Peter M. Shane

2/2 can't provide authority beyond what a POTUS can claim under the Constitution or statutes. 1 statute, the Nat'l Emergencies Act only triggers emergency powers vested by other laws; the other 3 cited convey nothing relevant. The Constitutional provisions cited confer no authority on the president.

1/2 The farcical draft EO purporting to put midterm elections under federal control has no credible legal authority behind it. (Surprising, huh?) It cites 4 statutes, 2 Trump executive orders, and 2 sections of the Constitution, none of which works. The EOs
www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/u...

I guess that wasn’t overanxiety on my part.

It’s as if we get the worst of the neocons and the worst of right-wing populism all wrapped up in one corrupt, narcissistic, delusional package.

OLC has long said a POTUS can deploy military force unilaterally if there’s a strong U.S. national security interest and the engagement falls short of constitutional “war.” Even if you buy #1, how does unprovoked offensive bombing for regime change pass test #2??

Hillary Clinton on X: "Here is my opening statement to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today. https://t.co/NZSF2epcI5" / X Here is my opening statement to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today. https://t.co/NZSF2epcI5

Wander over to X to read Hillary Clinton's prepared opening remarks to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee today. Among her more trenchant points is the GOP's seeming indifference to Trump's undermining the Trafficking in Persons Office she created at State. x.com/HillaryClint...

They should never have stayed the order below. It took 14 of the 170 pages (including the facts) to lay out why the six-Justice majority concluded the tariffs were unlawful. None of the arguments was surprising. Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kavanaugh should write their law review articles on their own time.

Actually, the history of the last quarter century was doomed by one woman who designed the 2000 butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County.

When Obama said in a SOTU that Citizens United was wrongly decided, there was much outrage against overt presidential pushback against the Supreme Court. I can hardly imagine the rage of those critics at Trump, who attacked Justices personally and said the Court was subject to "foreign interests."

Worry Du Jour: Trump’s tariff loss may tempt him more to attack Iran to distract from tariffs.

American exceptionalism!

He has one for every occasion!

The idea that our national leader needs to be all-but-absolutely protected from the law in the name of democratic accountability doesn’t improve with age.

Getting shown up in the arena of elite impunity by *the British monarchy* is an incredible “America at 250!” achievement

I’m at a loss to see how an unprovoked offensive military attack on Iran would advance U.S. national security or, really, our national interest in any way. Nor is it obvious that the historical gloss on presidential war power is enough to legitimize such an attack.

I appreciate getting these leads.

That was Hamilton’s original position and Story’s. Only settled practice produced a different rule. With regard to inferior officers, it’s the default rule, which Taft explicitly reaffirms in his Myers opinion.

I’m less certain. Even if you buy that a USA is a purely executive officer — I don’t — there are workarounds for the President if he doesn’t want the court-appointed USA to handle a particular case or cases.

You must have done well with, “Compare . . . With . . .”

2/2 the U.S. attorneys who are presidentially appointed, also under 28 USC 541, or if it reaches court-appointed USA's also. "Each" might imply comprehensiveness, but that would undermine the decision to vest courts with the appointment role. In any event, Trump would have to do it, not the AG.

1/2 I would dispute that Article II gives presidents power to fire court-appointed prosecutors, but what the issue comes down to is the proper interpretation of 28 USC 541. It says: "Each United States attorney is subject to removal by the President." The issue is whether this applies only to . . .

Was it a security blanket?

U.S. Attorney Chosen to Replace Trump Pick Is Quickly Fired by White House

Nope. Acting USA’s are inferior officers who may be appointed by courts. The power to remove inferior officers follows the power to appoint. Only the judges can fire whom they appoint. U.S. Attorney Chosen to Replace Trump Pick Is Quickly Fired by White House www.nytimes.com/2026/02/11/n...

And here's more from -- checks notes -- Fox News: www.foxnews.com/politics/us-...

Surprise US military plans to use counter-drone laser triggered El Paso airspace closure, Sources say | CNN A Pentagon plan to use a high-energy, counter-drone laser without having coordinated with the Federal Aviation Administration about potential risks to civilian flights prompted Wednesday’s unprecedent...

Amidst your outrage at this Administration's arrogance, cruelty, mendacity, please do not neglect to notice it's mind-blowing incompetence. www.cnn.com/2026/02/11/u...

When you're even more innocent than a ham sandwich . . .

Trump's DOJ seeks examples of 'egregious' judges for Congress to review President Donald Trump's administration ramped up its pressure on the U.S. judiciary on Tuesday, with the Justice Department saying it has asked federal prosecutors to supply it with the "most egregio...

This is simultaneously a constitutional outrage and a complete waste of taxpayer money, not unlike the indefensible effort to get indictments against members of Congress for uttering truthful statements about the military's obligation to follow the law. www.reuters.com/legal/govern...

First, it's a Super Bowl halftime party in Spanish. Next thing you know, we'll be expected to enjoy opera sung in Italian.

He meant to say, “He wasn’t a ‘friend’ friend.”

Has to do Infrastructure Week first.