This framing conveniently ignores the question of whether the president should have the authority to single-handedly withhold funding for universities, broadly considered to be one of the foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century. While I think it's interesting and answers the specific question it raises, it's wild that the economist has just accepted that the president has dictatorial powers.
"Conveniently" is the wrong word to use here. "Conveniently ignores" implies that the author intentionally disregarded some known facts to make their argument look more persuasive. However, this is not the case here. The article's argument is that a reduction in government funding is very damaging even when it is small relative to the endowment size. This argument would not lose any of its power if the author covered the topic of whether the president has the power to withdraw funding.
(On a side note, the word "framing" is also the wrong word to use.)
One way to phrase your message correctly would be: "This article is about the impact of the president's decision, but I wish it also talked about whether the president has the authority to make that decision in the first place".
"Conveniently" also insinuates that the author discarded some arguments or facts that don't suit their narrative, because they would then have to think more, which is precisely what is inconvenient. It's quite an insult, actually.
There's a reason that court cases typically address standing before addressing the underlying question. It matters much more that you're taking on a case before you determine the case on the merits. If the case doesn't have standing it is not worth considering.
"Conveniently Ignoring" the standing question is frankly an admission of compliance to something that is not the law. Who cares "why people can't live without food" if someone is saying "let's starve the population." One question isn't worth platforming while the other is on the table.
This isn't law, its journalism, and frankly the article is well written and asks a good question -- why are these (extremely wealthy) universities finances so brittle?
The question is self-answering as soon as you read the first two sentences though.
> Columbia...has an endowment of roughly $15bn. Mr Trump’s administration withheld a mere $400m in federal funding.
With the best investing in the world, that $15bn might throw off 1 billion a year in perpetuity. $400m (a year) is a very serious chunk of the university's budget.
Exactly... Scaling the numbers down: It's as if a person has $1.5M net worth, and their investments produce $100K per year. They are also simply being handed $40K per year from someone they disagree with, but who otherwise reliably provides that income. Are they just going to turn that money down because of this ethical disagreement? A lot of people wouldn't.
Or alternatively, their investments from one account produce $100K per year, their investments from another account (non-Federal grants) produce an unknown amount, and they have a job (tuition payments) that produces another unknown amount. How significant is 40% of the 100K?
We don't know unless we fill in the unknown numbers. Knowing that the amount of federal aid being removed is 40% of an estimate of the amount produced by one source (the endowment) isn't enough information to answer the question. The right question is what percentage of their budget this represents.
From what I can tell, Harvard's actual annual budget is about $6.5B (https://www.harvardmagazine.com/2024/10/financial-report-fis...). A $400M shortfall is thus about 6% of their annual budget. Significant, but also something they could probably cover for the next decade or two by drawing down their endowment until they adjust.
It isn't law, but why does the principle exist in law? That's what I'm asking you to think about. Why would judges who have to make decisions about people's lives do this? Is there a good reason for it?
The word "dictatorial" doesn't apply here. What we're talking about is government funding being provided to private universities. And Congress hasn't appropriated specific amounts of money to specific universities. It has created a pool of funds and given the executive branch discretion to allocate those funds. The powers of the executive branch are invested in the president. See Article II, Section 1 ("The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.").
Congress, moreover, has enacted laws that use those funds as a hook to influence the behavior of private universities. Specifically, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 allows the executive branch to deny federal funds to universities that discriminate on the basis of race. Now, it just so happens that, in 2023, Harvard university, among others, was found by the Supreme Court to have flagrantly violated that law: https://www.ed.gov/media/document/dear-colleague-letter-sffa...
There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law, where Congress has authorized the executive branch to do so. Indeed, I'm at a loss to understand who else you think has the power to do this, if not the President?
I'm guessing that what GP meant with "dictatorial" was along the lines of the power you describe being wielded in a specific manner.
To put it differently: a state of affairs where the Executive/President has those powers may not be dictatorial, but this specific instance of him making use of that discretion in this specific way might be.
> There is nothing "dictatorial" about the President withholding taxpayer dollars from a university that is in violation of the law
Hey now, wait a minute. Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated.
You’re clearly an intelligent person; there’s no need to try to sneak bullshit in through the back door. Let the strength of your arguments and facts speak for themselves. And make sure they are actual facts.
> Has the “violation of law” been established yet? There’s a pretty wide gulf between “I believe a violation of the law has occurred” and having the matter adjudicated.
Didn't SFFA clearly establish that? The Supreme Court outright reversed the bench trial ruling, which had found that Harvard and UNC's programs comported with Title VI and the Equal Protection Clause.
You have a point that I should've said "was found to have violated" rather than "is in violation." Whether Harvard is still violating the law is debatable. But I'm not sure Title VI withholding can't be predicated on a recent violation.
Regardless, as you know, the government routinely uses the threat of legal action for suspected violations to coerce compliance. Virtually every FDA/SEC/CFTC/etc. enforcement action starts with a letter along the lines of: "you're in violation of the law, do X, Y, and Z, or else we'll take action."
It’s not reasonable to characterize SFFA as a finding of wrongdoing on Harvard’s part.
At the time, universities were adhering to existing law (Bakke and Grutter cases). The Court then overturned its own precedent and decided that what was once acceptable under its own law was no longer so. The text of the Equal Protection clause didn’t change; the only thing that changed was the Court’s interpretation of it.
So it’s not like Harvard was operating in bad faith or being malicious, which is the characterization suggested by your “violation” language. (Not to mention that every university in America that considered race in their admissions process, despite not being a named party to the suit, was similarly situated—probably most universities in the country.) And there’s no evidence to suggest that Harvard didn’t respond appropriately and in a timely fashion to the new law.
> It’s not reasonable to characterize SFFA as a finding of wrongdoing on Harvard’s part
As I understand it, that’s the legal effect of SFFA. SFFA sued Harvard seeking, among other things, a declaratory judgment that Harvard’s admissions policies violate Title VI. The district court ruled, after bench trial, that Harvard didn’t violate Title VI. The Supreme Court didn’t remand for further proceedings, it outright reversed. Meaning that it found that Harvard’s procedures did violate Title VI.
Bad faith or malice aren’t elements of a Title VI violation. And I don’t see any legal reason why an administration couldn’t hold Harvard’s discrimination against students—which happened, even if the Supreme Court changed its mind about whether it was permissible—against Harvard in allocating federal funding.
