Robert Fico said Tuesday his government has approved an agreement with the United States to build an additional nuclear reactor.

The post Populist Slovakia Announces New Nuclear Power Build Deal With United States appeared first on Breitbart.

Both President Donald Trump and socialist President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil confirmed on Monday that they shared a phone call to discuss the deterioration of diplomatic relations between their countries, a result of Lula's persecution of conservatives in the country.

The post Trump Says He Will Visit Brazil After Phone Call with Socialist Lula appeared first on Breitbart.

NEW YORK -- Sean “Diddy” Combs’ lawyers want the hip-hop mogul sent to a low-security federal prison in New Jersey to serve his four-year, two-month prison sentence, telling a judge Monday that the facility’s drug treatment program will help him stay clean.

The post Diddy Requests Low-Security Prison with Drug Treatment Program to Serve Four Year Sentence appeared first on Breitbart.

President Trump confirmed on Monday that music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs has requested a pardon on prostitution charges. 

The post Trump Says Diddy Asked Him for a Pardon on Prostitution Charges appeared first on Breitbart.

Attorney General Pam Bondi testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, October 7.

The post Watch Live: Pam Bondi Testifies Before Senate appeared first on Breitbart.

By John Klar

New revelations about the ubiquitous presence of microplastics in food, water, clothing, and even the air we breathe have led to greater awareness and studies of possible deleterious health effects. While researchers and scientific experts investigate how these microscopic particles adversely impact our brains, breathing, and bodies, there are numerous initiatives consumers can employ to […]

Virginia’s Democrat candidate for Attorney General, Jay Jones, reportedly said it would be a good thing if more police officers died.

The post Nolte: Police Union Demands Jay Jones Drop out After Claim He Wants More Dead Cops appeared first on Breitbart.

Last week, the federal government “shut down” because the Senate could not get the required 60 votes to invoke cloture and pass a continuing resolution to keep the government funded. The CR had passed the House, was supported by a majority of the Senate, and would have been signed into law by President Trump. It was defeated, however, by a minority of senators (mostly Democrats) who refused to fund the government unless the Republicans would make concessions on some other matters.

This raises an oft-debated question: Should the Senate further limit the use of the filibuster, which per Senate rules requires a supermajority of 60 votes to proceed to a vote on most legislative items? The Senate has already disallowed filibusters in the case of presidential nominations to executive or judicial office. However, some have suggested going even further and eliminating the filibuster altogether.

These calls to remove the filibuster have typically come from Democrats. They have made this argument when they’ve controlled the Senate and have been frustrated by Republicans using the filibuster to impede their agenda. They’ve noted how some Southern senators sought to thwart the enactment of federal civil rights legislation through the use of the filibuster. More generally, they have emphasized the non-democratic character of the filibuster, which empowers a minority in the Senate to defeat legislation supported by the chamber’s majority.

So far, Republicans have generally supported preserving the legislative filibuster in the face of these criticisms. They have defended it not only when they were in the minority, but also when they have had the majority, even when the sitting president of their own party called loudly for them to get rid of it.

Republicans have defended the filibuster for both tactical and principled reasons. Tactically, they may have feared that they would be in the minority most of the time and thus favored the filibuster as a way of fending off the worst excesses of an increasingly liberal and persistently powerful Democratic majority. On the level of principle, Republicans tend to be conservative and hence are interested in preserving longstanding, traditional institutions such as the filibuster—simply because they are traditional and longstanding.

Moreover, Republicans have responded to the Left’s complaints that the filibuster is anti-democratic by pointing out that America was never supposed to be a pure democracy. The Founders, they have argued, did not intend to establish a democracy but a constitutional republic, which includes checks and balances to prevent the excesses of majoritarianism. And the filibuster, this argument goes, while not one of the checks written into the Constitution, nevertheless conforms to its spirit by requiring a broad consensus to legislate that generally stops a majority from running roughshod over a minority.

All of these arguments have a certain merit. Nevertheless, they could all use a critical re-examination.

Tactically, it is not so clear that Republicans need to be afraid of being in the Senate minority most of the time. The anxieties that led to this way of thinking seem to belong to the age of Obama, when Democrats earnestly expected, and Republicans sincerely feared, a permanent national Democratic majority. That majority has not emerged. Accordingly, if Republicans can expect to have a Senate majority much of the time, the filibuster may be more of an impediment to using the power the American people have given them than a safeguard against Democratic excesses.

