Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/01/2026 7:24:22 PM PDT by Red Badger
President Donald Trump told Breitbart News in an exclusive Oval Office interview on Tuesday evening that while he is disappointed about the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding birthright citizenship, the court’s decision in the Trump v. Slaughter case, which once again grants a president the power to fire independent agency employees at will, “more than made up” for it.
Breitbart News’s interview with the president came just hours after the Supreme Court upheld birthright citizenship in a 5-4 decision in the Trump v. Barbara case. The president has long maintained that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional, and even attended oral arguments in the case in April at the Supreme Court.
The Slaughter case came about after the president fired former Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause. Slaughter then sued the president, arguing the firing was unconstitutional under the FTC Act, which stated that employees of independent agencies may be removed only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” The ruling grants the president the power to fire members of the FTC or other independent agencies without a reason.
“It was a disappointing decision, but I think it was, from my personal standpoint, more than made up for by the Slaughter decision, because that was one that was going on for almost 100 years where they took power away from FDR and presidents have tried to regain that power for many, many years,” Trump told Breitbart News when asked about the birthright citizenship ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Does that sound right??
There is no such thing as an ‘independent’ branch of government..................
But the Federal Reserve isn’t the government, right? So we are still stuck with people there?
For us to have government by consent, government agents must answer to people who are elected.
Trump says some of the stupidest things at times. There is no way that the Slaughter decision “more than makes up” for the Supreme Court just selling our birthright citizenship down the river. This should tell everybody that Trump has no intention of doing anything further about birthright citizenship going forward, except whining about it on TruthSocial.
It’s the Fourth Branch of government.................
The birthright thing changes nothing. It stays the same as it has been for a hundred and fifty years. The Slaughter decision changes the way Presidents can get rid of dead wood and embedded politicos they haven’t had that power since before FDR............
My knowledge of soccer is zero, but I hope we win!
Yes there will be hand waving, gnashing of teeth, and plenty of media-ties catching the vapors at such "tyranny", but it isn't without historical precedent in our history. They need only the will, and our support, to do so.
"At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
It was created by Congress and signed off by President Woodrow Wilson.
He knew an EO is too weak to overturn the Birthright problem. But he’s opened the door...
3-D & 4-D CHESS. EVERY DAY ALL DAY
Robert’s decision does not even make an argument, but read as if his mind was made up and it wasted his time to listen to arguments. “ I AM KING & I SAY SO”.
He is right. The DOJ is already going after the illegal factories that promote coming here to have a baaby. The Slaughter case is by far more important.
I’m inclined to agree with Trump on this one.
Progressivism is the greatest threat America has ever faced and nearly everyone underestimates the progressives’ power.
Slaughter is very close to abolishing agencies.
Slaughter is the kind of precedent we need that we can weaponize against the administrative state.
Last year,the Supreme Court made a decision about the power of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats to make laws. I don’t see how the Fed gets around that decision , governed under a dual mandate of law signed by Jimmy Carter, written by politically partisan liberal Democrats in the late 1970s. The 2% inflation target is not part of the law, and the law was really intended to prevent recessions. …which means if a recession happens, then the Fed broke the law. But who decides what the law means, and who decides if the Fed obeys the law, and what can be done?
The Federal Reserve interprets the dual mandate as giving them power to use interest rate policy to juice or limit aggregate demand in the economy to limit job and wage growth during booms , so wages don’t rise over time, but prices do…..which chips away the foundations of capitalism. Free markets and capitalism get blamed by booms and busts caused by Fed policy of letting prices rise when the economy is bad and people least can afford it, but not let wages rise when the economy is booming……with a vain hope that elevated prices will fall as the economy slows down.
Paul Volcker, who cut his Fed Funds rate to 7.5% and allowed 13.5% inflation to keep Jimmy Carter out of a Depression before the 1980 election…called the dual mandate
“Taking away the punch bowl, just as the guests arrive at the party”…… but there wasn’t much independence at all in the dual mandate law or how Volcker enforced it.
The purpose of the dual mandate was to prevent recessions after liberal Democrats & liberal Keynesian Republicans ruined the supply side of the economy so it did not grow, it stagnated. So the Democrat solution was to print money, but that only led to double digit inflation, which killed the demand side of the economy. So first, we had stagnation from anti capitalist liberal tax and regulatory policy, then the dual mandate law to politicize the Fed to allow more inflation, more money printing to fix the stagnation…….which did not work, except to cause double digit inflation true, which the press called “ stagflation” and Keynesian economists scurried to come up with the claim that 9% was full employment , and anything less than 8% unemployment rate caused runaway inflation. But there was no runaway inflation in the 1970s, it was the Fed trying to obey its mandate to keep us out of recessions when Cemocrats are in office…..Before Reagan was inaugurated Volcker raised Funds rate to 19% and crashed the economy so Reagan got hit with 11% unemployment rate in his first term and got slammed in the midterms.
economist Avon Hayek compared the dual mandate of causing inflation, then trying to fix it with deflation as running over your neighbor’s cat then to make amends, you throw it into reverse and back up over it.
