Archive by Author

Blinken backs Canadian move to help Germany import natural gas from Russia

Secretary of State Antony Blinken on Monday said the U.S. supported Canada for its decision to help Germany import natural gas from Russia despite global sanctions aimed at bankrupting the Kremlin over its war in Ukraine.

Canada’s government had earlier said it would provide a sanctions exemption and return a turbine that was undergoing repairs in the country to Germany for use in the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, which is the biggest gas line bringing natural gas from Russia to Europe. 

“In the short term, the turbine will allow Germany and other European countries to replenish their gas reserves, increasing their energy security and resiliency and countering Russia’s efforts to weaponize energy,” Blinken said in a statement. 

The pipeline was shut down Monday to undergo repairs for an estimated 10 days, Concerns have been raised in Europe that Russia could exploit the shutdown to hold hostage countries that sanction Moscow for its aggression in Ukraine. 

Germany blocked the operation of the completed Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia immediately after Russian President Vladimir Putin launched an offensive against Ukraine on Feb. 24. 

Russia, in turn, has decreased or blocked natural gas flows to European countries as international sanctions have squeezed its economy and countries have moved to ban the import of Russian oil. Critics say the Kremlin is lashing out and blackmailing countries for imposing sanctions on Moscow. 

The turbine issue illustrates the challenge Europe faces in decoupling from Russia’s energy sector as it tries to deprive Moscow of key revenues it can use to fund its nearly five-month war in Ukraine, while also facing domestic pressure to have enough energy on hand for its countries and combat rising prices.

“We are working with our Allies and partners to reduce our collective dependence on Russian energy and maintain pressure on President Putin, including exploring ways to further reduce Russia’s energy-derived revenues to continue curtailing Russia’s ability to fund its brutal, ongoing war in Ukraine,” Blinken continued.

“At the same time, we are taking active steps to limit the impact of President Putin’s war on global energy markets and protect our economies.”

Canada’s minister of natural resources, Jonathan Wilkinson, said the turbine will be under a “time-limited and revocable permit… to access reliable and affordable energy as they continue to transition away from Russian oil and gas.”   

However, the Ukrainian government said it was deeply disappointed in the decision by Canada to return the turbine, saying the sanctions exemption is a response to “the whims of Russia” and came on the same day of Russian shelling on residential areas in a handful of Ukrainian cities and territories. 

“The transfer of the Nord Stream-1 turbine will allow [Russia] to continue to use energy as a tool of hybrid warfare against Europe,” the Ukrainian statement read. 

Source: TEST FEED1

Even without Shinzo Abe, Japan may build up its military

The assassination of Japan’s longest-serving prime minister, Shinzo Abe, deprived the Asia-Pacific region of a statesman whose greatest legacy is that of a staunch foe of China and North Korea. Americans may remember him as pro-American, an advocate of the U.S.-Japan alliance, but above all he was pro-Japanese.

Among Abe’s greatest concerns, and that of his successors as prime minister, is that Americans would tire of their commitment to defend Japan and South Korea, leaving both of these crucial U.S. allies to the mercies of North Korean nuclear-tipped missiles backed up by China, the nation that saved the North from destruction in the Korean War. Abe, as prime minister in 2006-2007 and then from 2012 to 2000, was not going to let that happen.

It was for that reason that Abe strove mightily to do away with Article 9 of Japan’s postwar constitution, foisted on Japan in 1947 during its occupation under the victorious Gen. Douglas MacArthur. Abe’s fondest desire, as North Korea’s leader Kim Jong Un sent missiles flying over Japan and staged nuclear tests, was to tear Japan away from the constraints of Article 9. To Abe, the first sentences of Article 9 — “Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes” — was a liability. How was Japan to resist its enemies, with or without its American ally, while bound by a literal reading of these noble words?