Moreover, while Republican support for institutional tradition is generally an admirable trait, it is worth recalling that the contemporary filibuster is not as traditional as many seem to assume. The traditional filibuster was a “talking” filibuster. Such a maneuver took place when a determined senator or group of senators took advantage of the Senate’s general rule of unlimited debate, which could only be cut off by a supermajority vote. Here, some senators would hold the floor, continuing to speak indefinitely, holding up all other Senate business in order to delay and ultimately defeat a measure.

Today’s filibuster, which only goes back to the 1970s, does not require senators to go through all of this effort. All they have to do is give notice of their intention to block a vote, which then triggers the 60-vote cloture motion in order to proceed. Whatever one may think about the merits of this procedure, it does not exactly belong to the age-old customs of the Senate.

Finally, and coming to the merits, a strong case can be made that the filibuster is contrary to the principles of government embodied in the Constitution. Those principles admittedly include checks and balances that are designed to foster careful deliberation, thus preventing the abuses of a tyrannical majority. They also include, however, a republican system of self-government in which the majority is empowered to govern. Indeed, in Federalist 22 Alexander Hamilton praised the Constitution precisely for not including the supermajority requirements that characterized the Articles of Confederation—requirements that he condemned as inconsistent with majority rule and energetic government.  

Of course, the Constitution itself includes supermajority requirements in some cases. But the occasions on which the Constitution calls for it are grave and extraordinary, such as amending the Constitution or removing people from office. In such cases, it is reasonable to require a broad consensus, and thus to give a minority power to prevent action.

It is not clear, however, why a minority in one legislative chamber should be able to stop the routine operations of the government by refusing to fund programs and agencies that have already been enacted by the will of the majority. Such a power does not seem essential to preventing a majority from running roughshod over a minority. It seems rather to empower a minority to run roughshod over a majority. Or, in Hamilton’s words, such a power allows “a pertinacious minority” to “control the opinion of a majority respecting the best mode of conducting” the “public business,” with the result that “the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater.” This result seems contrary to the promise of self-government that the Constitution is supposed to deliver.

This argument need not be pressed so far as to claim that the legislative filibuster ought to be abolished entirely. If it’s objectionable to allow a “pertinacious minority” to bring the government to a halt on one hand, there is something reasonable about requiring a broad consensus for important new policies on the other.

These observations suggest a compromise. Perhaps the Senate could disallow the use of the filibuster in relation to legislation that does no more than fund the existing operations of the government, but preserve it for use on legislation that creates new programs or new legal obligations.

Decent self-government requires respecting the minority—not submitting to their dictates.

The post Preserving Majority Rule Requires Limiting the Senate Filibuster appeared first on The American Mind.

Ex-French Prime Minister Édouard Philippe, a longtime ally of President Emmanuel Macron, has called for his former boss to hold early presidential elections to end the political crisis facing the country.

The post Former French Prime Minister Philippe Calls on Macron to Hold ‘Early Presidential Election’ appeared first on Breitbart.

Texas is ready to defend American values if Chicago is not up to the job. That’s the message Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott sent to blue-state Democrats as he announced […]

The post Gov. Greg Abbot Deploys 'Elite Texas National Guard' for Blue State Crackdowns appeared first on The Western Journal.

The Supreme Court hasn’t yet determined all the cases it will hear regarding legal challenges to President Donald Trump’s executive actions. 

But oral arguments have been scheduled for several cases involving trade and separation of powers when it comes to so-called independent agencies within the executive branch. Meanwhile, a decision on a fast-tracked “emergency docket” case is still pending. 

Here’s a look at some of what to expect in the coming weeks from the Supreme Court regarding Trump’s executive actions. 

1. Tariffs in Trouble?

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the first week of November on Trump’s tariffs in the case of Learning Resources Inc. v. Trump.

Two private companies sued in May after Trump’s “Liberation Day” announcement of sweeping tariffs on foreign goods. 

It’s an issue that has divided the Right.

Tariffs have long been core to Trump’s trade and economic agenda, often clashing with the more libertarian-leaning conservative views on free trade that dominated the Republican Party going back to at least the Ronald Reagan era. 

The high court in September agreed to hear the case after lower courts ruled Trump exceeded his executive branch authority by imposing tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, which is intended to address emergencies only. Normally, Congress imposes tariffs.

