Yesterday, we reported about the increasingly dejected atmosphere at Deutsche Bank’s Wall Street headquarters, where the looming fear that the bank is going to gut, shutter or sell most, if not all, of its US i-banking business has inspired those remaining employees to openly hunt for other jobs, while some managers and more junior employees are treating every day like its a Summer Friday.
But while things are certainly looking dire at 60 Wall Street, in the UK, where the looming uncertainty over Brexit is being compounded by a continent-wide slowdown, the impact on the financial services industry is being acutely felt, particularly among interns and junior analysts who are worried that they won’t be able to find permanent jobs in the City as thousands of job cuts loom.
According to Bloomberg, which apparently sent a team of reporters to hang out in some popular London pubs frequented by finance types. Though it’s hardly a lasting comfort, some who have lost their jobs are finding camaraderie and a “safe space” with others in a similar position.
Recently, Nomura slashed dozens of brokerage jobs. Afterwards, those who lost out met in the pub to share a few round of goodbye drinks. The expectations for job losses this summer are so severe, that at least one of BBG’s sources deemed the summer of 2019, the “summer of gloom”.
Japan’s biggest brokerage let about 30 people go that day in April. Summer has arrived in London, but the smiles are likely to remain frozen in the financial community as HSBC Holdings Plc and Deutsche Bank AG join Nomura in implementing thousands of job reductions. In an atmosphere that may be the gloomiest since the financial crisis, some are jumping before they’re pushed.
“It’s one of the worst London job markets I have ever seen outside of a crisis,” said Stephane Rambosson, founder of Vici Advisory, a London-based executive search firm. “I think there’s a real possibility that you could see more than 5,000 jobs lost by the end of the year.
“Cuts are concentrated at non-U.S. investment banks. European lenders, hobbled by weak domestic growth and negative interest rates, have been losing market share for years. Experienced bankers have seen contractions before, but there’s a feeling this time is different. It’s not just shaky markets, trade tensions and Brexit: Automation is making some banking skills obsolete.
One now-former banker even joked to BBG that some of his ex-colleagues have been forced to give up their dream of working in finance, and are instead pursuing employment at…a blockchain startup. Others are exploring opportunities in the cannabis industry.
In the City, the anxiety is palpable as some bankers quit rather than wait to be laid off.
“People are stressed out and desperately looking for new things, because they know it’s not going to be easy to find a job at another bank,” said Rambosson, himself a former investment banker. “We see people quitting before the cuts come and taking the view that now’s the right time to get out.”
With all of this in mind, we can’t blame traders for being cynical.
eeThings will get worse,” said Amrit Shahani, research director at Coalition. “We expect a further 10% reduction in investment bank headcount in the U.K. over the next two years, partly due to Brexit job moves.”
It’s as good a time as any to learn that money can’t buy happiness. And while some former bankers might struggle to get over it, for others, it’s never too late to pivot to fintech.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2JncKNI Tyler Durden
Officials with the city of Miami Beach, Florida, had art removed from the exterior of a home without the owners’ consent. The city says the art, which a local newspaper described as “a series of metallic triangles resembling flames,” violates local design criteria. After the owners lost an appeal, the city had the art removed. “We live in a community and you’ve got to respect your neighbors and it’s just not fair to simply do what you want without complying with any of the requirements.,” said Mayor Dan Gelber.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2J7OYXt
via IFTTT
We had to do a double take with this tweet. Even fact checked it.
In 1989, the cash-strapped Soviet Union paid Pepsi with 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate & a destroyer in exchange for $3 bln worth of Pepsi. This caused Pepsi to become the 6th largest military power in the world for a moment, before they sold the fleet for scrap recycling. pic.twitter.com/zlsPLEV7re
I had a twitter debate last month with someone comparing current day China with the Soviet Union before the collapse in the late 1980s. Are you frickin’ serious?
In the late 1980s, Russia’s initial agreement to serve Pepsi in their country was about to expire, but this time, their vodka wasn’t going to be enough to cover the cost.