Of course, now that Harvard has decided to fight it, the administration will have to prove its belief: https://www.axios.com/2025/04/28/harvard-law-review-trump-ad.... That’s how these enforcement letters always pan out. Many targets fold to avoid litigation. Sometimes, a defendant fights it and the government has to initiate a formal enforcement action.
The DOJ, FDA, FTC, and SEC do stuff like this all the time. These agencies all lean very heavily on the threat of an enforcement action to enforce changes in private behavior without having to actually take entities to court.
> Meaning that it found that Harvard’s procedures did violate Title VI
Declaratory judgments aren't findings of wrongdoing. They're simply words (hence "declaratory") that describe a relationship between the parties of a case. Cases that end in declaratory judgements are also always civil in nature, so I don't believe they can be used to penalize the party later as if they had conducted a criminal act.
> I don’t see any legal reason why an administration couldn’t hold Harvard’s discrimination against students—which happened, even if the Supreme Court changed its mind about whether it was permissible—against Harvard in allocating federal funding.
That would actually be an interesting case. I find it difficult to believe that the Court would allow such an ex post facto application. The problem with this is that anyone who engaged in behavior that was lawful at the time, then subsequently deemed unlawful, could be subject to abrogation of benefits or other penalties. That said, in light of how the Court's makeup has changed in the past 20 years, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised if I turn out to be wrong. I would be very sad, though, because it would mean that nobody can be assured that their current conduct, even if lawful at the time, won't be held against them in the future if the law changes later.
> Harvard’s defiant response to SFFA provides a reasonable basis for the administration to believe it has continued to engage in discrimination
I don't think it does. I think Harvard is saying "we will continue to lawfully promote diversity however we can." There's no unlawful action being contemplated, described, or advocated in its response. Costco and Disney, BTW, do the same.
> now that Harvard has decided to fight [Trump’s investigation of Harvard Law Review’s publication policy], the administration will have to prove its belief
You're mixing up two different plot lines. We're discussing NSF and other Federal grant withdrawal resulting from Harvard's failure to implement discretionary measures Trump wants them to take relating to hiring, policy, and curriculum. This other story is about investigating Harvard Law Review, which was announced weeks after the grant rug pull. It seems pretty obvious that Trump is trying to find any angle he can to prevail in his war against the institution.
It seems like Harvard and those other universities might have been pushing the boundaries. Was the discrimination required or just allowed? The court for Grutter seemed to say it was "required" and for Bakke a "compelling state interest", but I might not understand the meaning of that properly. There are universities that don't discriminate (UC?) and they somehow get away with it. If you were running Harvard and trying your best to comply with the law, would you feel it's legally safer to discriminate or to not discriminate? The answer to that points to whether they were operating in bad faith or not.
Title VI seems to clearly say "don't discriminate" but again I might not understand how exceptions are allowed.
It's important to understand the context in which these laws and Constitutional amendments were written. They were designed and enacted after the Civil War (in the case of the Fourteenth Amendment) and the 1960s (Civil Rights Act, once we determined the Fourteenth Amendment was insufficient) to prevent Black people from being discriminated against. At the time, nobody, including the authors, considered these laws to be a shield to protect white and Asian people from discrimination. (At that time, there were hardly any Asians in the US anyway.)
So, from the 1960s until recently, the Court allowed universities to consider race in university admissions because it advanced a public policy that sought to improve the lot of Black people: the more Blacks could enter the ranks of the educated elite, the better off they would be in the long run, both socially and economically.
Over time, though, people whose admissions were rejected started to fight back: they felt that academic merit trumped all other considerations. After all, if they got better grades and aptitude test scores, weren't they more deserving of admission? The fights began, and over time, the Court chipped away at the acceptable use of race in admissions. Finally, in SFAA, the Court did away with them altogether.
As far as "pushing the boundaries" is concerned, actors will generally try to do whatever's in their best interest provided it's not illegal. There's no reward for maintaining a wide margin from legal boundaries when there's competition.
Is that how the law works? Because the Civil Rights Act was written with black people in mind, it only applies to black people even though the wording doesn't specify that? Surely it's quite an obvious omission that they would have written down if that's what they'd wanted. Is it a kind of trick law written to make people think other races are protected but due to how laws are interpreted, it was always known not to apply to them?
It is a fair criticism (some would say a defect) of our legal system that legislation is not always as explicit as we would like it to be. Take California's Penal Code 187(a) which defines murder as:
"(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought."
It turns out that "malice aforethought" is a term of art that requires no actual malice and not much forethought.
Anyway, if you look at the legislative history of the Civil Rights Act (and courts frequently look to legislative history when interpreting statutes), you'll see that its backers in Congress were concerned about racial segregation, which at the time according to practice separated white people from everyone else (mostly Blacks).
If you’re not a textualist, there is a coherent reading that it only applies to American descendants of slaves. But that would mean that it doesn’t protect asians, hispanics, etc!
A logical and factual error made by proponents of affirmative action is to start with the premise that the civil rights laws were intended to help american descendants of slaves, but then extend them to other non-whites by categorizing them as “functionally black.” This is utterly incoherent, because black descendants of slaves and native americans are sociologically and economically distinct from other non-whites. Hispanics are just time-shifted Italians and Irish: low skill immigrants that economically assimilate within a few generations. By contrast, the gaps between black descendants of slaves and native Americans and other americans are not shrinking over time. They remain as large today as in 1965.
There’s a coherent version of affirmative action that gives a preference to descendants of slaves and native Americans but nobody else. But that bears no resemblance to the “diversity” based system that actually exists, which irrationally privileges Cubans over Bangladeshis because Indians are richer than Mexicans.
I’ve told you this time and time again that Bengalis who emigrated to this country before 1965 assimilated into the black community, but you completely refuse to listen to me.
At the time, nobody, including the authors, considered these laws to be a shield to protect white and Asian people from discrimination.
