Latest news with #checksandbalances
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Santa Fe city councilors want say if mayor decides to fire three key city officials
Santa Fe voters in November could see a proposed city charter amendment on their ballots requiring the City Council's consent before the mayor can remove a city manager, city attorney or city clerk. Currently, the city charter requires the mayor to get the council's consent when appointing people to the three positions but not when removing people. Councilors Pilar Faulkner, Lee Garcia and Amanda Chavez presented a resolution Wednesday to the council to change this. The resolution comes as election season is in full swing in Santa Fe, with seven mayoral candidates vying to replace Mayor Alan Webber, who is not running for reelection. Faulkner and Garcia said the resolution was not prompted by concerns about any candidate for mayor, but rather the councilors' broader concerns about checks and balances in Santa Fe's governing body, which has a full-time "strong" mayor. "If you have a powerful mayor and a weak council, you don't really have a safe or effective or responsible way of managing the city," Faulkner said. Faulkner said the city manager, city clerk and city attorney work for both the council and the mayor. Therefore, she said both the council and the mayor should have the ability to fire, or say no to the firing of, people in those positions. "If you don't have that balance, then there's the potential for the mayor to be the de facto city attorney, city clerk and city manager because the mayor holds those individuals' positions and is the only one that holds those positions in a place of authority," Faulkner said. In Santa Fe, the city manager is the highest-paid position. City Manager Mark Scott makes $225,000 annually, The New Mexican reported in February. "They are charged with a lot of responsibility, and I think the governing body needs to be able to be involved with those decisions," Garcia said. In creating the resolution, Faulkner was also thinking about its long-term implications. "You can say that an individual who is a mayor is a good person, and they will not abuse the power, but we don't know if every mayor we're going to get would be a good leader and not abuse the power," she said. If the council votes to pass the resolution, and if voters approve it, it will take effect Jan. 1, Garcia said. The new mayor would then have to get council approval before removing a city manager, city attorney or city clerk. Mayoral candidate and former Councilor JoAnne Vigil Coppler said she believes the mayor should have the authority to appoint and remove a city manager, city attorney or city clerk without council approval. "If a City Council wants to be involved in that, you can't have several masters," Vigil Coppler said. "The city manager reports to the mayor, period." Councilor Michael Garcia said he is 'on the fence' about the proposed charter amendment. Though running for mayor, he said he is approaching the legislation from the perspective of a government administrator. Michael Garcia said he would consider supporting the resolution if it was amended to make an exception for when a new mayor first takes office. As it is currently written, Garcia said the legislation does not allow an incoming mayor to choose his or her own leadership team, something he does not think is appropriate. 'It could really handcuff an administration' to appointees who may not support the new leader's agenda, Garcia said. Faulkner said she disagrees with such an amendment. "It's not the mayor's team; it's the city's team," Faulkner said. The deadline for the council to adopt ordinances or resolutions that establish a ballot question is Aug. 26. Lee Garcia and Faulkner plan to propose two other charter amendments, they said. Michael Garcia said he has been considering introducing a charter amendment requiring the mayor to submit the fiscal year budget proposal to the council by Feb. 1 to allow more time to discuss it and make revisions, but the legislation may work better as an ordinance. Faulkner, Lee Garcia and Chavez's resolution will go to the Public Works and Utilities, Quality of Life and Finance committees before returning to the council for a vote July 9. "To me, it's like a security dilemma," Faulkner said. "When both parties are equally vulnerable and equally armed, there's less of a chance of conflict happening because everyone knows there's a balance of power." Staff writer Carina Julig contributed to this report.
Washington Post
4 days ago
- Politics
- Washington Post
Presidents vs. Congress: Trump is only the latest to test the War Powers Act
WASHINGTON — Donald Trump isn't the first president to order military strikes without congressional approval. But his decision to bomb Iran comes at a uniquely volatile moment — both at home and abroad. Overseas, the U.S. risks deeper entanglement in the Middle East if fighting erupts again between Israel and Iran. At home, Trump continues to sidestep oversight, showing little regard for checks and balances.