Abe’s seemingly modest initial goal was to change the nomenclature so the Japan Self-Defense Forces, the cover-up name of the Japanese military establishment that arose despite Article 9, could be named what they are: the armed forces of Japan. He faced enormous opposition on all sides, however. Japanese might not have liked to have had their constitution essentially written by their conquerors, but a majority of Japanese probably still support Article 9; they have no desire to change the status quo at the risk, many believe, of another terrible war. Abe’s call for revision encountered bitter opposition not only from leftist foes of the long-ruling Liberal-Democratic Party but also from moderates within the LDP.

It was not lost upon Abe’s critics that his maternal grandfather was Nobusuke Kishi, designated a Class A war prisoner by the Americans for his cruelty in ruling Manchuria, which the Japanese after overrunning much of China renamed Manchukuo, a Japanese satellite until the end of the Pacific War. Imprisoned after the Japanese surrender in 1945, Kishi was released in time to help found the LDP, often described as neither liberal nor democratic, in 1955. As prime minister in the late 1950s, Kishi focused on rebuilding the shattered Japanese economy. A younger brother, Eisaku Sato, served as prime minister from 1964 to 1972 and a son, Shintaro Abe, Shinzo’s father, was foreign minister from 1982 to 1986.

For Abe, in keeping with the family legacy of conservative nationalism, the change in name of the Self-Defense Forces would portend a basic shift in mission. Here again, Article 9 specifically stands in the way. The second sentence of this remarkable 75-word stricture states clearly that “land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be sustained.” Moreover, it concludes with a simple unambiguous line, “The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.”

For Abe, there had to be a way to free Japan from what he saw as the shackles of Article 9. Japan needed to be free to send its forces overseas. How else could the Japanese stave off a Chinese assault on Taiwan, the island province that the Chinese persist, with ever louder rhetoric, in vowing to recover? And what would the Japanese do if the Chinese tried to seize the nearby Senkaku Islands, held tenaciously by Japan but constantly threatened by Chinese “fishing boats” and reconnaissance aircraft? Across the Sea of Japan, how effectively could Japan battle the North Koreans, supported by the Chinese and probably the Russians, if North Korea were to go beyond testing nukes and missiles and actually fire them for real?

The answer for decades has been that Japan would rely on the United States, which still has 50,000 troops in Japan, including vital air and marine bases on Okinawa and the naval base at Yokosuka, south of Tokyo, as well as 28,500 troops in South Korea. Donald Trump, as president, did not inspire confidence, however, when he spoke about withdrawing U.S. troops from both countries. Moreover, memories of the history of Japan’s colonial domination of Korea still burn in the Korean psyche, and Abe reminded Koreans of the terrible past in 2013 when he paid homage at the Yasukuni Shrine honoring all Japanese war dead, including those adjudged as war criminals. No way can Korea and Japan join in a trilateral alliance led by their mutual ally the U.S.

Abe had all this in mind when he said Japan had to be able to deploy its forces overseas. Obviously, freed of Article 9, Japan would vastly increase its defense budget, limited to about 1 percent of its gross domestic product. Considering that Japan’s GDP for 2022 is likely to exceed the $5 trillion threshold, the world’s third largest after the U.S. and China, Japan is still able to invest about $50 billion this year in enhancing and modernizing its already quite advanced air self-defense, maritime self-defense and ground self-defense forces. For a country its size, the number of troops is small — 150,000 in the “army” and 50,000 each in the “air force” and “navy.” They may be quite elite, all volunteers, highly trained and proud to serve the emperor, but the numbers presumably would be sure to increase if Japan were to send troops overseas.

Abe may be gone, but voices in Japan are all for a military build-up. With the balance of forces shifting, Abe would have had the perfect rationale for encouraging the revival of Japan as a great military power. His successors have not pursued revision of Article 9, but the topic is bound to come up for debate again and again as China gains power and the U.S. shows signs of weakening its defenses in the region. If the U.S. were to cut its strength significantly, as Abe was well aware, Japan would rush to fill the void. 

Donald Kirk has been a journalist for more than 60 years, focusing much of his career on conflict in Asia and the Middle East, including as a correspondent for the Washington Star and Chicago Tribune. He currently is a freelance correspondent covering North and South Korea. He is the author of several books about Asian affairs.