This is very much false, and can be easily refuted by reading what the lawmakers were saying as the law was being passed. For example, here's from the DoJ's memorandum, as quoted on the Senate floor by Senator Clark:
> "Finally, it has been asserted that title VII would impose a requirement for 'racial balance.' This is incorrect. There is no provision . . .
in title VII .. .that requires or authorizes any Federal agency or Federal
court to require preferential treatment for any individual or any group
for the purpose of achieving racial balance. . . . No employer is required to maintain any ratio of Negroes to whites .... On the contrary, any deliberate attempt to maintain a given balance would almost certainly run afoul of title VII because it would involve a failure or refusal to hire some individual because of his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. What title VII seeks to accomplish, what the civil rights bill seeks to accomplish is equal treatment for all."
This explicitly says that you cannot have a racial quota, because it would be against Title VII of the proposed Civil Rights Act, meaning that the lawmakers proposing the bill explicitly said that the Title VII will protect whites (and all other races) as well as blacks.
I respect your argument, and in my research, I found articles in support of your opinion.
Nevertheless, when the Supreme Court adjudicated the question in United Steelworks v. Weber, 443 U.S. 193 (1979), this is what they said:
"""Our conclusion is further reinforced by examination of the language and legislative history of 703 (j) of Title VII. Opponents of Title VII raised two related arguments against the bill. First, they argued that the Act would be interpreted to require employers with racially imbalanced work forces to grant preferential treatment to racial minorities in order to integrate. Second, they argued that employers with racially imbalanced work forces would grant preferential treatment to racial minorities, even if not required to do so by the Act. See 110 Cong. Rec. 8618-8619 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Sparkman). Had Congress meant to prohibit all race-conscious affirmative action; as respondent urges, it easily could have answered both objections by providing that Title VII would not require or permit racially preferential integration efforts. But Congress did not choose such a course. Rather, Congress added 703 (j) which addresses only the first objection. The section provides that nothing contained in Title VII "shall be interpreted to require any employer . . . to grant preferential treatment . . . to any group because of the race . . . of such . . . group on account of" a de facto racial imbalance in the employer's work force. The section does not state that "nothing in Title VII shall be interpreted to permit" voluntary affirmative efforts to correct racial imbalances. The natural inference is that Congress chose not to forbid all voluntary race-conscious affirmative action.
The reasons for this choice are evident from the legislative record. Title VII could not have been enacted into law without substantial support from legislators in both Houses who traditionally resisted federal regulation of private business. Those legislators demanded as a price for their support that "management prerogatives, and union freedoms . . . be left undisturbed to the greatest extent possible." H. R. Rep. No. 914, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 2, p. 29 (1963). Section 703 (j) was proposed by Senator Dirksen to allay any fears that the Act might be interpreted in such a way as to upset this compromise. The section was designed to prevent 703 of Title VII from being interpreted in such a way as to lead to undue "Federal Government interference with private businesses because of some Federal employee's ideas about racial balance or racial imbalance." 110 Cong. Rec. 14314 (1964) (remarks of Sen. Miller). 6 See also id., at 9881 (remarks of Sen. Allott); id., at 10520 (remarks of Sen. Carlson) id., at 11471 (remarks of Sen. Javits); id., at 12817 (remarks of Sen. Dirksen). Clearly, a prohibition against all voluntary, race-conscious, affirmative action efforts would disserve these ends. Such a prohibition would augment the powers of the Federal Government and diminish traditional management prerogatives while at the same time impeding attainment of the ultimate statutory goals. In view of this legislative history and in view of Congress' desire to avoid undue federal regulation of private businesses, use of the word "require" rather than the phrase "require or permit" in 703 (j) fortifies the conclusion that Congress did not intend to limit traditional business freedom to such a degree as to prohibit all voluntary, race-conscious affirmative action.
"""
So it seems clear that nobody interprets title VII to mean discrimination is required (at best, allowed). Yet courts did seem to interpret title VI to mean just that and universities did discriminate. I wonder why? I feel like they were skirting the law to serve their own interests rather than trying to follow the law.
America is a democracy, not a bureaucracy. The executive branch is governed by a single representative elected by the people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the people didn't make a great choice this time but our constitutional republic is also one of the foundational pillars of american strength and trump being an idiot doesn't change that.
The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional. Some of the executive branch's appointee's have authority over him but only in specific circumstances (such as 25th amendment) and they're usually in agreement with him since he gets to appoint them anyways. Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf.
This is true only to the extent that Congress delegates its power to the executive. Per Article I of the Constitution, Congress has the plenary power of the purse.
So if it decides to spend $X on something specific, it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case.
> So if it decides to spend $X on something specific, it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case.
But the Congress never did that. You won't find an appropriations bill where Congress allocated $X to Harvard and $Y to Princeton, etc. In fact, it did the opposite. Under Title VI, it empowered the executive branch to withhold money based on civil rights violations. And regardless of your view on Presidential power vis-a-vis executive branch agencies, 42 USC 2000d-1 specifically subordinates federal agencies' rules, regulations, and orders pursuant to Title VI to the authority of the "President."
We’re in agreement here. That’s why I mentioned in the first sentence that Congress can delegate certain spending decisions. But it’s not the default behavior as the Constitution defaults to Congress having sole plenary authority.
Trump is not using Title VI to justify withholding federal funding. He's just withholding federal funding and his minions are coming up with the justification after the fact. And even then, it's insufficient, because Title VI requires an investigation and a fair amount of procedure.
This is one of the stupider things this administration does. They have the legal power to do lots of the things they're doing, but they are too incompetent to dot their is and cross their ts.
Who knew that driving off everyone who was good at their job would make the administration less competent?
>This is true only to the extent that Congress delegates its power to the executive.
Directly or indirectly the people of the United States have power over all three branches. One can easily make strong arguments that the problem here is both that Congress as abdicated its powers to the executive (rather than delegated), and that the people have ignored that Congress should retain those powers while focusing on the presidency as the important election to the exclusion of all others.
This has been going on for decades or longer.
>So if it decides to spend $X on something specific, it has to be spent on whatever that something is. The President doesn't have discretion in that case.
Sure. Definitely means he can't spend it on something else. But how much wiggle room is in this? Does it say on which day, hour, and minute it must be spent? Sure, it's probably tied at least to the fiscal year (in which case it needs to be spent by September, one would suppose), but that's months away. Does allocating a budget imply that it needs to be spent at all? If some bureau or department fails to spend all of its budget, has the president somehow committed some treason-adjacent crime, or is that just thriftiness? Are these funds earmarked for specific universities? What if he just goes shopping for alternative recipients?