So, the Russians did what any country would do in desperate times: They traded Pepsi a fleet of subs and boats for a whole lot of soda. The new agreement included 17 submarines, a cruiser, a frigate, and a destroyer.
The combined fleet was traded for three billion dollars worth of Pepsi. Yes, you read that right. Russia loves their Pepsi. – Business Insider
Despite the civil unrest in France to start the year, the country’s richest citizens still had a fantastic start to 2019, according to Bloomberg.
Amidst protesters taking to the streets to demand higher wages and better pensions, the 14 people from France on the Bloomberg Billionaire’s Index added a combined $78 billion to their collective net worth since the beginning of 2019. That is an astounding 35% increase. The figures will likely serve as additional fuel for protests over income inequality in the country.
France’s pace was more than double China’s richest, who saw growth of 17% for the first six months of the year. The richest in the U.S. saw their wealth grow 15% during the first half the year.
Outside of France, the other highest returns came from Thailand at 33% and Singapore, who came in at 31%. The richest in Japan saw their wealth grow 24%. The only Nigerian on the list, Aliko Dangote, saw his wealth up 60% so far in 2019.
Specifically in France, luxury businessmen Bernard Arnault and Francois Pinault, combined with cosmetics heir Francoise Bettencourt Meyersedit combined to make up $53 billion of the growth. The demand for luxury goods from China has continued even though there has been uncertainty from the ongoing trade war. Arnault’s LVMH shares are up 45% this year, making the company the second best performer in France’s CAC 40 index. He joined Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates as the only people that have fortunes of over $100 billion.
Thailand’s success was a result of Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi, founder and chairman of TCC Group. Sirivadhanabhakdi’s net worth rose by $4 billion to $16.5 billion as shares of his company, listed in Singapore, were up 38%.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/30amim9 Tyler Durden
Although the “military arm” of Hezbollah is prohibited in the EU, the “political arm” is not, which means that in Germany, Hezbollah is free to engage in “non-military” activities — such as fundraising.
On the one hand, the federal police conduct countrywide raids on middle-aged Germans who post their thoughts on Facebook, while on the other, members of openly lethal terrorist organizations who espouse nothing but hatred towards a specific ethnic group, the Jews, are not only allowed to march in the heart of the German capital… but are free to organize and fundraise for their purpose.
That participants in the anti-Semitic Al Quds march have been allowed to flaunt their hatred for nearly four decades now, while middle-aged Germans are having their apartments searched for anti-Semitic and racist messages on Facebook, exposes a disturbing double standard in the application of the law.
At the very least, it shows that German authorities appear to harbor extremely selective views of what constitutes hate speech, based, it seems, on nothing more than the identity of the group that voices it.
In June, the “Al Quds Day” march took place in Berlin. Al Quds Day, in the words of the late historian Robert S. Wistrich, is “The holiday proclaimed by Khomeini in 1979 to call for Israel’s annihilation” which “has since been celebrated worldwide…”
Pictured: Participants in the anti-Israel Al-Quds Day march wave the flag of the Hezbollah terrorist group, on July 25, 2014 in Berlin, Germany. (Photo by Carsten Koall/Getty Images)
In Germany, Al Quds Day marches have been taking place in the country’s capital since the 1980s[1], first in Bonn and since 1996 in Berlin. On Al Quds Day in December 2000, more than 2,000 demonstrators in the Kurfürstendamm — a central boulevard in Berlin — called for “the liberation of Palestine and the holy city of Jerusalem”. In November 2002, only one year after 9/11, the march featured slogans such as “Death to Israel” and “Death to the USA”. At the march in 2016, the slogans were, among others, “Death to Israel”, “Zionists kill children”, and so on.
