R O'Connor (aka ROC)

In short, at present the head of DOGE is acting beyond the power of his employment within the White House. Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution confers authority on the legislative branch the power to deal with how the funds received by the Federal Treasury are dispensed. The funds must be dispensed according to the appropriations bills passed by Congress. The appropriation bills determine how those funds are dispensed for government programs from infrastructure to social security including payments to those who served. The President cannot unilaterally appoint a person to override congressional mandate. That power rests solely with the elected members to the house and senate of the U.S. Congress under Art 1(8). The Article 2 powers do not permit that, in fact, the “take care” provisions specifically requires the President to carefully and faithfully follow the laws of the U.S., in this instance Art 1(8). That is what creates the separation of powers and co-equal branches of government. The U.S. Federal Court is entitled to issue a temporary restraining order until Congress passes a constitutional amendment and legislation authorising the head of DOGE to usurp its authority. There is nothing in Trump v US 603 US. (2024) that grants any such immunity or authority. It is not expressly allowed by Article 2 and sits far over the outer perimeter of the whole of the U.S. Constitution and any official or non official duty given to the President under it. There is no unilateral prerogative granted of that kind, that is the kind of prerogative granted to a King. But even the King of England’s prerogative of that kind in 1789 was ultimately subject to the Privy Council, a division of the House of Lords, which was the result of the English civil war.

The invocation of the Second Amendment as a bulwark against tyranny is historically rooted in Jeffersonian idealism rather than settled constitutional law. The U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed the right to bear arms, yet it has never endorsed insurrectionary logic as a legitimate extension of that right. Still, the selective application of this rhetoric—used by some to challenge imagined overreach while ignoring tangible infringements—invites inquiry. Constitutional fidelity demands consistency, not convenience.

Why are all those pro Second Amendment conservatives who kept screaming that we need guns to rise up against a tyrannical government just embracing the current tyranny?

The legislative record of the 115th Congress confirms that the 2017 tax reforms delivered a disproportionate benefit to corporations and high-net-worth individuals, as analyzed by the CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation. Meanwhile, long-term wage growth for working-class Americans remained largely static, even as income inequality widened. Political rhetoric aside, the foundational question remains: what economic policy, grounded in law and precedent, ensures that public revenue serves the broader body politic and not merely the wealthiest among it?

Biden laid into the GOP, saying they are “willing to hurt the middle class, and the working class, in order to deliver significant greater wealth to the already very wealthy. Who in the hell do they think they are?” More here: dworkinsubstack.com/p/biden-slams-…

Court transcripts are not themselves evidence—they are records of proceedings in which allegations are made and contested. It is the role of judicial process, guided by evidentiary rules, to distinguish accusation from fact. If court records are referenced as standalone proof in lieu of presenting corroborative evidence, the principle of due process—enshrined in both domestic and international law—may be at risk. Particularly in cases involving detention, deportation, or extradition of U.S. citizens abroad, such as Garcia. A transcript is not a verdict.

It's pretty unconscionable that when Pam Bondi was asked to show proof against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, she said they have court transcripts. The Attorney General of the United States thinks that their allegations in court are EVIDENCE?! Vile.

@ArtCandee @realDonaldTrump Hear hear!

@realDonaldTrump Biden will always be the better man.

Any sovereign state may enforce its criminal code. Yet, such enforcement must remain within the bounds of international law and fundamental human rights—chiefly, the right to due process under Article 14 of the ICCPR, to which El Salvador is a party. The posting of promotional images from detention centers alleged to engage in cruel or degrading treatment raises broader concerns. Not merely of optics, but of whether elected officials are normalizing state violence as spectacle. Due process is not an accessory of democracy—it is its spine.

If you go to a torture prison that holds refugees who were granted no due process and rather than check on their welfare you post creepy fetish photos, I must question the sincerity of your Christianity.

While the safeguarding of dissent is a bedrock of the First Amendment, the historical record reveals that national security has often served as a cloak under which civil liberties are curtailed. From Korematsu to COINTELPRO, precedent exists for the overreach of executive power in moments of perceived existential threat. Yet, speculation that rational dissent would lead to sweeping internment must be weighed against the constitutional protections that remain operative. These protections are not suspended by hypotheticals, but they are vulnerable when fear prevails. The lesson is to uphold liberty not when it is easy—but precisely when it is hard.

If an international coalition stood firm against the US and Israel, and a world war were to break out, innocent Americans with rational criticisms of our government will be rounded up under the guise of "national security" just for disagreeing with a genocidal status quo.

Trump’s SHOCKING Plan to Deport American Citizens to El Salvador Prisons youtu.be/Tauw296D1_A?fe… via @YouTube

This administration is literally disappearing innocent people off the street and sending them to brutal foreign prisons in full defiance of a unanimous Supreme Court. This fact must scare every American who respects the rule of law and loves the ideals on which this country was founded. #ResistTrump

In the author’s opinion, in the case of Garcia, it is noted a plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the return of Garcia, who has been incontrovertibly established to be a U.S. citizen, should be “facilitated” by all necessary steps. Given that the current administration can rely on contractual arrangements with the operators of the foreign prison, it seems to be that the simple exercise of the administration’s right under contract could facilitate his return. Leaving aside any argument as to whether the prospective requirements had there been an individual habeas corpus petition in this instance. There is a U.S. citizen in a foreign prison which the current administration can immediately facilitate the release through the exercise of its contractual rights. It is neither left nor right. It is the simple application of the law of contract by the current administration. It is apolitical. And that is but the authors opinion.

Happy Wednesday dear friends🍃🤍🍃💜🍃☕️🕊️

#Trump #TrumpTariffs #Tariffs #MadeInChina

Law Library of the New Town Hall, Munich 🇩🇪

Obama praises Harvard after the Trump administration pulls billions in funding ow.ly/5B3K10660oP

In the author’s opinion, in the case of Garcia, it is noted a plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the return of Garcia, who has been incontrovertibly established to be a U.S. citizen, should be “facilitated” by all necessary steps. Given that the current administration can rely on contractual arrangements with the operators of the foreign prison, it seems to be that the simple exercise of the administration’s right under contract could facilitate his return. Leaving aside any argument as to whether the prospective requirements had there been an individual habeas corpus petition in this instance. There is a U.S. citizen in a foreign prison which the current administration can immediately facilitate the release through the exercise of its contractual rights. It is neither left nor right. It is the simple application of the law of contract by the current administration. It is apolitical. And that is but the authors opinion.

In the author’s opinion, in the case of Garcia, it is noted a plurality of the U.S. Supreme Court has found that the return of Garcia, who has been incontrovertibly established to be a U.S. citizen, should be “facilitated” by all necessary steps. Given that the current administration can rely on contractual arrangements with the operators of the foreign prison, it seems to be that the simple exercise of the administration’s right under contract could facilitate his return. Leaving aside any argument as to whether the prospective requirements had there been an individual habeas corpus petition in this instance. There is a U.S. citizen in a foreign prison which the current administration can immediately facilitate the release through the exercise of its contractual rights. It is neither left nor right. It is the simple application of the law of contract by the current administration. It is apolitical. And that is but the authors opinion.