To say that he has no discretion at all is absurd, if that were the case then Congress would have mandated that these be automatic electronic bank transfers without any human intervention (or oversight). The nature of the job not only implies but practically demands some (if limited) discretion.
> If some bureau or department fails to spend all of its budget, has the president somehow committed some treason-adjacent crime, or is that just thriftiness?
Yes, he has. It is not the presidents power to judge whether the money he spent in defiance of congress is sufficient, it is congress that holds this power. If congress thinks they should spend less, they can settle this by changing the budget. What would you say if the next democratic president simply refused to spend a single dollar assigned to ICE to "be thrifty"?
Well, it’s unlikely to be “criminal” or “treason,” but it is unconstitutional. An aggrieved party can seek redress from the court to compel the executive to transfer the provisioned monies.
>What would you say if the next democratic president simply refused to spend a single dollar assigned to ICE to "be thrifty"?
I'd be thrilled. There's $6 billion that they spend on DEA every year that I'd be happy if it was just pocketed by Trump and spent on hookers or something. Normalize this, please.
The perverse incentives people will defend so that they can obey the letter (but not the spirit) of the law are downright bizarre. You're all getting everything you deserve, too bad I'm getting it with you.
In fact, when Congress passes a budget, it’s actually a law that must be executed by the executive. There are actually other laws against impoundment and against the executive changing the budget.
Trump is literally breaking the law but no one really cares to discuss that anymore since the gish gallop has be so quick this term.
AIUI Congress has not passed a budget in a long time. They pass "continuing resolutions" and they fund broad categories of spending and leave the details up to the funded entities (which then falls under the executive branch).
If Congress wants to fund something specific, they need to pass a law or budget that names that specific thing and how much they are appropriating. They aren't doing that.
Well, it's not that simple. Yes, Congress passes the bill saying that X billions of dollars have to be spent on universities, but that bill does not name every single university in US as beneficiary. That's what executive branch is for: to work out the details of how to implement the law passed by Congress.
So, Trump taking money from Harvard and giving it to say, a community college in Tampa is technically still correct implementation of the law. I mean, it all depends if he can defend his decision in court, because of course he cannot discriminate based on race, ethnicity, political affiliation etc.
It may not be unlawful, but institutions work best when there is stability of practice, even across leadership changes. Otherwise, you can’t do any long-range planning or undertake complex experiments or investments that could take years to bear fruit.
We used to have a shared sense of custom and mores that helped preserve this stability. But that seems to be out the window now, and regrettably so.
I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that Trump is breaking the law. I'm no expert in NSF funding, but Congress may well have delegated its authority over how the funds in the pool are to be allocated and distributed to the executive.
If someone has more knowledge to contribute, that'd be most welcome.
Clear example here is USAID. Congress has directed, as recently as March 2025, that a specific amount of funds be spent on the statutory goals of the US Agency for International Development. (I have not checked, but I am sure federal law also goes into some detail about what tasks USAID needs to perform.)
I do not imagine it is congruent with the law to simply fire all the staff and shut down USAID (or "merge" it into State).
The laws are all public and people are free to read that a few weeks ago, Congress directed the Executive to spend money as USAID for the statutory purposes behind USAID. That part is pretty clear.
With NSF grants, the question is whether the President can redistribute funding away from applicants affiliated with specific institutions he doesn’t like (my first approximation: probably).
With USAID, the question is whether the President has the authority to disband an entire Agency established and appropriated by Congress (22 U.S.C. 6563) (my first approximation: probably not).
Point taken. I was mostly addressing the larger question of whether the Executive is breaking the law wrt appropriations. Likely yes.
With science funding grants, the administration likely has latitude to make some changes, but the specifics of that latitude are going to be embedded in a thicket of overlapping statutes of different vintages.
Without going through all the specific statutes, I relied on the suggestion that if they are okay breaking the law around USAID funding passed in March, they likely are not going to find religion and adhere to laws governing science funding. But I guess anything's possible.
That is not a final word on the constitutionality of dissolving USAID, but it's an indication that the Court didn't believe plaintiffs had a high likelihood of success on the merits to justify the preliminary injunction.
The recent SCOTUS opinion that the President's official actions are not bound by the laws of man does provide a clear line of sight to really any action taken by the Executive branch. So it may not really even be productive to discuss limits on Executive power anymore.
That is in fact not what the Supreme Court said. It said that the President has immunity for “official acts,” just like Congress members and judges.
Say a judge dismisses an indictment of an accused murderer because the police didn’t have a proper search warrant. Then the accused murderer kills someone else. That could fall within the letter of “negligent homicide” laws, but the judge can’t be prosecuted for that because judges have absolute immunity for official acts.
Similarly, a red state prosecutor could have tried to prosecute Biden for something like negligent homicide on the theory that his opening of the boarder was a negligent act that resulted in deaths. Obviously you can’t do that, because the President has immunity for official acts. It would be completely insane if the President didn’t have immunity. President do lots of things which cause people to be killed, property to be destroyed, etc. You could prosecute those as crimes if you literally applied the criminal laws.
I agree with you here. I also think that (allegedly) ignoring federal statutes while reorganizing the government is pretty clearly an official act. So everything we are discussing is an official act.
If the Executive isn’t bound to follow federal appropriations laws, there’s no principled reason why he should have to follow other federal laws. And as you show, the president has full criminal immunity as well.
What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms.
> What other laws are there that might limit his conduct? I’m of the understanding that where we are now is the only potential check on Presidents going forward is impeachment and removal from office. It’s a blunt instrument, but apparently there are no other applicable mechanisms.
The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse. Those are the main checks on the executive.
We have this 20th century conception of “the rule of law,” where we imagine this neutral, independent “justice system” as the base layer on top of which the elected branches operate. Like the lowest level of an operating system kernel. But if you look at the debates at the constitutional convention, and read the federalist papers and anti-federalist papers, that’s not the system the founders actually created. The founders didn’t trust anyone to neutrally enforce the law. You won’t find anywhere in those primary sources where the founders envisioned some “rule of law” where private litigants use the court to micromanage executive policy.
Instead, what we have is a game of rock-paper-scissors, where no branch is assumed to be “independent” and no branch is a “base layer of the operating system.” Courts can declare the law, but can’t force the President to do something. But if the President doesn’t listen to the court, he can be voted out of office, or impeached, or Congress can withhold funding for the administration. That is a complete system of checks and balances as it is.