Despite nearly four decades of such rhetoric — the kind that is arguably capable — according to paragraph 130 of Germany’s Criminal Code, which prohibits hate speech — “of disturbing the public peace” by inciting “hatred against a national, racial, religious group or a group defined by their ethnic origins”, German authorities have continually refused to ban the Al Quds Day march. The argument is, reportedly, that the Administrative Court would overrule such a ban. “A constitutional state must act in accordance with the rule of law,” said the spokesperson for the interior administration of the city of Berlin, Martin Pallgen. “Freedom of assembly and expression also applies to those who reject the rule of law”. Instead, German authorities have prohibited marchers from being overtly anti-Semitic and inciting hatred against Jews. The exercise is a bit like telling a neo-Nazi march please to cover up the swastikas to look more presentable.
It has not helped. In 2016, police issued specific instructions for the march’s participants, banning them from expressing anti-Semitic views or inciting violence against Jews. That restriction, according to Benjamin Steinitz, the director of the Berlin-based Department for Research and Information on anti-Semitism (RIAS), curbed the undisguised hate speech somewhat, but led to the use of “coded messages”, frequently in Arabic or Farsi, which most German police do not speak. “So,” said Steinitz in 2017, “the police regulations have had some effect, but since the goal of this demonstration is the dismantling of the State of Israel, the anti-Semitic content is always there.”
Indeed, according to Der Tagesspiegel, despite the specific police instructions of previous years, in the June 2018 march, the police had to issue the following instructions to the participants:
“It is forbidden to burn dolls. There must be no open calls for kidnapping or murder. The participants should not chant, ‘Zionists into the gas’ or ‘Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come out and fight alone'”.
According to Der Tagesspiegel, these were all incidents that happened in previous marches — and all, presumably, violations of Germany’s hate speech laws.
This year, according to a report by RIAS, “The Al Quds march did not lose any of its anti-Semitic character, despite attempts to deceive the public by the organizers”. The report mentions, as an example, the presence of anti-Semitic posters and praising Hezbollah. Protesters wearing T-shirts with the name and slogans of the terrorist group Hamas — which vows to eliminate Israel — were also present.
The refusal of the authorities to ban the Al Quds march appears even more suspect in light of the fact that around the same time of the march, on June 6, German authorities launched nationwide coordinated police raids in 13 federal states against suspects who had posted hate speech online. In a total of 38 cases, apartments were searched and suspects interrogated, the Federal Criminal Police Office reported. The suspects were alleged to have posted hate comments, including “public calls for crimes, insults of officials or anti-Semitic verbal abuse.” One of the largest operations reportedly took place in the city of Koblenz, where the apartments of 12 suspects were searched in connection to two far right-wing Facebook groups. The 12 suspects were between the ages of 45 and 68, and were believed to be responsible for the groups called “The Patriots,” and “Our Germany patriotic & free.” The groups were suspected of having made the following comment, among others, about refugee family reunification: “In my opinion all should be gassed”. The nationwide action day to combat hate postings was established three years ago and has since been held once a year. The Federal Police claim that most of the hate speech is “from the right-wing extremist spectrum” (77%), 9% from the “extreme-left” and 14% “foreign or religious ideologies or no concrete political motivation”.
While the Federal Criminal Police Office was searching the homes of middle-aged Germans posting racist comments in Facebook groups, a recent German intelligence report concluded that in 2018, the membership numbers in German for Hezbollah, the Lebanese-based Iranian proxy terrorist organization, rose to a total of 1050, up from 950 in 2017. “Hezbollah denies the right of existence of the State of Israel and fights it with terrorist means,” the intelligence report noted. “In Germany, the followers of Hezbollah maintain organizational and ideological cohesion in local mosques associations that are financed primarily by donations.” The report also mentioned the travel of functionaries between Lebanon and Germany for the purpose of connecting with Hezbollah and noted that “Hezbollah is against the idea of international understanding and the peaceful coexistence of peoples”.
The presence of such a large number of Hezbollah operatives in the country does not appear to worry the German government. Although the “military arm” of Hezbollah is prohibited in the EU, the “political arm” is not, which means that Hezbollah is free to engage in “non-military” activities in Germany — such as fundraising.
