As to the new funding
cuts, the universities of Wisconsin
president said taking a meat
cleaver to funding is wrong.
Well, it's happening throughout U.S.
agencies at the hands of Elon Musk
and President Trump.
And now there are calls to impeach
judges who are temporarily blocking
some of the cost cutting moves.
Is any of this constitutional given
the separation of powers?
We turn to conservative attorney
Rick Isenberg, president of the
Wisconsin Institute for Law and
Liberty. And thanks very much for
being here.
Thank you for having me on.
So how do these moves to eliminate
agencies and spending square
with the separation of powers
under the Constitution?
Yeah, I mean, I think it's
fair to say that
the answer is mixed.
There are some things that
the president clearly has or
a reasonable argument command that
he ought to have the power
to do.
And there are some things that are
more problematic.
You mentioned the
unilateral reduction in
overhead costs for
New age grants.
That probably violates the statute
and that Congress can
constitutionally impose on the
president.
There's other instances where the
president is pausing funding
to review
the way that
a congressional mandate is being
carried out, which
are defensible.
There are yet other areas where
we don't know what's going to
happen. I mean, there
are tweets in which, you know,
claims are made that USAID
can be it's going to be abolished.
You probably can't do that.
But can you redirect its
funding consistent with
congressional appropriations?
Yeah, you probably can do that.
And we just don't know where
the thing is going to wind up as
all of this plays itself.
Out well, as all of it plays itself
out. And you watch Elon Musk wield
his meat cleaver.
What's your reaction to that?
Well, again, it
kind of depends.
The problem here is that Congress
doesn't appropriates money
for a particular purpose.
Let's say that it wants
USAID to spend $1
billion on economic development
aid in Guatemala.
I think under those circumstances,
the president has to spend
$1 billion
for economic development aid in
Guatemala. I cannot say
that I don't think that works.
I disagree with Congress because
Congress is the one that passed
a law that requires that spending.
However, the agency
has a great deal of discretion,
probably more discretion than I'd
like to see them have and just
how that money is going to be spent.
And there is where the president
can assert some control.
And, you know, we can
get into, you know, detailed
legal arguments about whether the
Impoundment Control Act has been
complied with and
whether the Empowerment Control Act
is, in fact, constitutional.
If it requires congressional
improvement, approval
of the presidential pause
and redirection of funds.
So this is why
I say that all
of this stuff is
dependent upon the particular
context in which it arises
and precisely what's
being done.
And in some
instances, we
don't really know yet.
And the criticism
that we're hearing is premature
in yet other instances,
the criticism is well
taken.
What's your response to people like
now saying that judges are abusing
their power and calling to impeach
them for making decisions
like around temporary injunctions?
Well, I think that's ridiculous.
I mean, I think that
there are always going to be
disputes about
the the extent of executive
authority. There were all sorts of
disputes during the Biden
administration where the president,
you know, claimed the right to be
able to unilaterally do
a bunch of things and litigation
ensued and the
courts ruled.
And oftentimes
the Biden administration lost.
Sometimes it won.
And I think the same thing
is going to happen here.
And I think to say that
judges who disagree
or have a different view
of what the law requires
ought to be impeached for their
you know, for trying to do their
jobs is something that
I, I can't endorse.
And I'm
not I'm not on board with.
So there is reporting that the
Trump admin. Station has been
flouting judge's orders.
How perilous is that?
Or is it?
Well, I don't know that they have
been flouting judge's orders.
I mean, I think you had
a tweet.
I think it was by J.D.
Vance, which,
you know, people have interpreted as
expressing an intent
to flout judicial orders.
That would be wrong.
On the other hand, you have comments
by, you know, President Trump in the
Oval Office that he always abides
by judicial orders.
And so, you know,
there can sometimes be
and have sometimes in American
history been
conflicts between the executive and
the judicial branch about,
you know, the extent
of judicial authority.
But as a general rule, I think
that the
executive, the
president of the United States
controls the executive branch.
The president of United States does
not control the government.
There are going to be disputes about
where the boundaries between these
things lie in those disputes.
And there's a dispute.
Those disputes are ultimately
to be resolved by the judiciary.
That's our separation of powers.
And I think that
that's what we ought to
have guide us as we go
forward in the argument about all
of this stuff.
Indeed.
Rick Eisenberg, thanks very much.
Thank you.
That was a beautiful summation.
Thank you.
Well, thank you.
Either will either wind up with a.