> You won’t find anywhere in those primary sources where the founders envisioned some “rule of law” where private litigants use the court to micromanage executive policy.
Marbury vs Madison established the judiciaries authority to review actions of the executive. That was in 1803.
Regarding rule of law, in that opinion:
> When the heads of the departments of the Government are the political or confidential officers of the Executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.
1) Isn’t part of the founding sources I mentioned. It was quite controversial at the time.
2) Stands for exactly the opposite of what you’re arguing. Marbury goes to great lengths to disclaim any authority over executive policymaking and discretion, and limit courts to compelling executive officers to act only when the duties are specifically assigned by law and ministerial:
> This is not a proceeding which may be varied if the judgment of the Executive shall suggest one more eligible, but is a precise course accurately marked out by law, and is to be strictly pursued. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to conform to the law, and in this he is an officer of the United States, bound to obey the laws. He acts, in this respect, as has been very properly stated at the bar, under the authority of law, and not by the instructions of the President. It is a ministerial act which the law enjoins on a particular officer for a particular purpose.
And even after determining that delivery of the already executed commission is a ministerial act, the Court went out of its way to invoke a jurisdictional escape hatch to avoid actually enjoining an executive officer. A fair application of Marbury would preclude the sweeping powers courts have asserted to micromanage executive action in response to private litigation.
In Marbury, the court ruled that Marbury had already been appointed when the previous president signed his commission, and the only thing that remained was the purely ministerial act of the secretary of state delivering the signed letter that was sitting in the president’s desk. But even then, the Court found a way to avoid compelling the secretary of state to actually deliver the commission! How would the Marbury court view the prospect of a district court ordering the president to turn around military planes being used to deport an admitted El Salvadoran citizen? Or district courts ordering the President to reach out to a foreign country’s president to demand the return of that foreign country’s citizen! The Marbury court wouldn’t have dreamed of it!
What Marbury stands for is that the judicial branch can declare the legality of laws and executive actions, but should bend over backwards to avoid actually compelling the executive to perform any action.
> The primary check on the President is elections, not “the law.” Secondarily, there’s impeachment, and Congress’s power of the purse.
Right, that's where this discussion started. What we are looking at right now is the erosion of that second piece, Congress's power of the purse. The Constitutional checks and balances (not the 20th-century stuff you detail) doesn't work as well without this key Article I power. I have not seen it explained under what principle this power of Congress has been arrogated instead to the Executive.
It wasn’t done based on principle but laziness. Congress undoubtedly has the power to leave some particulars of how to spend money up to the President. But Congress has abused that power to basically provide the executive with giant slush funds with only the vaguest directions as to how to use that money. Congress can take that power back at any time.
You're not wrong. If the President does not follow a federal law, he is not performing an official act, and he is not immune from criminal liability.
If he chooses to continue to ignore the law, the solution isn't the courts. It's the Second Amendment, which was added to the Bill of Rights as a check on exactly this (though the Founders intended for it to be exercised through the States' militias, not the citizens directly, based on the text of the first half of the amendment).
Before resorting to violence, the remedy is to impeach and convict the President, and, failing that, elect a replacement President. Only if the incumbent fails to cede authority should further consideration be taken.
And, to be honest, I’m not really sure that a bunch of unorganized wingnuts that slobber all over their big-man toys are going to prevail over the National Guard, if the latter remain loyal to the President, and a lot of innocent lives will probably be lost due to militia incompetence.
Biden didn't ignore immigration law. He executed it. He arrested more immigrants than Trump did during his first term. Republicans simply disagreed about how he was executing the laws because they wanted political talking points (and notably at Trump's urging, shot down a number of proposed immigration reforms that would have reduced illegal immigration, cut down on the asylum loophole, and make it easier to deport immigrants with criminal records...Laken Riley was killed by an illegal immigrant who was still in the country because Republicans blocked the laws that would have deported him.).
Trump isn't following the laws at all. He's simply issuing "executive orders" without regard to the powers or limitations of the executive as stated by the Constitution or the U.S. Code. Almost every single one of his executive orders during his second term violates a Constitutional prohibition in some way, and now that the initial shock to the system is over you're seeing judges overturn almost all of his orders...Even judges appointed by Trump during his first term are starting to overturn his executive orders.
So Trump's response was to call for the arrest of these judges. And to hint that violence would be appropriate way of removing them from.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Trump gets killed by a mob this term, it's going to be because he kept suggesting that violence was the way to deal with his opponents.
There are all kinds of laws that limit president's conduct, but the point is that there is no way to actually enforce these laws, other than voluntary compliance by the president and his government, and impeachment by legislature. This is by design, that's how the separation of powers works.
Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions." Feels like you're just ignoring what they have to say in the guise of "asking for more knowledge" when you don't actually know if they don't have the knowledge because of your own lack of expertise.
> Why do you assume that the person you're responding to is "jumping to conclusions.”
Because they said “Trump is literally breaking the law.” That hasn’t been established yet.
I happen to be an attorney as well as a hacker, and I worked in a Federal district court, so perhaps give me the benefit of the doubt that I just might know what I’m talking about. If you have legitimate questions of your own, I’d be happy to try to answer them.
This is an open question. The judicial branch has authority, on paper. But without means of enforcing that authority, it cannot truly constrain the executive.
Congress has a jail, sure. But I and the comment I was responding to were regarding the judiciary.
To put a finer point on it: if the president orders somebody to do something in violation of federal law, and then pardons them, can the law be enforced?
Congress’s big hammer is impeachment. The smaller hammer is refusing to fund his administration. Between that and elections, that’s plenty of ways to keep the president in check.
Read the RFCP. ArtIII judges can absolutely empower people other than USMS to carry out legal orders such as service of process and enforcement of contempt orders.
okay but that's not my point. The point is that their rulings are supposed to be based on their interpretations of the relevant laws, and that judges are not supposed to issue rulings solely on the basis that they don't like what the government is doing even if it is obviously stupid. The OP's basis for why the president shouldn't be allowed to do this was that publicly funded universities are "foundational pillars of America's strength in the 20th century".