In March, the German government refused to ban the terrorist organization in its entirety, and in June, a majority of the Bundestag, including the Christian Social Union, the Social Democratic Party, the Left, the Greens, Free Democrats and Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union (CDU) rejected a proposal by the Alternative for Germany (AfD) party to ban or alternatively limit Hezbollah’s operations in Germany, such as abolishing its non-profit status.
Thus, there seems to be in Germany a revealingly uneven application of hate speech laws.
On the one hand, the federal police conduct countrywide raids on middle-aged Germans who post their thoughts on Facebook. On the other hand, people who back openly lethal terrorist organizations that espouse nothing but hatred towards a specific ethnic group, the Jews, are free to organize, fundraise, and march in the heart of the German capital — if they please just omit “Zionists to the gas” or “Jew, Jew, cowardly pig, come out and fight alone“.
Whatever one’s opinion of hate speech laws, they, like all laws, have to be applied in an equal and consistent manner. That participants in the anti-Semitic Al Quds march have been allowed literally to parade their hatred for nearly four decades now, while middle-aged Germans are having their apartments searched for anti-Semitic and racist messages on Facebook, exposes a disturbing double standard in the application of the law.
It shows at the very least, that German authorities appear to harbor extremely selective views of what constitutes hate speech, based, it seems, on nothing more than the identity of the group that voices it.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Ja8hiV Tyler Durden
Things are set for yet more dangerous intercepts and incidents in the South China Sea this summer given Beijing just announced it had closed off an area of the sea near the Spratly Islands for a five-day military drill which began over the weekend.
NBC News also confirmed a series of anti-ship ballistic missiles tests are underway, citing US defense officials, which said at least one missile was fired over the sea this weekend and more tests will continue through July 3rd. One US official said the drills in the hotly disputed waters which has been scene of recent incidents between China the the US and its allies like the Philippines were “concerning”.
A Chinese military rescue center on artificial Spratly island in the South China Sea, via Yahoo Singapore
It’s unknown if the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) conducted tests of next generation weaponry, like the JL-3 submarine-launched ballistic missile, or which capabilities were deployed; however, multiple reports suggest the PLA has been practicing sinking enemy vessels with anti-ship naval missiles.
For ballistic-missile tests, Chinese authorities typically issue Notices to Airmen (NOTAM) identifying “temporary danger areas,” Ankit Panda, senior editor at The Diplomat, explained. Such a NOTAM was issued for the period between June 30 and July 1, marking off two locations in the South China Sea.
Beijing previously moved land-based anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), such as the YJ-62 and YJ-12B, to Chinese-occupied territories in the region, a move the US condemned.
Alarmingly, parts of the area closed off by the PLA are actually claimed by the Philippines, and the US Navy regularly conducts freedom of navigation exercises in the region; however, an official told NBC that American naval vessels are currently nowhere close to the drills.
Interestingly the missile tests and closure of the maritime area occurred simultaneous to Presidents Trump and Xi Jinping meeting on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Osaka, Japan on Saturday, where Xi reportedly told Trump that “at present China-US relations have encountered some difficulties, which are not in the interests of both sides”.
“China and the US should not fall into a so-called trap of conflict and confrontation, but should promote each other and develop together,” Xi said.
Over the past years the US and its allies have condemned expanding Chinese sovereign claims over much of the South China Sea, claims which Beijing has sought to bolster through a series of man-made islands and accompanying network of small military bases.
One Hong Kong-based military analyst who echoed the PLA’s position on the dispute told the South China Morning Post: “Countries outside the region continue to stir up the issue through so-called freedom of navigation operations and close surveillance, threatening China’s national security,” and added, “The Chinese military must fight back at those provocations.”
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2RQYqB3 Tyler Durden
The Fourth honors the founding of America. It’s the anniversary of the day in 1776 that the Declaration of Independence was approved.
The Declaration was important.
