests that the former national security advisors may have a right to challenge the revocation of their security clearances on First Amendment grounds.