The following is an editorial by Armstrong Williams.

The first Monday in October marks the opening of the United States Supreme Court’s new term. Not since the election of President Franklin Roosevelt nearly a century ago has the fate of a president’s agenda been in the hands of the nine justices with life tenure and protection against diminished compensation. In preliminary or provisional rulings during the summer recess, a divided court generally tilted in favor of President Donald Trump. But those rulings were just the first inning in a nine inning game. Three of the incumbent Justices were appointed by Trump during his first term: Neil Gorsuch, Brent Kavanaugh, and Amy Comey Barrett.

Among other things, the court will confront Trump’s signature anti-immigrant agenda in multiple cases. Trump by executive order challenged birthright citizenship conferred by section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment to children born in the United States to parents not lawfully present here. The Constitution’s text is unambiguous: “All persons bornin the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, [i.e., accountable to its laws] are citizens of the United States.”

Every lower court that has examined the issue has ruled against Trump. Moreover, the children born of aliens without lawful presence are morally blameless. They did not choose their parents. And they are as much obligated to follow United States laws as are the children of United States citizens. Should they be punished for their parents’ running afoul of the law?

Also on the court’s docket is the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. It empowers the president to bypass due process and summarily deport alien enemies during wars declared by Congress. Trump has decreed, despite the skepticism of the intelligence community, that Venezuela, directly or through surrogate gangs, has invaded the United States thus triggering summary deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. In subordinate tribunals, Trump has been unable to persuade judges that Venezuela is conducting a military invasion of the United States passing the threshold of war.

States are independent sovereigns within their own realms. An earmark of state sovereignty is protection against commandeering by the federal government and enforcement of federal laws. Notwithstanding the Constitution’s anti-commandeering doctrine, Trump has withheld federal funds or otherwise penalized states that have refrained from volunteering state law enforcement to assist the federal government’s enforcement of the immigration laws. The Supreme Court will weigh in on the issue this term.

Trump’s unitary executive theory empowering the president to hire or fire any executive official or employee for any reason or no reason will also be addressed by the court. For nearly a century since Humphrey’s Executor in 1935, prevailing constitutional wisdom authorized Congress to create independent agencies operating outside the president’s political whims. Congress was similarly empowered to enact civil service protections for non-policymaking employees to end a political spoils system featuring incompetence and partisan execution of the laws. Statutes thus generally prohibit independent agency officials or civil servants from discharge without “just cause.”

Trump is arguing that these statutes are unconstitutional, including the independence of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors to shield monetary policy from presidential manipulation that has endured since creation of the Fed in 1913; that the president commands limitless power to run the federal government unreviewable by either Congress or the Supreme Court; and that to the presidential victor belongs the spoils.

The Constitution vests the power of the purse in Congress to check executive despotism. James Madison, father of the Constitution explained in Federalist 58, “This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.”

Trump, nevertheless, is arguing for infinite, unreviewable power to impose tariffs by declaring national emergencies under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Power Act (IEEPA). Among other things, Trump has decreed that Brazil’s prosecution of former President Jair Bonsonaro constitutes an IEEPA emergency, as do nations that recognize an independent Palestinian state. Trump is also arguing that the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 unconstitutionally limits his ability to spend or refuse to spend money to advance his political agenda.

Trump proclaimed on July 23, 2019, “Then I have Article 2, where I have the right to do anything I want as president.” This Supreme Court term will test that assertion.

___

Mr. Williams is Manager/Sole Owner of Howard Stirk Holdings I & II Broadcast Television Stations and the 2016 Multicultural Media Broadcast Owner of the year.

www.armstrongwilliams.com | www.howardstirkholdings.com

Follow me on X: @arightside

Editor's Note: Sinclair Broadcast Group has a business relationship with Armstrong Williams, who is a political commentator and the owner of Howard Stirk Holdings.