It didn’t say that America would be the best country because it would have the biggest military, toughest leaders, most government giveaways, or tightest borders.
The great innovation that day in Philadelphia was the declaration that the United States would have a limited government, rooted in the idea that every individual has inalienable rights.
In other words, we do not get our rights from government. They already exist. The government’s job is to protect our rights.
It’s a good thing to say out loud while watching the fireworks with your family.
The world took notice when American colonists told their king: “Bug off. We will trade with you and respect your borders, but no longer will we allow you to rule us.” Revolutions in France and elsewhere took their cues from America.
It was America’s emphasis on limited government—wanting to make sure no one in government would ever again wield power like that of the British king—that made our revolution the greatest and most lasting success of recent centuries.
Other countries replaced kings and aristocrats with new forms of bureaucracy and tyranny.
France created revolutionary committees that murdered dissenters. Russia replaced its czar with a communist police state that confiscated farms, killing millions.
The U.S. government, by comparison at least, remained humble. It mostly allowed citizens to forge their own destinies and choose where to live, what professions to pursue, and what to say and publish, gradually expanding those freedoms to more Americans, not just the white men who were in that room in Philadelphia in 1776.
That freedom to innovate and live as one chooses made us the most prosperous nation on earth.
Let’s celebrate that.
The founders had a joyful optimism: Let individuals be free to trade and travel, and they’ll take from the best of the world and make something even better.
The optimism was rewarded. We outlasted European fascism and communism and now have better, healthier, and more interesting lives than anyone anywhere ever.
Yet there is a pessimistic, ugly streak in current politics, both left and right.
Many Americans now want to create a nation built on very different principles than the ones that made us a success.
The crowd at the Democratic presidential debates cheered socialist promises—government-run health care, free college, etc. They are eager to replace individualism and markets with government central planning.
Many sound as if they think the American experiment is an embarrassment.
Some Republicans, meanwhile, act as if nationalist pride is an end unto itself.
President Donald Trump talks as if the key to our success is not spreading the idea of liberty but keeping the rest of the world away from the U.S.
Today’s nationalists and populists don’t want to leave Americans free to engage in trade with whomever we choose. They do not want people to immigrate and emigrate freely. Some even want government to police speech.
This Fourth, instead of toasting the Declaration of Independence and individual liberty, some Americans will push for socialism—and others will demand Trump throw out all immigrants.
Those ideas rely upon force—getting everyone to go along with one big plan.
No matter how great that plan sounds, though, if it is imposed by government, it inevitably overrides the 330 million individual plans that Americans make for themselves, and it overrides them with taxes, regulations, fines, guns, and arrests.
But it wasn’t force that made America great. It was freedom.
America happened—and continues to happen—spontaneously, when its leaders are smart enough to just stay out of our way.
America will do best if we remember that the Declaration of Independence talks about limited government and reminds us that every individual has inalienable rights.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2JgcCje
via IFTTT
When Congress declined to allocate the money he wanted for a wall along the southern border, Donald Trump refused to take no for an answer. Kamala Harris, one of the Democrats vying to oppose Trump in next year’s presidential election, likewise vows that if Congress does not change federal gun laws, she will do it by “executive action.”
The president and the California senator are both unwilling to let a recalcitrant legislature stop them from keeping their campaign promises, and supporters who share their goals may be inclined to cheer them on, even while faulting the other side for disregarding the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers. That double standard is useful in the short run but disastrous in the long run, enhancing the imperial presidency in ways that members of both major parties will come to regret.
Last Friday, Haywood Gilliam, a federal judge in California, issued two permanent injunctions against Trump’s attempt to fund his “great, great wall” with money that Congress never approved for that purpose. As Gilliam explained in a preliminary ruling last May, “Congress’s ‘absolute’ control over federal expenditures—even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important—is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is a feature of that system, and an essential one.”
