I am extremely done with analyses of Trump EOs and other policies which are clearly unconstitutional under all existing precedent and interpretation as simply "aggressive." No, they aren't.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Where a legal standard is ambiguous or is being applied to a difficult edge case there's room for interpretation, but even then the point of an "aggressive" stance is that it in fact has relatively weak support.
Where a legal principle is clear, taking the position that you don't care and won't follow it is not an "aggressive interpretation." It's a rejection of the principle.
Where that principle is a constitutional requirement which applies to a government officer, policies or actions based on a rejection of the requirement are unconstitutional.
Comments