Are We Sleepwalking Toward a Constitutional Crisis?

Are We Sleepwalking Toward a Constitutional Crisis?

Last Friday, top White House adviser Stephen Miller suggested that President Donald Trump is actively considering triggering a full-blown constitutional crisis. But you wouldn't know it by listening to some congressional Republicans this week. "Well, the Constitution is clear," Miller said,respondingto a Gateway Pundit blogger whether the president is considering suspending the writ of habeas corpus to "take care of the illegal immigration problem." The Constitution, Miller said, "is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So that's an option we're actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not." The Constitution is indeed clear: It says that the writ of habeas corpus—that is, the right to challenge one's detention in court—shall not be suspendedexcept in "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion." Those terms have been universally understood to mean military conflict or war. "It wouldn't apply to a case of immigration at all. There's zero chance that that would fly in the courts," John Yoo, a former clerk to Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas and a Bush Justice Department lawyer, toldThe Dispatchin an interview. Yoo, who has anexpansive viewof the power of the president in times of war, noted that the Constitution is less clear about who has the authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus. The clause is located in Article I, which covers the powers of Congress, and therefore most legal scholars and theSupreme Courthave held that only Congress has limited powers to suspend it. Throughout U.S. history, the writ of habeas corpus has been suspended onlyfour times, and the only time the president unilaterally suspended the writ was in 1861 during the Civil War. (Congress ratified Abraham Lincoln's suspension in 1863.) "This is nowhere near the time of the Civil War where you had actually, obviously, a civil rebellion," Yoo said of the present state of the country. It's entirely possible Miller's comments are simply meant tointimidate and cajole the courtsinto ruling in favor of the Trump administration's actions on immigration, such asstripping "Temporary Protected Status" from immigrants. Miller explicitly mentioned cases regarding "Temporary Protected Status" and said last Friday that those court decisions "will inform the choices that the president ultimately makes." But Miller's comments are also an extraordinarily grave threat—striking at a fundamental matter of civil liberty during peacetime—and Trump's willingness to follow through on more extreme ideas has been underestimated before (see January 6, 2021, and his "Liberation Day" tariffs). If Trump unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus to address illegal immigration, and the Supreme Court quickly rules against him, what would happen next? Either Trump would comply, or he would defy the court and plunge the country into a constitutional crisis. "Here you would have plausible grounds for impeachment," Yoo said. "You would have a president who arguably arrogated the powers of another branch at a time when the provision doesn't even apply—so much stronger ground for impeachment than Trump's first two rides on that rodeo." But congressional Republicans' response to a top White House official toying with a blatantly unconstitutional act hasbeen muted, at best. In the Capitol this week, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul was the only Republican senator who forcefully spoke out against Miller's comments. "It's a terrible idea, and anyone discussing suspending habeas corpus is running afoul of history and not really considering that it's the ancient right of habeas corpus. It's been around since Magna Carta or before," Paul toldThe Dispatch. Sen. Chris Coons, a Democrat from Delaware who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said it was essential for more Republicans to speak out. "My colleagues should all be outraged. This is an exceptional threat to our liberty, unprecedented in modern times," Coons toldThe Dispatch. "Habeas corpus is a foundational basis of our liberty. It goes back to hundreds of years ago when English kings would put in jail their critics and their opponents without charge, without reason and just keep them there. So the framers of our Constitution knew you have to have the right to appear in front of a judge, to say: 'On what basis am I being held? Show the charges, show the evidence, or set me free.'" "Republican senators have to speak up in opposition," he added. "That is the only way to slow down some of the more outrageous actions by this president." While no one spoke out as forcefully against Miller as Rand Paul, some other GOP senators expressed opposition in a more mild manner. "Habeas corpus is something I think we fundamentally look to and rely on for due process protections," Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski toldThe Dispatch. "We want to make sure we don't jeopardize anything that we would consider to be fundamental. So I'm not quite sure exactly what [Stephen Miller] intended with that. We'd have to find out more." Asked if the president had the constitutional authority to suspend the writ of habeas corpus over illegal immigration, South Dakota GOP Sen. Mike Rounds said: "I don't think so. … I think they can look at it, but I think that's about as far as it goes." Even some of Trump's staunchest allies stopped short of defending the notion that the president could suspend the writ of habeas corpus over immigration. "The president can suspend it, right?" Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said. WhenThe Dispatchnoted the provision is limited to cases of invasion or rebellion, Hawley replied: "I think that this problem would be solved if these judges would actually adjudicate the law and not try to set policy for the nation." Asked about Miller's comments, Florida GOP Sen. Rick Scott simply said: "I'm sure they'll follow the law." A lack of enthusiastic support from congressional Republicans is, of course, far from the kind of threat that might actually deter Trump from an unprecedented assault on civil liberties. If Trump doesn't fear the courts or Congress, might anything else constrain him? "It also depends on whether other officers of the government choose to obey the president's order," Yoo toldThe Dispatch. "If you suspend habeas corpus, and you put these aliens … into the hands of the military, does the president really want to raise doubts about the military's willingness to follow the commander in chief? You could see officers refusing to hold people in violation of habeas corpus." "I can't think it would come to this," Yoo said. "It would really be a mistake to cause those dominos to start falling." Read more at The Dispatch The Dispatch is a new digital media company providing engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary, informed by conservative principles. Sign up for free.

