
Trump Has Launched a Necessary Fight Over the President’s Spending Discretion
Whether he realizes it or not, President Trump could help restore the system the Founders envisioned.
President Trump’s attempted freeze on discretionary federal spending has run into a buzz saw of condemnation in Washington. As with several of Trump’s initiatives, opponents claimed that he had violated the Constitution and threatened the American system of government. They even convinced a federal judge in Washington, D.C., to temporarily block the order. But what critics, and perhaps even Trump, may not understand is the greater significance of this fight: it represents an effort to free the presidency of the Watergate “reforms” that have long handicapped it.
In the disputed order, the White House directed federal agencies to “temporarily pause all activities related to obligation or disbursement of all Federal financial assistance” and “identify and review all Federal financial assistance programs and supporting activities consistent with the President’s policies and requirements.” After the federal court injunction, White House officials backpedaled, at first conceding that they had rescinded the freeze but then claiming that it remained in effect.
Trump’s other moves have received the same treatment. His blizzard of executive orders has sparked cries that he is expanding presidential power beyond its constitutional limits. A federal district judge last week blocked Trump’s order reversing birthright citizenship as “blatantly unconstitutional.” After he removed 17 inspectors general, the New York Times editorial board declared that “many of Mr. Trump’s first assertions of executive power blatantly exceed what is legally granted.” When Trump ended federal diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, government employees and grantees filed suit on the ground that the White House was violating their free speech rights and infringing on Congress’s power of the purse. “In the United States, there is no king,” the lawsuit claims.
Constitutionalism

Epstein & Yoo: Amicus Brief in Supreme Court of Maryland
Civitas Senior Research Fellows Richard Epstein and John Yoo, alongside the Mountain States Legal Foundation, filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court of Maryland.
.webp)
Religious Exemptions?: What the Free Exercise Clause Means
A conversation among three religious liberty scholars on the Free Exercise Clause’s original meaning.

Democracy in Britain: The Lords’ Work
Part 2: How the “hereditary peers” enhance lawmaking and support the soft power of the UK.

The American Revolutions of 1776
America's founding was animated by both the spirit of liberty and the spirit of religion — a philosophical and practical achievement worth understanding and attempting to recover today.

Why Issues of Birthright Citizenship Are So Difficult
What makes this issue so difficult is that all these positions have evidence to support them.

Making Sense of the Court's Establishment Clause Doctrine
Chapman and McConnell acknowledge the judicial excesses of older caselaw and orient the doctrine toward a collection of historically sensitive second-best arrangements looking forward.