Trump tried to get around that constraint by invoking 10 USC 2808, which allows the secretary of defense to “undertake military construction projects…not otherwise authorized by law” when the president declares a national emergency “that requires use of the armed forces.” But as Gilliam pointed out, the law’s definition of “military construction”—which involves a “military installation” such as “a base, camp, post, station, yard, [or] center,” cannot reasonably be read to encompass Trump’s wall.
Trump is also relying on Section 8005 of the most recent Defense Department appropriations act, which allows the department to use “working capital funds” for “higher priority items” that serve “unforeseen military requirements,” provided the project is not one for which funding “has been denied by the Congress.” Yet it was legislators’ refusal to approve the funding Trump wanted for his wall that prompted this end run, and a project he has been touting since before he was elected and for which he has sought financing since February 2018 can hardly be described as an “unforeseen military requirement.”
Harris shows a similar disregard for the law. “The problem,” she explained during last Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate, “is Congress has not had the courage to act.” If she is elected and Congress declines to approve “universal background checks” for gun buyers, Harris said, she will unilaterally impose “the most comprehensive background check policy we’ve had.”
Harris’ plan involves redefining anyone who sells more than four guns in a single year as a federally licensed dealer, meaning he would have to conduct background checks. That plan is clearly at odds with the statutory definition of “dealer,” which excludes “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”
Harris also claims she can eliminate the so-called boyfriend loophole by presidential fiat. Under current law, people convicted of misdemeanors involving “domestic violence” are barred from possessing firearms, but crimes against dating partners count as “domestic violence” only if the perpetrator has lived with the victim or produced a child with him or her. Whether or not that makes sense, Congress has defined “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” and only Congress can change the definition.
Regardless of how you feel about Trump’s border wall or Harris’ gun control agenda, the way they achieve their goals matters. Before Americans assent to the use of extraconstitutional presidential powers by politicians they like, they should imagine how those powers might be used by politicians they despise.
The Fourth honors the founding of America. It’s the anniversary of the day in 1776 that the Declaration of Independence was approved.
The Declaration was important.
It didn’t say that America would be the best country because it would have the biggest military, toughest leaders, most government giveaways, or tightest borders.
The great innovation that day in Philadelphia was the declaration that the United States would have a limited government, rooted in the idea that every individual has inalienable rights.
In other words, we do not get our rights from government. They already exist. The government’s job is to protect our rights.
It’s a good thing to say out loud while watching the fireworks with your family.
The world took notice when American colonists told their king: “Bug off. We will trade with you and respect your borders, but no longer will we allow you to rule us.” Revolutions in France and elsewhere took their cues from America.
It was America’s emphasis on limited government—wanting to make sure no one in government would ever again wield power like that of the British king—that made our revolution the greatest and most lasting success of recent centuries.
Other countries replaced kings and aristocrats with new forms of bureaucracy and tyranny.
France created revolutionary committees that murdered dissenters. Russia replaced its czar with a communist police state that confiscated farms, killing millions.
The U.S. government, by comparison at least, remained humble. It mostly allowed citizens to forge their own destinies and choose where to live, what professions to pursue, and what to say and publish, gradually expanding those freedoms to more Americans, not just the white men who were in that room in Philadelphia in 1776.
That freedom to innovate and live as one chooses made us the most prosperous nation on earth.
Let’s celebrate that.
The founders had a joyful optimism: Let individuals be free to trade and travel, and they’ll take from the best of the world and make something even better.
The optimism was rewarded. We outlasted European fascism and communism and now have better, healthier, and more interesting lives than anyone anywhere ever.
Yet there is a pessimistic, ugly streak in current politics, both left and right.
Many Americans now want to create a nation built on very different principles than the ones that made us a success.
The crowd at the Democratic presidential debates cheered socialist promises—government-run health care, free college, etc. They are eager to replace individualism and markets with government central planning.
Many sound as if they think the American experiment is an embarrassment.
Some Republicans, meanwhile, act as if nationalist pride is an end unto itself.
President Donald Trump talks as if the key to our success is not spreading the idea of liberty but keeping the rest of the world away from the U.S.
