No, Trump Cant Just Dismiss the Senate

Published

6 months ago

December 16, 2024

admin

Donald Trump has not even returned to office, and already a constitutional crisis may be in the making. Trump has started announcing the people he intends to nominate for positions in his new administration. That is his prerogative. Several senators have criticized some of Trumps choices. That is their prerogative (and two Trump nominees have already withdrawn under pressure). But rumors have been circulating of a plan to have Trump dismiss the Senate altogether, in a desperate effort to jam his nominees into office. There is simply no way to do this consistent with the text, history, and structure of the Constitution.

The Constitution and laws require the Senates approval to fill many of the governments most important officessuch as attorney general or secretary of stateall of which wield extraordinary powers on behalf of the public. The Senates involvement helps to ensure that the people in these jobs have the necessary competence and integrity. In Alexander Hamiltons apt words, the Senate can prevent the appointment of unfit characters who would be no more than obsequious instruments of the presidents pleasure.

The Senates check on the president can of course lead to friction and frustration at the start of an administration, while a new presidents nominees are considered and sometimes even rejected by the Senate. Advice and consent takes time. But as Justice Louis Brandeis famously observed, checks and balances exist not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. The purpose of the Constitution is not to avoid friction but to save the people from autocracy.

Read: The Senate exists for a reason

That is why any effort to cut the Senate out of the appointments process would be troubling; it is disdainful of self-government under a Constitution altogether. Trumps supporters have suggested two ways to get around the Senates advice-and-consent process. In the first, the Senate would vote to go into recess soon after Trumps inauguration, allowing him to unilaterally make a series of recess appointments. That plan may formally be legal, but it is plainly improper. The president is authorized to make recess appointments to ensure the continued functioning of the Federal Government when the Senate is away, as Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the Supreme Court in 2014. That mechanism was vital in an age when the Senate was frequently absent from the capital for months at a time and could not quickly and easily reconvene. But, as Breyer also noted, the Constitution does not give the President the authority routinely to avoid the need for Senate confirmation. For the Senate to go into recess at the beginning of a new administration for the sole purpose of allowing the president to fill up the government with whomever he pleasesall while the Senate is controlled by the presidents party and perfectly capable of considering his nomineeswould be a clear misuse of the recess-appointment power. Happily, the new Senate seems to agree, balking at Trumps request that it surrender its prerogative so meekly.

As a result, some House Republicans have begun to discuss a more extreme scheme, one Trump considered during his first term: Trump could instead send the Senate home against its will and fill the government during the resulting recess. This is flagrantly unlawful.

How, one might ask, would such a plan even work? After all, the president, unlike an absolute monarch, does not have the power to dismiss Congress whenever he wants. Three of the first six abuses and usurpations charged in the Declaration of Independence related to King George IIIs treatment of legislatures: He had dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, he had refused to hold elections after these dissolutions, and he had called together legislative bodies at distant and uncomfortable places. The Framers were careful not to entrust the new office of president with such potent tools of tyranny. Instead, the president was given the power to adjourn the houses of Congress in only one narrow circumstance: in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment. This power is so limited that it has never been used in all of American history.

Read: How Trump could make Congress go away for a while

The House Republicans idea seems to be to manufacture a disagreement to trigger this adjournment power. First, the House of Representatives would pass a resolution calling for a recess. The Senate would then (in all likelihood) refuse to pass the resolution. Trump would then declare the houses to be in disagreement and adjourn both houses for as long as he likes. From there, he would start his recess-appointments spree. There is just one glaring problem: The disagreement in this scenario is illusory.

Under the Constitution, each house can generally decide for itself how long it will sit. As Thomas Jefferson, an expert on legislative procedure, wrote in 1790: Each house of Congress possesses [the] natural right of governing itself, and consequently of fixing its [sic] own times and places of meeting.

The Constitution limits this autonomy in one key way: Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting. In other words, if one house of Congress wants to leave in the middle of a session, it has to get the permission of the other house. The House of Representatives cant just skip town if the Senate thinks important legislative business remains. But note that this provision limits each houses power to adjourn, and not each houses power to remain sitting. Neither house needs the agreement of the other to stay in session. If the Senate wants to let the House of Representatives leave while it considers appointments or treaties, that is perfectly fine. Indeed, there are plenty of examples of one house giving the other permission to go home. Under Article I, then, each house requires consent of the other to quit, but not to sit.

Read: The flaw in the presidents newest constitutional argument

Hence the trouble for the House Republicans plan: If the House of Representatives wants to recess, the Senate can simply let it. And if the Senate agrees to let the House go, the House can leave and there is no relevant disagreement for the president to resolve by adjourning Congress. The Senate would still be in session as normal.

