A Federal District Court has temporarily halted an executive order from President Trump that purports to halt wide swaths of federal spending. This impoundment of funds duly appropriated by Congress may violate the Constitution as well as federal statutes. We bring an expert on the relationship between Congress and the Presidency, Professor Josh Chafetz, and he takes us back to 17th century and Britain, through the American founding, into the early republic, and indeed into the presidency of Richard Nixon to give a full historical and originalist background. But there’s more, with modern statutes, Supreme Court cases, structural analysis - in short, everything. And for good measure, we dive a little deeper into some statements by Vice President Vance which seem to suggest that he thinks the President is not bound by the Supreme Court’s decisions and orders. Professor Amar appeared on CNN to discuss this, and now he expands on those comments. Lots of depth in this episode, and as usual, CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges by visiting podcast.njsba.com.

Funds are impounded. Board members are summarily dismissed. Funds appropriated by Congress are impounded. Inspectors General are removed without notice or cause. And arguments are still being made to undermine birthright citizenship. Are all these actions unconstitutional? It turns out that it appears that many may well be, but others that may seem nearly identical may if fact be legal, if of questionable wisdom or propriety. We explain where the constitutional lines are for many of these matters, or in some tricky cases we show how one goes about looking for those lines. And while we are at it, we believe we have dug the last shovels worth in the grave of the attempt to distort, pervert, or reduce birthright citizenship. CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges at podcast.njsba.com.

In the aftermath of a scathing ruling by the Federal District Court and its issuance of an order blocking President Trump’s executive order which attempted to abridge birthright citizenship, one might think the matter closed. But appeals await, no doubt. Last podcast we offered Professor Amar’s arguments in support of his interpretation - and the interpretation of most legal experts - of the matter, but obviously there were arguments made in opposition. We address these arguments, starting with those made in Trump’s brief in the case, and going beyond them as well. In doing so, we revisit a familiar name: Justice Joseph Story, who Trump’s lawyers attempt to enlist in support of their position, with arguments that perhaps don’t tell the whole story.