I wouldn't be surprised if trump has in some way violated statute in relation to freedom of speech or academic independence but unless somebody makes a compelling argument that he has, he is a representative of the people operating under the authority granted to him as president, and being a wreckless fool doesn't change that.
I don't particularly like what he's been doing in his second term so far but in online discourse I've seen this worrying trend recently where people think that unelected bureaucrats who were hired because other unelected bureaucrats liked their resumes should be able to hamstring the president and overrule him (i think the strangest thing i've seen was people opining that the CIA should be getting involved). I think it's important to remember that the checks and balances in the US constitution are between the three branches of the federal government, and most of the big bureaus/departments/etc are under the executive branch which he is the sole executive of for the next four years.
And we have laws that say that the government cannot make obviously stupid decisions in a lot of domains. For example, a number of challenges to DOGE's activities have been under the Administrative Procedure Act, which limits how the government is able to make changes to regulation and staffing.
The mechanism that Trump is using to deny funding for the universities he hates is through statute. Courts can conclude that this action does not match the statute.
> I don't particularly like what he's been doing in his second term so far but in online discourse I've seen this worrying trend recently where people think that unelected bureaucrats who were hired because other unelected bureaucrats liked their resumes should be able to hamstring the president and overrule him
I'm very sorry, but this is the law. This is not just vibes. If you do not like this, then advocate for changing the law. But you are doing the precise thing that you are insisting that others are doing here.
> The judicial branch has authority to stop him but they're only supposed to use it if they are convinced that what he's doing is unconstitutional.
That omits a crucial issue that many amazingly overlook: The bar isn't constitutional but legal. Congress makes the laws, not the President. The President is bound by those laws, and in fact their job is to enforce the laws that Congress makes. They cannot do things unless empowered by the law.
If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed.
It's quite clear that the current President does not give a damn about the constitution, know anything about it, or have any compunction about blatant violation of the constitution.
> Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf.
> > Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf.
> This is factually wrong.
It’s literally the first sentence of Article II! “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article II doesn’t even talk about an “executive branch.” It assigns powers and responsibilities to the President.
It’s an extremely easy to understand structure that has been obfuscated during the 20th century. The constitutional actors are: the President, the 100 senators and 435 Congressmen, the 9 Justices, and Article III judges. They hold all the powers of their respective offices.
Can Congress appoint employees to be part of the Supreme Court, and provide for them to exercise judicial powers independently of the Justices? Of course not! Can Congress delegate to a staff of employees the power to make laws independently of the Congressmen? No! Obviously not! That would be absurd.
That’s not exactly what they held. They held that the President is immune from prosecution for official acts. Prosecutorial immunity doesn’t mean his conduct is not unlawful; it means he can’t be criminally prosecuted for it. That distinction is important because it doesn’t prevent courts from issuing injunctions. And, as stated by others, the immunity is extended only to official acts. What constitutes an official act isn’t super clear yet, but I think it’s safe to assume that golfing isn’t an official act.
The Roberts court invented the official acts immunity out of whole cloth for the sole purpose of keeping Trump out of jail. They're quite capable of interpreting everything he does as an official act.
Sort of. He would still be breaking the law, it’s just that if it’s an ‘official act’ then the judiciary can’t do anything about it, just Congress via impeachment.
I think that opinion would have been less controversial if the President hadn’t openly advertised his intent to violate the law repeatedly. It’s not like the courts are rendered powerless if the President violates the law; any judgments they render are still binding on the parties, even if they require the parties act in ways contrary to the executive’s interpretation of the law. That still means something as long people continue to respect the judiciary. The dangerous game we’re playing is finding out whether that respect will continue.
It also would have been much less controversial that, when asked, the Trump lawyer during oral arguments specifically dodged the question if the president can deploy Seal Team 6 to kill a political opponent. That choice is very telling as to what the next steps probably are, and none of them are good for this country.
The majority’s response to that is far more compelling than the dissent’s Seal Team Six hypothetical:
> The dissents’ positions in the end boil down to ignoring the Constitution’s separation of powers and the Court’s precedent and instead fear mongering on the basis of extreme hypotheticals about a future where the President “feels empowered to violate federal criminal law.” Post, at 18 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.); see post, at 26, 29–30; post, at 8–9, 10, 12, 16, 20–21 (opinion of JACKSON, J.). The dissents overlook the more likely prospect of an Executive Branch that cannibalizes itself, with each successive President free to prosecute his predecessors, yet unable to boldly and fearlessly carry out his duties for fear that he may be next. For instance, Section 371—which has been charged in this case—is a broadly worded criminal statute that can cover “‘any conspiracy for the purpose of impairing, obstructing or defeating the lawful function of any department of Government.’” United States v. Johnson, 383 U. S. 169, 172 (1966) (quoting Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 479 (1910)). Virtually every President is criticized for insufficiently enforcing some aspect of federal law (such as drug, gun, immigration, or environmental laws).
Look at section 371! If President didn’t have immunity for official acts, Trump could easily have relied on that broad statute to prosecute him for opening the border and thus “impairing” the function of ICE. Our criminal laws are breathtakingly broad in their wording, and a contrary ruling from the Supreme Court would’ve meant that the Presidency would become subordinate to prosecutors.
> If President didn’t have immunity for official acts, Trump could easily have relied on that broad statute to prosecute him for opening the border and thus “impairing” the function of ICE
Trump still wants to do this and the court will let him because you have to be incredibly naive or willingly ignorant to think that that this Supreme Court will apply the laws equally without regard to political party.
> t would’ve meant that the Presidency would become subordinate to prosecutors
Oh no, the President would have to follow the same laws as everyone else, how horrible!/s
> Oh no, the President would have to follow the same laws as everyone else, how horrible
“Laws” aren’t magic. If you could just have “laws” and trust prosecutors to enforce them fairly and neutrally, then the entire constitutional structure, with three branches and checks and balances, is pointless. You would just have prosecutors as basically the government’s “microkernel” and then the other three branches on top.
The framers didn’t create that system because they understood that you can’t trust prosecutors either—they’re political too! Our system is designed like a game of rock-paper-scissors, where the checks on each branch come from the other branches, not prosecutors enforcing “the law.”
Prosecutors enforce the laws by prosecuting. That's the function of the executive branch. It's in the name - EXECUTIVE branch.
The check on prosecutorial power lies both with the Judicial branch and, in cases of a jury trial, the People. Prosecutors are not judge, jury, and executioner.