The presidents adjournment power is not a backdoor way for one house of Congress to force the other into recess against its will. If both the Senate and the House want to leave, but cannot agree on a time of adjournment, then the president can step in. In the words of a 19th-century treatise by Justice Joseph Story, an intervention from the president in that kind of situation is the only peaceable way of terminating a controversy, which can lead to nothing but distraction in the public councils. Perhaps if one house of Congress wants to leave, but the other house wont let iteffectively holding it hostage in the capitalthe president could also step in to resolve that disagreement by releasing the house that wants to leave. During the ratification debates in Virginia, James Monroe questioned whether it was proper that the members of the lower house should be dependent on the senate, given that they are prevented from returning home without the senates consent. James Madison responded by pointing to the presidents adjournment power.

What some House Republicans seem to be suggesting is worlds away from those scenariosit is closer to the prorogation or dissolution power claimed by the British Crown and reviled by the Founders. Simply put, the House of Representatives cannot collude with the president to deprive the Senate of its constitutional power to advise and consent on appointments. That would make a mockery of the Constitutions text and structure. If the House attempts this maneuver, the Senate should resist it by continuing to meet, and the courts should refuse t recognize any resulting appointments. The threat to adjourn the Senate should be seen and called out for what it is: an autocratic move that is not just unlawful but contemptuous of constitutionalism.

World

Two bridges collapse in Russia – as seven people killed and dozens injured

Published

3 hours ago

June 1, 2025

admin

Two bridges collapse in Russia - as seven people killed and dozens injured

Seven people have been killed and dozens are injured after two bridges collapsed in Russia overnight.

A train derailed after a bridge collapsed on to it in the Bryansk region, killing the driver and six others.

Some 69 people were injured in the crash, with the train travelling from Moscow to Klimov at the time.

Earlier, local authorities blamed “illegal interference” for the incident.

Later, a bridge collapsed in Russia’s Kursk region while a freight train was passing over it.

Local officials said one of the train’s drivers was injured in the crash.

Russia’s Baza Telegram channel, which often publishes information from sources in the security services and law
enforcement, reported, without providing evidence, that the bridge in Bryansk was blown up, according to initial information.

There was no immediate comment from Ukraine.

Since the start of the war that Russia launched more than three years ago, there have been continued cross-border shelling, drone strikes, and covert raids by Ukrainian forces into the Bryansk, Kursk and Belgorod regions that border Ukraine.

Bryansk regional governor Alexander Bogomaz said: “Everything is being done to provide all necessary assistance to the victims.”

Emergency workers are at the scene of the train derailment, attempting to pull survivors from the wreckage.

Russia’s federal road transportation agency said the destroyed bridge passed above the railway tracks where the train was travelling.

Images from the scene show passenger cars ripped apart and lying amid fallen concrete from the collapsed bridge.

Other footage on social media appeared to be taken from inside vehicles which narrowly avoided driving onto the bridge before it collapsed.

World

At least 21 killed in Gaza as they went to receive aid, Red Cross hospital says

Published

4 hours ago

June 1, 2025

admin

At least 21 killed in Gaza as they went to receive aid, Red Cross hospital says

At least 21 people have been killed in Gaza as they went to receive aid from an Israeli-backed foundation, according to a nearby hospital run by the Red Cross.

The hospital, which received the bodies, said another 175 people had been wounded in the incident in Rafah on Sunday morning.

The Associated Press also reports seeing dozens of people being treated at the hospital.

Witnesses have said those killed and injured were struck by gunfire which broke out at a roundabout near the distribution site.

The area is controlled by Israeli forces.

Ibrahim Abu Saoud, an eyewitness, said Israeli forces opened fire at people moving toward the aid distribution centre.

“There were many martyrs, including women,” the 40-year-old man said. “We were about 300 meters (yards) away from the military.”

Abu Saoud said he saw many people with gunshot wounds, including a young man who he said had died at the scene. “We weren’t able to help him,” he said.

The Gazans had been trying to receive aid from the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation – an American organisation backed by both the US and Israeli governments.

It operates as part of a controversial aid system which Israel and the US claims is aimed at preventing Hamas from siphoning off assistance.

Israel has not provided any evidence of systematic diversion, and the UN denies it has occurred.

Earlier, Hamas-linked media had also reported more than 20 deaths in Rafah, saying they were as a result of an Israeli strike on an aid distribution point. Israel is yet to comment.

