Dude, background checks are brutal. You can be denied because your parents (not you) struggled to pay taxes. You could have acedemic dishonesty that disqualifies you (that one small area where "permanent record" in school may actually cost you something). There are so many little things that no other kind of high paying job cares about in background checks that are suddenly red flags for clearance.
There's a reason Musk especially kept dodging trying to get proper clearance. He isn't even fully cleared to see all aspects of SpaceX. Some of his employees he brought in probably aren't better off.
You would think this administration would jump at the opportunity of showing the media any proof that Abrego Garcia was a member of any gang, no matter how circumstantial or weak the proof is. But I've yet to see any of it.
Congress does have the power (article I, section 8), however it delegated this power to the president for "extraordinary" situations with certain laws.
"Extraordinary", such as a fictional fentanyl emergency at the northern border (despite the fact that a trivial amount of fentanyl enters the U.S. from Canada, and more enters Canada from the U.S.).
Of course, you have Congress to keep the President in check that these are real emergencies. Which is why the House will definitely be bringing S.J.Res. 37 to the floor, right? Because it's their sworn duty to act as a check on executive power, right?
There's a reason the saying, "in America we have three coequal branches of government: the Supreme Court rules, the President crimes, and Congress is just for fun" has become popular since some time after his first inauguration.
He first announced tariffs on China over fentanyl something like 2 or 3 days after pardoning the biggest heroin by mail operator in world history (Ross Ulbricht).
> The nondelegation doctrine is rooted in certain separation of powers principles.1 In limiting Congress’s power to delegate, the *nondelegation doctrine exists primarily to prevent Congress from ceding its legislative power to other entities* not vested with legislative authority under the Constitution. As interpreted by the Court, the doctrine seeks to ensure that legislative decisions are made through a bicameral legislative process by the elected Members of Congress or governmental officials subject to constitutional accountability.2 Reserving the legislative power for a bicameral Congress was "intended to erect enduring checks on each Branch and to protect the people from the improvident exercise of power by mandating certain prescribed steps."
The list of law firms with the expertise, resources, and will to take on the administration is getting shorter and shorter, because he's targeting the ones that piss him off with EOs aimed to wreck them if they don't pay up and shut up, and that strategy is working.
Agreed however this court has shown it can dance between originalism, textualism, and tossing both of those to the wind (Trump v Anderson) when it aligns with policy goals.
Also it probably wouldn't even fly with anyone since so many other emergency powers are generally accepted as necessary (i.e. defense). The immunity decision is full of rhetoric about the legislature being too slow for crises.
Their best bet is to invent a time machine, go back to Obama, have Obama pass emergency tariffs, then lobby to repeal that act.
They need to take it back, regardless. It's proven that Americans can't be expected to elect adults to the Presidency any longer, they no longer use logic or emergency situations, they use it for egotistical narcissistic feelings of being important by playing red light, green light on a trade war between the two most dangerous countries in the world
Do you need a source on that claim as well?