Source: TEST FEED1

DOJ says it interviewed Trump's attorney over Bannon case

Federal prosecutors revealed on Monday that the Justice Department interviewed former President Trump’s attorney last month regarding their contempt case against Steve Bannon.

In a court filing submitted just after midnight, prosecutors said the attorney, Justin Clark, told investigators that Trump never asserted executive privilege in response to the subpoena Bannon received last year from the House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack. 

“On June 29, 2022, former President Donald Trump’s attorney, who sent the letter on which the Defendant claimed his noncompliance was based, confirmed what his correspondence has already established: that the former President never invoked executive privilege over any particular information or materials; that the former President’s counsel never asked or was asked to attend the Defendant’s deposition before the Select Committee; that the Defendant’s attorney misrepresented to the  Committee what the former President’s counsel had told the Defendant’s attorney; and that the former President’s counsel made clear to the Defendant’s attorney that the letter provided no basis for total noncompliance,” the filing reads.

The revelations come less than two days after Bannon’s lawyers said in a letter to the House Jan. 6 Select Committee that their client is now willing to testify before the panel, partly because Trump has decided to “waive” any assertions of executive privilege over his former adviser.

“President Trump has provided us with a letter, which is attached, attesting to the fact that back in October 2021, he did invoke executive privilege with respect to Mr. Bannon’s testimony and document production,” Robert Costello, an attorney representing Bannon, wrote to the committee in the July 9 letter.

DOJ prosecutors said their interview with Clark and other evidence appears to contradict Bannon’s lawyer’s claims to the select committee.

“Even the Defendant’s claim that the reason he is now willing to testify is because the former President is ‘waiving’ executive privilege is subject to question given all of the evidence and law that has been addressed in this case, of which he must be aware, demonstrating that executive privilege never provided a basis for total noncompliance in the first place,” they wrote in the filing.

Bannon’s trial over two misdemeanor contempt of Congress charges is set to begin next week.

The prosecutors argued on Monday that Bannon’s sudden willingness to testify does nothing to affect his culpability in the case and asked a judge to prevent the defense from presenting any evidence about his recent change of heart.

“The Defendant’s purported desire to testify now does not erase his past contempt,” the prosecutors wrote.

Source: TEST FEED1

Eagerness to reelect incumbents drops: Gallup

Americans’ eagerness to reelect incumbents in the upcoming midterm elections has dropped in recent years, according to a new Gallup poll. 

The poll, published on Monday, found that 53 percent of respondents said that their representatives in Congress deserve to be reelected, while 41 percent disagree. 

In 2020, 60 percent of respondents told the survey giant that their representatives deserved to be reelected, as 35 percent of those surveyed disagreed.

Twenty-one percent of respondents in the new survey told pollsters that they believe all members of Congress deserve to be reelected into office, while 77 percent said they should not return to Capitol Hill after November’s midterms.

Sixty percent of respondents who identify as Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents said that their representative deserved to be reelected, while 49 percent of respondents who identify as Republicans or lean toward the Republican party agree with the sentiment. 

Thirty-three percent of respondents also said that they believe President Biden deserves another term in office, and 67 percent of those surveyed said he does not. Roughly seven in 10 Democrats questioned — 71 percent — said that Biden deserves a second term, as did 27 percent of independents and 3 percent of Republicans.

The Gallup poll was conducted from June 1 to June 20, with a total of 1,015 participating respondents. The poll’s margin of error is 4 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

Don’t forget about our youngest children: Most remain unvaccinated

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, many parents have been patiently reminding us: Don’t forget about our youngest children. But time and again it felt like the youngest, most vulnerable children in our society were being forgotten and left behind. This included the development and testing for vaccines for children ages 6 months to 5 years of age.

While we understandably must be careful with all vaccine testing, especially for young children, it felt like an extremely long wait until these vaccines became available, a full 18 months after the initial roll out for adults. But now, for the most part, it seems that everyone has moved on.

