Climate change?
Medicare for all?
Gun violence?
But I doubt the other two would really be considered and all this is if they are voted in to the Oval Office.
It can't be any worse than wasting $3.5 B on a bullet train from Merced to Bakersfield.
(no message)
(no message)
For example, in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer the Court ruled that the President could not seize and operate the nation's steel mills during a strike, even though these were critical to the Korean War effort. By contrast, merely moving around funds already authorized but not allocated is not likely something the Court would be concerned with, especially given the incredible amount of money authorized by Congress that is already wasted (say $3.5 B on a bullet train to and from a couple small towns in California). However, seizing guns in violation of the 2nd amendment, or closing the nation's gas stations or euthanizing libertarians would probably not pass SC muster, especially THIS Court.
which again will be banned by law or executive fiat. Or spending funds to seize and police climate polluting cars banned under new EPA regs.
Watch the outcry over the next school shooting or when the next big weather disaster strikes.
Stop defending the indefensible. In other words what’s being done will always be expanded by govt.
(no message)
To do the same or worse?
(no message)
(no message)
When did this start?
(no message)
(no message)