There was no runaway inflation in the 1970s, just the Fed allowing more and more inflation to fight stagnation and prevent recession. ..which makes Volcker wrecklessness suspicious and the 1981 recession look like a political hit. The dual mandate law is a bad law. It is vague. Gives the Fed too much power over lives and fortunes. With no real accountability , as the Fed grows in size, in scope, in status,in power….to the point where when Trump did what was normal in the 1970s, ie “ jawboning” the Fed to be accommodating….he gets attacked for interfering with an independent Fed that is not obeying a law that politicized it under a dual mandate to prevent recessions and allow more inflation, not less.
Recessions help nobody, just start a new cycle of inflation and big spending, big deficits.
The liberal narrative about the 1970s that the media believes is that the 1970s stagnation was caused by inflation, and hero Volcker whipped the inflation by necessary act of hiking his Fed funds rate to 19%. Reagan had nothing to do with breaking stagflation according to this narrative……but nobody explains why Volcker cut rates under Carter and allowed 13.5% inflation, but only whipped inflation after Reagan won the 1989 election, and the economy didn’t recover before Reagan tax cuts, deregulation, strong dollar policy was enacted. It is why Reagan won 49 states in 1984 election.
Greenspan hiked Funds rate to 9% to kill the Reagan economy just as Reagan’s 1988 tax reform was kicking in to reduce inflation, drive up growth, but Reagan’s tax cuts and deregulation got blamed for what the independent Fed did to violate the spirit and letter if the law.
By 1993 when Clinton took over and before he ruined it, the econoymy was growing over 4%, unemployment rate and deficit were plummeting already. The Fed governor Biden put in and Trump wants to get rid of voted for rate hikes under Biden when inflation still was high and job growth was good, but then voted against rate cuts under Trump when inflation was under 2% year over year by some gauges and after it was found that Biden had been lying about job numbers.
Why doesn’t somebody ask Mamdani and the socialist movement where the independent Federal Reserve resides under socialists and their taxes and spending. What do socialists think about inflation and the dual mandate law,?
The Fed crashed the Clinton economy and the Bush economy, then kept interest rates at 0% for 8 years under Obama, even though consumer inflation rose above 3.5% cpi and producer inflation ppi rose over 7.5% in Obama’s first term. The price of gas rose to $4 in 2008, fell to $1.85 by Jan. 2009, then rose to over $3.50 again by 2011 under Obama, as the unemployment rate rose to 10%. It is why the unemployment rate rose to 10%!
Greenspan hiked his Funds rate to 6.5% into a budget surplus between 1999-2000 when the price of gasoline was barely above what it was in 1981, and the price of gold was less than in 1981….and as we were paying off the national debt fast, allowing for big tax cuts/ reform…..rational exuberance turned into rational fear as the Fed ruined something all agreed was perfect….low unemployment, over 4% growth a deflationary budget surplus paying off the national debt by 2004. But after the Greenspan recession ended in about 2003, the price of gasoline had doubled to about $2.20, so markets, greed, Bush got blamed…..so where was there any price stability ? Nobody says anything about did the Fed obey the law or break the law and who decides and what can be done if the Fed breaks the law …? If there is a Republican president, the Fed never gets any blame…and no matter what the Fed does, the Republican president is powerless to enforce the law. Or challenge the Fed’s interpretation of it.
Bernanke raised the Fed Funds rate over 400% from 2004-2006 and stated in public that his intent was to “ slow down the economy through the housing sector to keep WAGES from rising”, promising a soft landing in housing, promising that it was impossible for home prices to fall because there was so much money available to lend for home mortgages…….then he predicted a rosy economy alk the way until 2010. People made business and individual decisions based on what Bernanke said.,..but no accountability. It all was Bush fault for tax cuts, deficits,deregulation,even though it was Bush regulation, ie mark to market accounting that was part of the problem, and as soon as mark to market was ended, the safe AAA rating mortgage bonds stopped being toxic before Obama became president and tgeFed funds rate was lowered from 5.25% to 0% before Obama took office in 2009……. But who gets credit for the turnaround? Obama, even though unemployment rate rose to 10% by 2011 under Obama, and after Democrats claimed it would stay under 8%.
Now we’ve got to deal with socialists over the issue of making things affordable. Hugo Chavez left office with 30% inflation. What is inflation in Cuba, in Iran?
And what do socialist think about inflation, money, the Fed, banks, etc?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.