Today’s nationalists and populists don’t want to leave Americans free to engage in trade with whomever we choose. They do not want people to immigrate and emigrate freely. Some even want government to police speech.
This Fourth, instead of toasting the Declaration of Independence and individual liberty, some Americans will push for socialism—and others will demand Trump throw out all immigrants.
Those ideas rely upon force—getting everyone to go along with one big plan.
No matter how great that plan sounds, though, if it is imposed by government, it inevitably overrides the 330 million individual plans that Americans make for themselves, and it overrides them with taxes, regulations, fines, guns, and arrests.
But it wasn’t force that made America great. It was freedom.
America happened—and continues to happen—spontaneously, when its leaders are smart enough to just stay out of our way.
America will do best if we remember that the Declaration of Independence talks about limited government and reminds us that every individual has inalienable rights.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2JgcCje
via IFTTT
When Congress declined to allocate the money he wanted for a wall along the southern border, Donald Trump refused to take no for an answer. Kamala Harris, one of the Democrats vying to oppose Trump in next year’s presidential election, likewise vows that if Congress does not change federal gun laws, she will do it by “executive action.”
The president and the California senator are both unwilling to let a recalcitrant legislature stop them from keeping their campaign promises, and supporters who share their goals may be inclined to cheer them on, even while faulting the other side for disregarding the rule of law and the constitutional separation of powers. That double standard is useful in the short run but disastrous in the long run, enhancing the imperial presidency in ways that members of both major parties will come to regret.
Last Friday, Haywood Gilliam, a federal judge in California, issued two permanent injunctions against Trump’s attempt to fund his “great, great wall” with money that Congress never approved for that purpose. As Gilliam explained in a preliminary ruling last May, “Congress’s ‘absolute’ control over federal expenditures—even when that control may frustrate the desires of the Executive Branch regarding initiatives it views as important—is not a bug in our constitutional system. It is a feature of that system, and an essential one.”
Trump tried to get around that constraint by invoking 10 USC 2808, which allows the secretary of defense to “undertake military construction projects…not otherwise authorized by law” when the president declares a national emergency “that requires use of the armed forces.” But as Gilliam pointed out, the law’s definition of “military construction”—which involves a “military installation” such as “a base, camp, post, station, yard, [or] center,” cannot reasonably be read to encompass Trump’s wall.
Trump is also relying on Section 8005 of the most recent Defense Department appropriations act, which allows the department to use “working capital funds” for “higher priority items” that serve “unforeseen military requirements,” provided the project is not one for which funding “has been denied by the Congress.” Yet it was legislators’ refusal to approve the funding Trump wanted for his wall that prompted this end run, and a project he has been touting since before he was elected and for which he has sought financing since February 2018 can hardly be described as an “unforeseen military requirement.”
Harris shows a similar disregard for the law. “The problem,” she explained during last Thursday’s Democratic presidential debate, “is Congress has not had the courage to act.” If she is elected and Congress declines to approve “universal background checks” for gun buyers, Harris said, she will unilaterally impose “the most comprehensive background check policy we’ve had.”
Harris’ plan involves redefining anyone who sells more than four guns in a single year as a federally licensed dealer, meaning he would have to conduct background checks. That plan is clearly at odds with the statutory definition of “dealer,” which excludes “a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms.”
Harris also claims she can eliminate the so-called boyfriend loophole by presidential fiat. Under current law, people convicted of misdemeanors involving “domestic violence” are barred from possessing firearms, but crimes against dating partners count as “domestic violence” only if the perpetrator has lived with the victim or produced a child with him or her. Whether or not that makes sense, Congress has defined “misdemeanor crime of domestic violence,” and only Congress can change the definition.
Regardless of how you feel about Trump’s border wall or Harris’ gun control agenda, the way they achieve their goals matters. Before Americans assent to the use of extraconstitutional presidential powers by politicians they like, they should imagine how those powers might be used by politicians they despise.