byRicky Wilson

in

May 15, 2025

Are We Sleepwalking Toward a Constitutional Crisis?

Are We Sleepwalking Toward a Constitutional Crisis? Last Friday, top White House adviser Stephen Miller suggested that President Donald Trum...

Read More

Trump’s Executive Order on Drug Prices, Explained

Trump's Executive Order on Drug Prices, Explained

More than 100 days into President Donald Trump's second term, the administration has fallen into a pattern. Trump releases an executive order with an expansive title accompanied by even more expansive claims from the president and senior officials about the effects of the directive. The announcement gets the headlines Trump islooking for. But despite the billing, the order is light on specifics and reliant on uncertain legal footing. Such was the case earlier this week when Trump signed an executive order targeting drug costs. The order scrutinizes both pharmaceutical manufacturers and foreign countries where brand-name drugs are often available to patients at significantlycheaper pricesthan in the United States. The presidentasserteddrug prices will drop by as much as "80, and 90 percent" as a result of the order. But the executive order reflects at best the "concepts of a plan," rather than a serious attempt at drug policy reform. It's unclear whether the order targets drug prices in public insurance programs like Medicare and Medicaid or extends to the private market, and the specific path to actually achieving such steep reductions is even less clear. The president is correct that there are large discrepancies between what people in the U.S. and other nations pay for the same drugs. Wealthy countries like the United Kingdom with nationalized health care or single-payer systems set drug price controls. Since the government is setting limits, prices can be kept down, but such a system involves trade-offs, namely, slower and morelimited accessto the full range of pharmaceuticals, including some lifesaving drugs for diseases like cancer. In the U.S., there is no central government body deciding what drugs, after the Food and Drug Administration determines they're safe, can be sold and at what price. Prices are instead negotiated among drug manufacturers, health insurers, pharmacy benefit managers—companies that health plans either own or contract with to manage their prescription benefits—and pharmacies. Private insurers lack the legal power of the state and account for only individual portions of total drug spending—a particular health plan represents only a piece of the population, compared to a public insurance system where everyone is covered by the government—consequently, they have less negotiating leverage to keep prices down. To the president, the result of the differing systems is that the rest of the developed world is freeloading on pharmaceutical innovations that are paid for by higher prices in the U.S. "The inflated prices in the United States fuel global innovation while foreign health systems get a free ride," the order noted. During Trump's first administration, Trump attempted a more limited version of what he called "most-favored-nation" pricing, also known as international reference pricing, a policy that would tie domestic pharmaceutical prices to the cheaper rates paid by other developed countries. His 2020 attempt applied only to apilot programfor select high-cost drugs covered by Medicare, but it was blocked in court and subsequently abandoned by the Biden administration. Monday's executive order titled "Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients" doesn't involve another pilot program or a substantive roadmap for policy reform. Instead, the order reflects a vague attempt at price controls via pressuring pharmaceutical manufacturers into lowering U.S. prices and compelling foreign governments to make up the difference in lost U.S. revenue by paying drug companies more. The order directs the secretary of health and human services to set price targets, seemingly for both public programs and the private market. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon hasnoted, the executive branch lacks the legal authority to impose price controls in the private market, so the order takes a carrot-and-stick approach to push drug companies to cooperate voluntarily. The carrot involves directing the secretary of commerce and the U.S. trade representative to take action to get other developed countries to pay higher prices than they do currently. In return, drug companies will lower U.S. prices to "equalize," in the president'swords, domestic and international rates. It's unclear how the administration could force other countries to pay higher prices. TrumpsaidMonday he'd use tariffs to pressure foreign governments. Even if the president could successfully apply trade leverage, such changes would necessarilyinvolvehealth policy and statutory overhauls within those countries. The president also directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to, within 30 days, "communicate most-favored-nation price targets to pharmaceutical manufacturers to bring prices for American patients in line with comparably developed nations." If the companies don't agree to the targets, then they get the stick. HHS