After the tremendous wait, vaccines for the youngest kids are now available — but where is the fanfare, celebration and movement to get these children vaccinated? Where is the mass vaccination events, the coordinated public health efforts from states, communities and health systems?

While the White House, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), American Academy Pediatrics (AAP) and even Elmo have been promoting vaccination, the world seems otherwise quiet. The movement to vaccinate children 6 months to 5 years of age has been slow, and uptake has been reportedly low. There are already many challenges to vaccinating this population of kids with these vaccines. First, they require three doses separated by a total of at least 11 weeks for the Pfizer vaccine and two doses separated by at least four weeks for the Moderna vaccine. The dosages are different, the two options cannot be easily compared, there’s a slight difference in the age range for each, and more. In short: it’s complicated.

Second, this population of children accounts for only 6 percent of the U.S. population, almost 1-in-5 live below the federal poverty line, and rates of population, poverty and insurance vary widely from state to state.

Third, there will likely be far fewer locations for children this age to get vaccinated. Providers who have stocked vaccines for other ages may be hesitant to do so for these ages due to the complexity or perceived lack of demand. Many community vaccine sites have long packed up and gone home. Parents are going to be less likely to take their children to a pharmacy for vaccination and most pharmacies can’t vaccinate children less than 3 years of age. It’s a tough road when many are already facing exhaustion, vaccination rates for routine childhood immunizations are down, so many barriers exist.

While many of us have benefited tremendously from vaccination, we must remember that we have an entire population of young children that are unvaccinated and have not had that opportunity yet. COVID-19 hospitalization rates for children 4 years old or under were five times higher during the omicron variant peak compared to the delta wave, according to a recent CDC report. Pediatric COVID-19 cases are rising once again at a time when only a small fraction of cases are being reported nationwide due to home testing and other factors. Another recent study has found that the rate of children admitted to the intensive care unit  (ICU) for COVID-19 or multisystem inflammatory syndrome (MISC) during the first 15 months of the pandemic was twice that for influenza during the two years prior to the pandemic. This was despite significant public health measures put in place during the COVID-19 pandemic. It also showed that over half of these children had no underlying comorbidities. These and many other studies speak to the importance of vaccinating all children against COVID-19.

Concerningly, only a small percentage of parents are reporting that they are certain to vaccinate their children immediately. Even more concerning, states are even taking steps to further limit availability to these vaccines and legislators and officials have even been spreading misinformation about COVID-19 and the vaccines.

In Tennessee for example, legislators have asked the governor to block distribution of the vaccine to young children and to block the Department of Health from distributing, promoting or recommending it to children under 5 years old.

Our organization, the Tennessee Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, sent a letter to the governor noting that30,000 children under 5 have been hospitalized with COVID-19, more than 500 children in this age group have died from it and outlining the drastic effects any efforts to hamper distribution would bring to our state. This would remove the parental option of having their child vaccinated for many parents, and leave many of our rural, underserved children with limited access to vaccination.

Vaccines remain a safe, effective and important tool in our arsenal to prevent severe disease and death from COVID-19 in children. We encourage parents to talk to their pediatrician and ask any questions that they may have about vaccinating their child. We call on lawmakers, policy makers and health officials to support distribution and promote vaccination in this age group. We ask that our state health departments, providers, pharmacies and health systems to pull together to offer these vaccines. We can’t grow tired, and we must not forget about these parents and children.

Jason Yaun, MD, FAAP, is president of the Tennessee Chapter of the American Academy Pediatrics. Follow him on Twitter: @JasonYaunMD

Carlenda Smith, MD, FAAP is vice president of the Tennessee Chapter of the American Academy Pediatrics.

Source: TEST FEED1

Are democracies still capable of self-governing?

Boris Johnson may have been the right man at the right time to become Britain’s prime minister, winning a huge electoral victory in 2019. But that is over; Johnson has been dismissed by his party. 

Changing prime ministers between elections is not uncommon in the United Kingdom. In 1940, Winston Churchill replaced Neville Chamberlain, who remained in the war cabinet until his death later that year. After the UK voted to leave the European Union, David Cameron resigned, replaced by Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May.