New York Times
30-05-2025
- Business
- New York Times
Trump's Tariffs and the Courts
Just how much power does the president have? That was the question in front of the federal courts that ruled against President Trump's tariffs in the last couple days. The judges weren't deciding whether the tariffs are good for the country but whether the president has the power to impose them all by himself. Maybe that sounds like a technical question. It's not. It's not an exaggeration to say that this question defines America. The framers rebelled against Britain because they felt that the king had too much power and that they didn't have enough say in the politics that shaped their lives. They wrote the Constitution to avoid crowning another monarch. Through that lens, a little-known trade court in New York blocked most of Trump's tariffs, including those that remained from 'Liberation Day.' Yesterday, an appeals court agreed to preserve the tariffs while it considers the case. The markets rose — cautiously — on the news. America's trading partners also reacted skeptically because the rulings could lead to more chaos as legal battles play out. Today, I want to focus on the question that the courts face. Checks and balances At face value, the Constitution seems clear on this topic. It says Congress, not the president, has the power to 'lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises.' And tariffs are taxes. But Congress can delegate some powers to the president. It has passed several laws that allow the president to levy tariffs in case of emergency — say, if another country undermines a U.S. industry that's important to national security. Trump used one of these laws, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to impose his 'reciprocal' tariffs on other countries. (Madeleine Ngo, who covers economic policy, explained the law.) Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Fox News
12-05-2025
- Politics
- Fox News
'Activist' judges keep trying to curb Trump's agenda – here's how he could push back
President Donald Trump and his allies have railed against federal judges for blocking key executive orders in his second term, accusing so-called "activist" judges of overstepping their authority and blocking him from delivering on some of his top policy priorities. Some of Trump's most sweeping executive orders and actions have been blocked or paused by federal courts to allow for a full hearing on the merits. But the system of checks and balances also means these rulings can be reviewed – either through appeals to the Supreme Court or by Congress, which has the power to pass laws or expand certain executive branch authorities. It's all part of an expressly designed system of government that affords each branch, including the presidency, plenty of options for review. The Framers "made clear that no one in our system of government was meant to be king– the president included – and not just in name only," U.S. District Court Judge Beryl Howell of the District of Columbia said in a ruling earlier this year. But that's not to say Trump is without options. Here's how he could seek to push back against the wave of court actions. Since taking office, Trump's executive orders have been challenged by hundreds of lawsuits in federal court, though not all have been successful, and some remain in the earlier stages of review. Plaintiffs have sought to block the dismantling of certain federal agencies, to restore board heads and inspectors general fired by Trump, and to restrict the access of Elon Musk's government efficiency agency, DOGE, among other things. But like the groups filing the lawsuits, the Trump administration also has the ability to appeal any lower court decisions it views as unfavorable or going beyond the scope of the federal court. In the interim, it can seek an emergency stay to restore the executive order until the case can be heard on its merits. The Supreme Court has agreed to do so in several major cases. It sided with Trump in removing two federal board members he had fired earlier this year, and which a lower court had reversed. Last week, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court order that paused Trump's ban on transgender military members from taking effect – allowing his order and related policies to proceed, at least for now. The Trump administration can seek more lasting change by working with the Republican majorities in both houses of Congress to codify its biggest policy priorities, shielding the level of review currently afforded to the courts in the absence of any legislation. According to the Code of Federal Regulations and the Federal Register, a president's executive order can be revoked or modified only by the president or via the legislative branch, if the president was acting on authority that had been granted by Congress. Plaintiffs in federal court have alleged that Trump's recent executive actions are beyond the scope of what has been authorized by Congress – and, in the absence of clearly written laws, federal judges do have broad authority to interpret the lawfulness of the executive's actions. Critics of the courts have pushed for Congress to curtail this power – either by stripping the funding for federal courts, impeaching judges or eliminating judicial seats, among other things. "When federal judges take off their judicial robes and climb into the political arena and throw political punches, they should expect powerful political counterpunches from the Article III project," Mike Davis, the founder and president of the Article III Project, or A3P, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "And when the federal judiciary loses its legitimacy, it loses everything," Davis said. But these steps are highly controversial, and it's unclear if they could garner the broad support needed from both the House and Senate. Options available to the White House are more limited by the Constitution. The president can appoint federal judges, but he cannot fire them. The executive branch is also responsible for enforcing court rulings and may either slow-roll or de-prioritize decisions the president disagrees with. Meanwhile, Trump allies have also sought to push back on the power of the courts in other, more unorthodox ways. The America First Legal Foundation, a pro-Trump legal group founded by White House aide Stephen Miller in between Trump's first and second terms, filed a lawsuit against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, in his capacity as the official head of the U.S. Judicial Conference, and Robert J. Conrad, the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, earlier this month. The lawsuit accuses both parties of performing certain regulatory actions that go beyond the scope of the "core functions" of the judiciary – and which they argue should put them under the thumb of the executive branch. "An American president is not a king – not even an 'elected' one – and his power to remove federal officers and honest civil servants like plaintiff is not absolute," Howell said in a case involving the reinstatement of two fired federal board members earlier this year.
Washington Post
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Washington Post
Disillusioned by politics, I read these books to get out of my slump
For the first six weeks after Jan. 20, I didn't read a book. I moped instead. My mind couldn't settle when every morning brought a new shock and a growing recognition that the current occupant of the White House — I can't bring myself to say president — was undermining the chief safeguards of American democracy, starting with the Constitution's system of checks and balances. What troubled me even more, however, was why so many of our legislators were willing to support and defend such subversion. Did they really not care about anything but being reelected? Yet, to quote a book they often invoke if too seldom take to heart, 'What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?'