will "propose a rulemaking plan to impose most-favored-nation pricing" and take steps to facilitate greater importation of drugs to put downward pressure on domestic prices. The order also threatens antitrust action from the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission as well as potential revocation of drug approvals by the Food and Drug Administration. "Big Pharma will either abide by this principle voluntarily or we will use the power of the federal government to ensure we are paying the same price as other countries," Trumpsaid. Pharmaceutical manufacturers seem more than happy to watch the president lean on foreign governments to pay them more. "The Administration is right to use trade negotiations to force foreign governments to pay their fair share for medicines," Stephen Ubl—CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the industry's powerful trade and lobbying group—said in a statement on Monday. "U.S. patients should not foot the bill for global innovation." But the industry will no doubt oppose attempts to cap U.S. prices. "Importing foreign prices from socialist countries would be a bad deal for American patients and workers," Ubl added,  saying price controls would decrease pharmaceutical innovation and domestic economic investment. It's unclear whether or to what degree the executive branch can legally impose most-favored-nation pricing, and much will depend on the scope and specifics of any future rulemaking. "[The order] seems to me like it could be Medicaid or Medicare or the private market or some combination of the above," Tevi Troy, a senior fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute and deputy HHS secretary during the George W. Bush administration, toldThe Dispatch. "I'm not sure what it applies to, and if it does apply, it's not clear to me that this is within the realm of the executive branch to declare it by fiat, so it might have to be done by Congress." For example, the Biden administration instituted its Medicare drug price negotiationprogramas part of the Inflation Reduction Act. HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was asked inan interviewMonday onFox Businesswhether the price cuts would apply to Medicare Part D. "They absolutely will," he said. "And they'll apply in the private market as well." If the order does in fact apply to both public and private pharmaceutical prices, the process of setting price targets and or completing a rulemaking process would be lengthy and complex. "It's like a lot of [executive orders]," Ben Ippolito, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute studying health care economics, toldThe Dispatch. "It's signaling direction, it's signaling intent, it's signaling interest, but there's not a lot of immediate action." The lack of specifics and the teeth of accompanying legislation are likely why industry observersreactedpositively to the order. As news of Trump's plans seeped out over the last week, drug companies feared the president might insist congressional Republicansincludea drug price cap policy in their reconciliation package. When such a provision failed to materialize, the stocks of pharmaceutical companies experienced aslight bumpon Monday after Trump signed the order. Politically, the president may have gotten all that he's looking for from simply the appearance of taking on Big Pharma. Drug companies are among the least popular companies in the country, and high drug prices are a potent issue, drawing the ire of voters of all stripes. Trump's framing of the problem is straightforward to understand. In his telling, high prices aren't the result of an array of complex forces and practices throughout the pharmaceutical supply and financing systems—including Medicare payment policies, commercial health insurers, manufacturers, wholesalers and distributors, and pharmacy benefit managers. Rather, it's as simple as other countries paying too little, and if they pay more, then we'll pay less. From a policy perspective, drug pricing is a much more complicated question involving deeplychallenging trade-offsbetween access to current drugs and investment in new, life-saving therapies. Some health policy analysts argue high costs could be better addressed by tackling that question directly rather than attempting to leverage price reductions on the back of other governments' pricing regimes. "In some ways, it's neither here nor there that some other country does something different than us," Ippolito said. "We have a Congress. We have public programs. We can decide how we'd like to pay for pharmaceuticals in those settings. If you want to change it, just change it and make that decision based on what you think is the best balance of trade-offs, because what you do matters so much more than what any of these other countries are doing." Read more at The Dispatch The Dispatch is a new digital media company providing engaged citizens with fact-based reporting and commentary, informed by conservative principles. Sign up for free.

byRicky Wilson

in

May 15, 2025

Trump’s Executive Order on Drug Prices, Explained

Trump's Executive Order on Drug Prices, Explained More than 100 days into President Donald Trump's second term, the administration h...