The Legislative branch gets a say by writing, passing, repealing, or amending laws.
So the three branches check each other, no need to "just trust me, bro" with prosecutors.
If the President cannot faithfully execute the laws without BREAKING them then that either means the Judicial branch should strike down the laws that are preventing that or the Legislative branch should pass laws that contain a carve out for the President. The President is not above the law, so the half-measure of the Supreme Court deciding that they are in official acts is both ahistoric and enabling despotism.
> Prosecutors are not judge, jury, and executioner.
In practice they are. Criminal laws are written extremely broadly. And as they say, prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich. Then all it takes is putting the case in front of a favorable jury: trying a republican in new york city or a democrat in rural iowa. In that way, a handful of people can undo the will of the electorate.
The framers would have easily understood this. At the time, the states were trying to kill the federal government. You think they envisioned say a Virginia prosecutor trying the federal president before a Virginia judge and jury?
This is a fair question, but it's being asked a lot already.
Let's imagine that completely legitimate circumstances lead to the US Government stopping the stream of grants to the Ivy League universities. How would they cope, given their enormous endowments that generate significant interest? This question is asked much less, and the answer is much less obvious. Hence the value of TFA.
Additionally, the follow-on questions are irrelevant. There are a million better questions to ask on the other side of this as well, before we ask why someone can't live without the money that they've been acquiring entirely above board and legally. "Why does the gov't think it has the authority to do this?"
Why do we need to have theoretical debates about legitimate circumstances, when there are real debates about illegitimate circumstances happening? having this irrelevant follow-on discussion is doing the gov't's work for them.
In a different setting I can see asking this question, but there is no need to ask this question while the circumstances are clearly illegitimate.
What's the point of such an abstract question? The university's goals and expected resolution for the problem would always depend critically on why the stream of grants stopped.
When a large institution is faced with uncertainty about the future, it’s both feasible and prudent to make plans that account for multiple future outcomes. In this case, it makes sense to do both of the following:
1) Fight the administration in the legal system.
2) Plan for the case where some of those legal fights are lost.
What does it mean, concretely, to plan for that case? It doesn't sound like there's any risk of a scenario where, like, Columbia can't pay maintenance staff and all the buildings flood. If the US government freezes them out of grant funding, then the research funded by those grants won't be funded any longer - there's no careful planning you can do to make that less true.
At some level, someone needs to have discretion on which grants to award and not award. You can call it "dictatorial", but I don't see how it's any less dictatorial if the decision-maker is some faceless, unaccountable bureaucrat vs a President that is accountable to voters. Surely, grants were being denied before for other reasons.
>Surely, grants were being denied before for other reasons.
Were they being denied? It might well be the case that grants were never denied except when the grant spigot ran dry waiting for the next year. I don't necessarily believe that is the case, but is there some evidence that it doesn't work like that?
If the funds are disbursed from the public Treasury, it is very much a political decision. You can put some intermediary bureaucrats to create a face of objectivity, but it's a political decision at it's core.
Funds duly allocated by the Legislature, which means they must be spent in service of what the Legislature allocated them for. Presidents cannot impound funds since the Impoundment Control Act, so either they need to spend them or convince Congress to change that allocation.
We can argue about the basis for terminating the grants until the cows come home, but this administration through DOGE has made it clear that they're not otherwise going to be spending this money, which is something the president cannot do.
Clawing back and terminating grants without due process is what dictators do; it's the opposite of what supporting and defending the Constitution is.
Snark aside, Yes I do. Congress if fully capable of being specific when it wants to and delegating to the executive when it doesn't. For example they required the A10 airplane to continue to operate. They didn't specify the caliber of bullets to use.
Process matters, everything else is to a first approximation merely platitudes. What's the difference between faceless bureaucrats making these decisions vs the president? It's the difference between rule of law vs dictatorship. Faceless bureaucrats have to follow policy defined by Congress and the President. If the person making the policy is the same person making the decision, and especially when the "policy" is whatever their fancy is, that's not rule of law. America was founded on the principle, "a government of law, not of men".
Moreover, faceless bureaucrats risk criminal and financial punishments for things like self-dealing. The president faces no such risk. And when they're a lame duck, they (theoretically) face zero risk, period.
Bureaucracies are slow. They're costly. Like democracy generally, they're inefficient. They're worthwhile because, at least as far as government is concerned, they're a necessary element to maintain rule of law and avoiding dictatorship. The solution to government bureaucracy isn't to remove the bureaucracy, it's to remove the government involvement. Otherwise, you're just inviting dictatorship. This has happened countless times. When the people get upset about perceived government ineffectiveness and its democratic institutions are too slow to respond (e.g. gridlocked Congress), there are two routes: privatization (i.e. reducing the role of government, not merely something like syndicalism) or dictatorship.
What's the difference between Donald Trump's rise to power and approach to governance, versus Huge Chavez's? Not much. The parallels are amazing. Both came to power promising radical overhauls of perceived sclerotic institutions, including broken legislatures. Like Trump, Chavez was a media whore who spent most of his time talking on television, making impossible promises and blaming everyone and everything else for his own failures. (Castro was like this, too.) They both spout so much B.S. that most people can't even keep up; they just start taking them at their word, which is why Chavez was popular until the day he died. His successor has zero charisma; the policies haven't changed, but now people hate the exact same kind of government they had during Chavez, but have no power to change it. That's what happens when you choose government of men rather than government of law.
Do you honestly think Trump is individually reviewing grants?
Trump with help of various groups makes political appointees who either individually oversee grant reviews or administrate individuals that do. These people are just as faceless and unaccountable as with any other president ...
The difference here is that Congress who is much more accountable to voters deliberated and wrote laws authorizing various funding which is being completely overridden by the branch of government that is supposed to carry out the law.
It is dictatorial, not because one person gets to make the decision, but because the US constitution delineates the powers of the gov't, to which the President does not have this power. I really do not understand why this is such a hard concept for many people here to grasp. The separation of powers is such a fundamental aspect of our government that I am astounded to see you miss this point. When any one branch usurps the power of another branch it is the *EXACT* kind of tyranny the constitution was created to avoid.
What was happening before this year? Surely, congress was not the one approving and awarding these grants. It was a member of the executive agency. Trump didn't declare any power that wasn't already being exercised by the executive.