2. ‘Transgender’ Passports

The question of “gender identity” on passports is on the Supreme Court’s fast-tracked emergency docket. As a result, a partial ruling could come soon. 

Litigants in the case of Trump v. Orr, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued to allow passports to reflect the gender identity of someone’s choice, meaning a passport for a male could list him as a female, or vice versa. 

The seven plaintiffs identified themselves as “transgender” and “nonbinary” and sued to challenge a Trump executive order that stated sex designation on U.S. passports would be based on “immutable biological factors at conception.” 

Trump’s order more broadly stated there are two sexes determined by biological factors, which are male and female. Among other things, the order directed the State Department to apply this to documents such as passports. 

That reversed a previous policy that allowed passport holders to check “M” for male, “F” for female, and “X” for something else. This returns the form to “M” and “F” only.

In April, U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick for the District of Massachusetts gave the plaintiffs a partial victory for their motion on a preliminary injunction to stop the order from taking effect. 

On Sept. 19, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to reverse the injunction from the district court. 

3. What Makes a Citizen?

Lower courts blocked Trump’s executive order in January directing federal agencies to limit recognition of so-called birthright citizenship. 

Birthright citizenship is the view that anyone born in the United States, even a child of illegal immigrants, is automatically a U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment. 

On Sept. 26, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to hear the merits in a birthright citizenship case, Trump v. State of Washington. This matter is not yet officially set for arguments with a hearing date. 

Under the order, agencies would not recognize citizenship for U.S.-born children who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen. 

Federal judges in New Hampshire and Washington state issued injunctions against enforcing Trump’s order. 

4. A Reckoning for Deep State, Humphrey’s Executor?

In December, the high court will hear arguments regarding supposedly “independent” commissions within the executive branch in the case of Trump v. Slaughter. 

Independent agencies include boards and commissions with members appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents that in theory operate without political concerns. 

The outcome could be sweeping, as the long-standing 1935 precedent in Humphrey’s Executor v. United States is known as one of the key cases empowering the bureaucracy. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled during the New Deal era that Congress can enact laws limiting the power of the president to fire executive officials of an independent agency.

Trump has attempted to fire a number of members of boards and commissions, including the Federal Reserve Board, Federal Trade Commission, and National Transportation Safety Board. 

At issue is the separation of powers and whether an elected president can remove unelected executive branch officials. 

This specific case regards Trump’s ouster of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. 

The Humphrey’s Executor case revolved around President Franklin Roosevelt’s firing of FTC Commissioner William Humphrey. The Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 prohibited the president from firing a commissioner for any reason other than “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.” Humphrey sued, but died before the case was decided by the Supreme Court. Thus, it was called “Humphrey’s Executor.” The high court held in the 1935 case that Congress can enact laws limiting a president’s ability to remove members of the boards and commissions. 

5. Is the Fed’s Independence ‘Cooked’?

The Federal Reserve, which sets monetary policy, has a heightened role for perceived independence. 

Last week, in an emergency docket ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that Federal Reserve Board Governor Lisa Cook could keep her job—for now, at least—after Trump attempted to oust her. 

But the high court set oral arguments for Jan. 26 in the case of Trump v. Cook. 

The case has potentially far-reaching consequences for the future of the Federal Reserve.

The question in the case is whether a president can fire a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors or whether the organization created in 1913 is independent. 

Members of the board are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, but Trump’s ouster of Cook marked the first time a president has sought to remove a board member. 

Critics of the firing say it jeopardizes the independence of the Fed. Supporters of the move have countered that government boards and commissions should be more accountable to elected officials. 

Trump justified the removal based on alleged misstatements Cook made on mortgage documents. Cook has denied any wrongdoing. 

Cook contested the firing, saying a board member can only be removed “for cause” under the Federal Reserve Act and that the act includes due process. The administration argues the president has broad discretion to remove a member of the Board of Governors. The administration contends the allegations about mortgage statements meet the “for cause” standard.

Trump largely ran on immigration and trade policies. Meaning, his ability to thwart the federal bureaucracy that undermined his first term could be critical to how he fares in a second term. So, what the high court decides in these Trump administration cases are likely to be very consequential.

The post 5 Supreme Court Cases That Could Significantly Help or Hinder Trump’s Agenda appeared first on The Daily Signal.