Read More

Israel’s presence still roils Eurovision a year after major protests over the Gaza war

Israel's presence still roils Eurovision a year after major protests over the Gaza war

BASEL, Switzerland (AP) — Most contestants at theEurovision Song Contestare seeking as much publicity as possible. Israel's Yuval Raphael is keeping a low profile. The 24-year old singer has done few media interviews or appearances during Eurovision week, as Israel's participation in the pan-continental pop music competition draws protestsfor a second year. Raphael is due to perform Thursday in thesecond of two semi-finalsat the contest in the Swiss city of Basel. Oddsmakers suggest Raphael, a survivor of Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023 attack on a music festival in southern Israel, is likely to secure a place in Saturday's final with her anthemic song "New Day Will Rise." Israelhas competed in Eurovision for more than 50 years, and won four times. But last year's event in the Swedish city of Malmo drew large demonstrations calling for Israel to be kicked out of the contest over its conduct of itswar against Hamas in Gaza. The Oct. 7 cross-border attacks by Hamas militants killed 1,200 people. More than 52,800 people in Gaza have been killed in Israel's retaliatory offensive, according to the territory's health ministry. About 200 people, many draped in Palestinian flags, protested in central Basel on Wednesday evening, demanding an end to Israel's military offensive and the country's expulsion from Eurovision. They marched in silence down a street noisy with music and Eurovision revelry. Many noted that Russia wasbanned from Eurovisionafter its 2022 invasion of Ukraine. "It should be a happy occasion that Eurovision is finally in Switzerland, but it's not," said Lea Kobler, from Zurich. "How can we rightfully exclude Russia but we're still welcoming Israel?" Last year, Israeli competitor Eden Golan received boos when she performed live at Eurovision. Raphael told the BBC that she expects the same and has rehearsed with background noise so she won't be distracted. "But we are here to sing and I'm going to sing my heart out for everyone," she said. Anti-Israel protests in Basel have been much smaller than last year in Malmo. Another protest is planned for Saturday in downtown Basel, 2 miles (3.2 kilometers) from the contest venue, St. Jakobshalle arena. But concern by some Eurovision participants and broadcasters continues. More than 70 former Eurovision contestants signed a letter calling for Israel to be excluded. Several of the national broadcasters that fund Eurovision, including those of Spain, Ireland and Iceland, have called for a discussion about Israel's participation. Swiss singerNemo, who brought the competition to Switzerland bywinning last year,told HuffPost UK that "Israel's actions are fundamentally at odds with the values that Eurovision claims to uphold — peace, unity, and respect for human rights." At Wednesday's protest, Basel resident Domenica Ott held a hand-made sign saying "Nemo was right." She said the nonbinary singer was "very courageous." "If Russia couldn't participate, why should Israel?" she said. The European Broadcasting Union, which runs Eurovision, pointed out that Israel is represented by its public broadcaster, KAN, not the government. It has called on participants to respect Eurovision's values of "universality, diversity, equality and inclusivity" and its political neutrality. ___ Hilary Fox and Kwiyeon Ha contributed to this story.

byRicky Wilson

in

May 15, 2025

Israel’s presence still roils Eurovision a year after major protests over the Gaza war

Israel's presence still roils Eurovision a year after major protests over the Gaza war BASEL, Switzerland (AP) — Most contestants at the...