You don't go and decide a case on the merits when you've thrown it out on standing.
Addressing the other question is a pre-requisite to considering the one included in this piece. And given that they are ignoring the presumable answer to the other question, they have not justified the existence of this article.
if you want to go that way, you're conveniently ignoring if congress should have the authority to allocate funds to nonprofits that aren't part of the government under the enumerated uses in article I section 8.
Yeeep. This is the only thing worth knowing about this whole mess. The people trust their reps to handle the money, and the reps are the only people who are supposed to be able to manage that money.
Yet here we have tacit acceptance that the president can fuck with citizens' money just because he's in his feels about something. Absolute clownery.
A few other commenters have alluded to it, but Obama's 2011 (and then 2014/2016) "Dear Colleague" letters are critical to understanding what's going on here. As FIRE tells it:
In April 2011, the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) established new mandates requiring colleges and universities receiving federal funding to dramatically reduce students’ due process rights. Under the new regulations, announced in a letter from Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Russlynn Ali, colleges and universities were required to employ a “preponderance of the evidence” standard—a 50.01%, “more likely than not” evidentiary burden—when adjudicating student complaints concerning sexual harassment or sexual violence. The regulations further required that if a university judicial process allows the accused student to appeal a verdict, it must allow the accusing student the right to appeal as well, resulting in a type of “double jeopardy” for the accused. Additionally, OCR’s letter failed to recognize that truly harassing conduct (as defined by the law) is distinct from protected speech. Institutions that did not comply with OCR’s new regulations faced federal investigation and a potential loss of federal funding.
The innovation in these letters was realizing OCR could just come to a new understanding of what civil rights law required, then tell universities that since this is what civil rights law means, following the guidance would be a mandate for institutions to receive federal funding. So now Trump's come in and reinterpreted civil rights law once again.
At this point probably a supermajority of the country thinks this innovative idea for enacting ad-hoc nationwide policy changes has been abused by one or more administrations, but I haven't heard anyone seriously working on a generalized solution. Everyone's mostly given up on Congress and just hopes their team can take control of the magic pen.
Certainly one could argue if evidence of widespread racism by specific institutions should face punishment by the executive. It is entirely reasonable to believe that we should turn the cheek to institutional racism so that we can get good research out of it.
This question was not raised when the Obama administration dictated procedures and evidentiary standards to universities in cases of sexual assault, with threats of being found liable under Title IX for noncompliance. Well it was raised by some on the right, and then dismissed because, you know, the right, and who wants to defend campus rapists anyway? Those Duke University lacrosse kids should have hung -- even if they didn't actually rape that girl, they might have... or they might have raped some other girl.
When Orange Man exercises a power he presumes to have, it's "dictatorial", but when "Pen and a Phone" Obama exercised that same power -- together with the people, follow where Obama leads.
Obama threatened, but did not make good on those threats. Trump is threatening and actively withholding funds even to Columbia which bent the knee, because these are institutions which are seen as political enemies by the administration.
Because the left never cared about the rules, except to circumvent them when in power and to use them as a way to prevent the other side from making meaningful progress when not.
Because to them, the "right person" is doing it for the "right reasons". Same as the Obama supporters, really. It's like, do we live in a constitutional republic with consistent rules the government is expected to follow, or is it "for my friends, anything; for my enemies, the law"?
One is complying with actual statutory law, the other is just ad hoc vengeance. You might not like it but one is an approach actually consistent with the constitutional order of power in this country and the other isn't. I'm so exhausted with this "tit for tat" bs. At best, it's a tacit admission that it is wrong and you don't care.
This unlimited relativism is bizarre. If Trump invaded Canada, is his argument that Roosevelt invaded Germany? There is a difference between one and the other.
What does the Duke lacrosse case have to do with it?
To show that these questions have been asked before, and when the social issue at stake is one that leftists champion, very very few on the left are willing to stand up to presidential authority in any way.
When the same exact power is used in a way that leftists by fiat deem "bad", there is no limit of the amount of pettiness, name calling, obstruction, and general ill will they will put to use to stop the president from doing something. in this case, it is to uphold Civil Rights law against a clear and ongoing violation.
This poster should have realized though that the way to win in politics hasn't been "debating the left" or crying "what if the roles were reversed?!" for some time now. Thats the way to be a principled loser, and be called all sorts of names in the process.
baseless attacks, like calling every republican a Nazi for the last 30 years seems to have worked quite well. Proclaiming your victimhood w.r.t. an abstract "patriarchy" has also lead to significant gains in political influence.
Duke lacrosse what the epitome of “Guilty because male”… which made the wind turn around and you have a situation to deal with now. All of this because people don’t want the left’s “Guilty because male” or “because [race]” solution, and they made it known through the ballots.
For those who don’t know: Under Title IX, in summary, accusers of rape have all rights for their case to be treated by internal boards in the uni, which means no due trial with merits or proof, which is blatantly unconstitutional but the left didn’t care at the time. Oh yeah and not only seizing the girl’s phone as evidence is forbidden too, but even showing the man’s phone with the conversation with the girl, because it would impede on the girl’s privacy. So some poor Lacrosse players got accused, adulthoods were already ruined, the women admitted to lying, and this is the case with probably all accused without due process during the 2013-2025 period.
The sexual assault allegations against Duke lacrosse players were headed for criminal court. They are unresolved because powerful people prevented them and their alleged victim from having a day in court, evidence and arguments being heard from both sides, and a jury rendering a verdict. Instead their parents did everything possible to keep it out of court (why?).
What you describe is that they are unresolved - there was no evidence, verdict. That was all suppressed, including by attacking the prosecutor. Why not clear their names in court?
Prosecutors in every other circumstance wield almost unchecked power - except when the children of the powerful might end up in court. Name another prosecutor treated in this way.
I don't know it was egregious; I think that was the media blitz by powerful people trying to shut them down.
Regardless, it happens all the time everywhere - witholding evidence, fabricated evidence, forced confessions, black site torture, endless harassment, etc. etc. What this DA allegedly did was relatively nothing.
Why are you citing the these institutions' contribution to the 20th century? We are 25 years past the 20th century, 35 years since the end of the Cold War (which was the spiritual end of the 20th century).
What have these elite institutions contributed to the 1990+ world order?