While The Economist described Johnson’s behavior as clownish, it was lying to his colleagues that ultimately got him fired. I don’t know the American-born Johnson well. Our longest conversation was in July 2016, days after he had been appointed foreign minister. We were at British Airways’ Concorde Lounge at Heathrow’s Terminal 5 awaiting a slightly delayed flight to Washington, D.C.

Johnson asked about the current state of Washington politics and the then-national security advisor, whom he called “this Susan Rice person.” Not knowing whether Johnson was being what the English call “cheeky” or  fully serious, I held back, replying “she’s no Condi,” referring to George W. Bush’s national security advisor Condoleezza Rice. But it soon became clear that despite his obvious charisma and charm, Johnson was unprepared for this trip.

Before boarding, Johnson asked “what about Trump? Can he win?” My rather vanilla response was “it is Hillary’s election to lose,” without grasping the irony of what would happen.

Johnson and Trump shared several traits. Both had supersized egos. Boris believed that he would prevail through his cleverness; Trump because he had always won in business or believed he had. Both often regarded the law, truth and fact only when it suited their purposes.

Both were foppish in different ways. Boris’s blonde hair looked like it was combed by an electric eggbeater. Trump strutted like a nouveau Mussolini with an open jacket and extra-long tie descending several inches below his belt buckle. And both faced dismissal from office.

In the U.S. system, presidents can be replaced in four ways: death, resignation, election or impeachment and conviction. American presidents have been impeached four times; Trump twice. None was convicted.

Johnson was forced from office not by his politics or policies but by his personal misconduct and the many falsehoods he uttered, which finally provoked massive resignations among ministers of parliament (MPs) serving in his administration. Unlike a president convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors who would leave office immediately, Johnson remains as prime minister until the Conservative grandees select a replacement. That may take time.

Parliament “rises,” meaning adjourns, on July 22 for the summer recess, re-convening in September. If a replacement is not determined before then, Johnson, who resigned as party leader, remains at Number 10. When that person is chosen by the party, Johnson will proceed to Buckingham Palace and offer his resignation to the queen, along with permission to form a new government headed by his successor. At that point, Johnson, still an MP, will drift into political oblivion.

But that is not necessarily the case for Donald Trump. Had Trump been convicted by the Senate, he would be permanently barred from seeking office. Even if the Jan. 6 committee uncovers enough evidence of crimes, only the Justice Department can indict. And depending on the alleged crimes, even if Trump were convicted, it is unclear whether he would be eligible for office. After all, candidates have been elected from jail, and one vice presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, ran in 1920 having been convicted  in 1895 of violating federal law.

Another enormous difference between the U.S. and UK political systems is that, in 2024, two octogenarians, Trump and President Biden, could be running for the presidency. And leaders of both parties in Congress are of an age unlike their colleagues in the House of Commons. Of the likely successors as prime minister, few are likely to be even 60 years of age. 

Where are both countries headed? Biden has declared that the challenge of the times pits democracies against autocracies. But he is quite wrong. The challenge of these times is whether democracies are capable of self-governing.  

In the UK, there is no obvious Churchill, Thatcher, Major, Blair or Brown lurking in the wings. In the U.S., an even greater absence of obvious candidates for high office is more alarming. But who will lead is perhaps the most critical and unanswerable question facing these two great nations.

Harlan Ullman, Ph.D, is senior adviser at Washington, D.C.’s Atlantic Council and the primary author of “shock and awe.” His latest book is, “The Fifth Horseman and the New MAD: How Massive Attacks of Disruption Became the Looming Existential Danger to a Divided Nation and that World at Large.” Follow him on Twitter @harlankullman.

Source: TEST FEED1

Most Democrats prefer new presidential candidate in 2024: poll

Most Democrats surveyed in a poll released early Monday said they would prefer a new presidential candidate in 2024.