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation’s distribution of aid has been marred by chaos, and multiple witnesses have said Israeli troops fired on crowds near the delivery sites.

UN agencies and major aid groups have refused to work with the new system, saying it violates humanitarian principles because it allows Israel to control who receives aid and forces people to relocate to distribution sites, risking yet more mass displacement in the territory.

Before Sunday, at least six people had been killed and more than 50 wounded, according to local health officials.

The foundation says the private security contractors guarding its sites did not fire on the crowds, while the Israeli military has acknowledged firing warning shots.

The foundation did not immediately respond to a request for comment following the hospital’s claims.

In an earlier statement, it said it distributed 16 truckloads of aid early on Sunday “without incident”. It dismissed what it referred to as “false reporting about deaths, mass injuries and chaos”.

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the full version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.

UK

UK to build weapons factories and buy thousands of missiles in £1.5bn push to rearm

Published

6 hours ago

June 1, 2025

admin

UK to build weapons factories and buy thousands of missiles in £1.5bn push to rearm

The UK will buy up to 7,000 long-range missiles, rockets and drones and build at least six weapons factories in a £1.5bn push to rearm at a time of growing threats.

The plan, announced by the government over the weekend, will form part of Sir Keir Starmer’s long-awaited Strategic Defence Review, which will be published on Monday.

However, it lacks key details, including when the first arms plant will be built, when the first missile will be made, or even what kind of missiles, drones and rockets will be purchased.

The government is yet to appoint a new senior leader to take on the job of “national armaments director”, who will oversee the whole effort.

Andy Start, the incumbent head of Defence Equipment and Support – the branch of defence charged with buying kit – is still doing the beefed-up role of national armaments director as a sluggish process to recruit someone externally rumbles on.

Revealing some of its content ahead of time, the Ministry of Defence said the defence review will recommend an “always on” production capacity for munitions, drawing on lessons learned from Ukraine, which has demonstrated the vital importance of large production lines.

It will also call for an increase in stockpiles of munitions – something that is vitally needed for the army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force to be able to keep fighting beyond a few days.

Sky News will launch a new podcast series on 10 June based around a wargame that simulates an attack by Russia against the UK to test Britain’s defences

“The hard-fought lessons from [Vladimir] Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine show a military is only as strong as the industry that stands behind them,” John Healey, the defence secretary, said in a statement released on Saturday night.

“We are strengthening the UK’s industrial base to better deter our adversaries and make the UK secure at home and strong abroad.”

The UK used to have a far more resilient defence industry during the Cold War, with the capacity to manufacture missiles and other weapons and ammunition at speed and at scale.

However, much of that depth, which costs money to sustain, was lost following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, when successive governments switched funding priorities away from defence and into areas such as health, welfare and economic growth.

Even after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 and a huge increase in demand from Kyiv for munitions from its allies, production lines at UK factories were slow to expand.

Sky News visited a plant run by the defence company Thales in Belfast last year that makes N-LAW anti-tank missiles used in Ukraine. Its staff at the time only worked weekday shifts between 7am and 4pm.

Under this new initiative, the government said the UK will build at least six new “munitions and energetics” factories.

Energetic materials include explosives, propellants and pyrotechnics, which are required in the manufacturing of weapons.

There were no details, however, on whether these will be national factories or built in partnership with defence companies, or a timeline for this to happen.

There was also no information on where they would be located or what kind of weapons they would make.

In addition, it was announced that the UK will buy “up to 7,000 UK-built long-range weapons for the UK Armed Forces”, though again without specifying what.

It is understood these weapons will include a mix of missiles, rockets and drones.

Sources within the defence industry criticised the lack of detail, which is so often the case with announcements by the Ministry of Defence.

The sources said small and medium-sized companies in particular are struggling to survive as they await clarity from the Ministry of Defence over a range of different contracts.

One source described a sense of “paralysis”.

The prime minister launched the defence review last July, almost a year ago. But there had been a sense of drift within the Ministry of Defence beforehand, in the run-up to last year’s general election.

The source said: “While the government’s intentions are laudable, the lack of detail in this announcement is indicative of how we treat defence in this country.

“Headline figures, unmatched by clear intent and delivery timelines which ultimately leave industry no closer to knowing what, or when, the MOD want their bombs and bullets.

“After nearly 18 months of decision and spending paralysis, what we need now is a clear demand signal from the Ministry of Defence that allows industry to start scaling production, not grand gestures with nothing to back it up.”

As well as rearming the nation, the government said the £1.5bn investment in new factories and weapons would create around 1,800 jobs across the UK.