Read More

Brit Hume Says Trump Deal With Iran Only Works Under One Condition

Brit Hume Says Trump Deal With Iran Only Works Under One Condition

Brit Hume appeared on Fox News Wednesday to discuss a potential Trump-brokered nuclear agreement with Iran and warned the deal hinges on one condition. Qatar Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani said on "Special Report with Bret Baier" that all regional leaders want a nuclear-free Middle East and believe diplomacy is the only path forward. During an appearance on the same show, Hume weighed in on the prime minister's answer and urged caution. "Well, that would be great if it were true, but the question is could it be verified? Would we know that they were not enriching uranium? And why in the world do they need uranium anyway for a nuclear power plant when they're drowning in oil?" Hume asked. Hume told host Bret Baier that without reliable and transparent verification mechanisms, any diplomatic breakthrough remains fragile. WATCH: "I think we've got a lot more to find out here on this deal and whether the president would be willing to use it," Hume said. During a state dinner with the Qatari emir, President Donald Trumpurgedthat country to pressure Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions. He made the appeal while visiting the Gulf nation as part of a broaderMiddle East touraimed at securing regional cooperation. Trump told Gulf leaders in Riyadh he's open to a deal with Iran—but only if Tehran stops backing proxy groups across the Middle East. He also reminded them that his administration scrapped the 2015nuclear dealbrokered under former President Barack Obama.(RELATED: Mike Benz Tells How Trump Blocked China's Energy Lifeline) A top adviser to Iran's supreme leadersaidTehran is willing to sign a nuclear deal with Trump if certain conditions are met and sanctions are lifted. Ali Shamkhani's statement marks one of the highest-level acknowledgments ofongoing talksfrom the Iranian regime. Shamkhani said Iran would dismantle its weapons-grade uranium program, limit enrichment to civilian levels and allow international inspections if the U.S. lifts all economic sanctions immediately. He said Iran would sign a deal under those terms, offering the clearest signal yet from the supreme leader's inner circle. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter's byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

byRicky Wilson

in

May 14, 2025

Brit Hume Says Trump Deal With Iran Only Works Under One Condition

Brit Hume Says Trump Deal With Iran Only Works Under One Condition Brit Hume appeared on Fox News Wednesday to discuss a potential Trump-bro...

Read More

Gingrich Blasts Corporate Media For Missing Two Aspects Of Trump’s Middle East Speech With ‘Truly Historic’ Benefits

Gingrich Blasts Corporate Media For Missing Two Aspects Of Trump's Middle East Speech With 'Truly Historic' Benefits

Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich ripped corporate media Wednesday on "Jesse Watters Primetime" for missing the economic and national security benefits of President Donald Trump's speech in the Middle East. Landing in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, Trump held bilateral talks with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman,signinga deal for at least $600 billion in investments. While discussing the president's speech to end sanctions on Syria, Fox host Jesse Watters asked Gingrich why the legacy press was unable to highlight the deals being made.(RELATED: Grocery Prices See Biggest Drop In 5 Years As Trump's Policies Take Effect) "The New York Times, the Washington Post, the major networks get up every day and say, 'What is the meanest, dumbest, narrowest thing we can focus on about Donald Trump?' They're missing — and this, of course, is typical, they got Pulitzer Prizes for lying totally about Trump, so why not continue down that path? They've missed totally both the economic side of this, which is hundreds of thousands of American jobs," Gingrich said. "The national security side of this, which is a tightening alliance with both Qatar and Saudi Arabia that isolates Iran." WATCH: "The remarkable shift of Syria, which at one time was allied with Russia and Iran, has now basically flipped over to our side. If you'll notice, both in the case of Syria and in the case of Saudi Arabia, Trump is saying bluntly, you need to recognize Israel," Gingrich added. "We need to have commerce, making money, not making war, and, as I can overstate, his speech yesterday was truly historic and began to set a framework for practical, realistic relationships that move the entire region into a whole new world." Trump is expected to be in the Middle East for the remainder of the week, heading to both the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Qatar following his stay in Saudi Arabia. With the investment deal involving the Saudi Crown Prince already signed, other deals with the UAE and Qatar arereportedlyexpected as well. Prior to Trump's visit, the White Houseannouncedin March that the UAE committed to a 10-year investment in the U.S. AI infrastructure, semiconductors, energy and manufacturing, totaling $1.4 trillion. Additionally, Qatar officials made headlines involving the president as they reportedlyoffereda $400 million Boeing jet, intended to serve as a replacement for Air Force One. Trump's White House has been actively working to secure deals with foreign countries following the president's announcement of hitting others with reciprocal tariffs. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessentsaidduring a Fox interview on May 1 that the administration is talking with 17 countries about securing deals with the United States. BessentsaidSunday that key discussions with China, which had been in a tariff war with the U.S., made "substantial progress" after beginning on Saturday. All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter's byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contactlicensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

byRicky Wilson

in

May 14, 2025

Gingrich Blasts Corporate Media For Missing Two Aspects Of Trump’s Middle East Speech With ‘Truly Historic’ Benefits

Gingrich Blasts Corporate Media For Missing Two Aspects Of Trump's Middle East Speech With 'Truly Historic' Benefits Former Repu...

Read More