The New York Times/Siena College poll found that 64 percent of Democrats questioned said they would prefer a different candidate as their party’s nominee in 2024 rather than President Biden. Twenty-six percent of Democrats said they would still support Biden in the next presidential election. 

When asked why they would support a new candidate, 33 percent of Democrats cited age as their main reason, 32 percent said job performance, 12 percent said they will prefer someone new and 10 percent said Biden is not progressive enough. 

Forty-four percent of all respondents said they will cast their vote for Biden if the 2024 presidential election were held today, while 41 percent of respondents said they would vote for former President Trump if he is a 2024 presidential candidate. 

The White House has consistently said Biden, who will be 80 years old in November, intends to run for reelection in 2024. Recent polling numbers, however, show his approval rating has dipped among Americans. 

The new poll also found that 76 percent of respondents said that they believe that the U.S. is headed in the wrong direction, and 13 percent believe it is headed in the right direction.

When asked what is the most important problem the country is facing, 20 percent of respondents said the U.S. economy, 15 percent said inflation and the cost of living, 10 percent said gun policies and 5 percent said abortion rights issues.

The New York Times/Siena College poll was conducted from July 5 to July 7, with a total of 849 respondents. The poll’s margin of error is 4.1 percentage points.

Source: TEST FEED1

No, Jarkesy v. SEC won’t end the administrative state

“A wild new court decision [that] would blow up much of the government’s ability to operate.” That’s how Vox’s Ian Millhiser characterizes the U.S. Fifth Circuit’s decision in Jarkesy v. Securities and Exchange Commission — which the SEC since has asked the court to reconsider en banc. And while this case has been somewhat overshadowed by the whirlwind of the end of the U.S. Supreme Court term, it’s an important case that much of legal journalism has gotten wrong. 

Millhiser goes on to argue that the decision “seeks to dismantle much of the system the federal government uses to enforce longstanding laws.” Slate legal journalist Mark Joseph Stern tweeted that the Fifth Circuit “dismantled the SEC’s power to enforce securities law. This decision is beyond radical. It is nihilistic. … I mean, this is basically striking down the administrative state.” Jon Stewart said the ruling “strikes at the heart of the government’s ability to regulate anything … clean air, clean water, food … anything.”  

Stewart is often hilarious, but his comments on Jarkesy are hilariously wrong. While Fifth Circuit Judge Jennifer Elrod’s opinion recognizes important limits on the federal administrative state’s power, nothing in it prevents the SEC from carrying out its core function of protecting investors.  

How did we get here? George Jarkesy, a hedge fund manager, was charged with misrepresenting his financial state to prospective investors. That’s conduct just about everyone agrees should be (and is) illegal.  

How should the government respond to such allegations of fraud? The SEC thinks that they should be handled in an in-house court within the agency, where agency employees essentially act as judge, jury and executioner. But the Fifth Circuit instead held that such allegations must be heard by a real federal court, where an unbiased jury of the defendant’s peers can hear both government and defendant’s story and sort out what is the truth.  

Jarkesy doesn’t ban in-house courts altogether, but it does find that the use of them in this case — and cases like it — is unlawful in three ways.  

First, the SEC’s in-house adjudication of this case violated Jarkesy’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. Second, Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an “intelligible principle” by which the SEC could exercise the delegated power. Third, statutory restrictions on removal of the SEC’s administrative law judges (ALJs) violate the Take Care Clause of Article II of the Constitution. 

Regarding the first factor, that the SEC’s in-house adjudication of this case violated Jarkesy’s Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial: The Seventh Amendment protection reflects the core principle that fundamental fairness requires serious accusations to be heard by a representative group of one’s peers, so that an individual does not face unfairly severe consequences based on the views of one biased fact-finder. There is a limited exception to the Seventh Amendment’s jury trial requirement in in-house agency proceedings, but the court concluded that the exception didn’t apply to this case. 

The claim at stake in Jarkesy — a traditional claim of redress for fraud, involving individual victims — typically would receive a jury trial at common law. And the Fifth Circuit correctly determined that Jarkesy had a constitutional right to a jury trial.  

Second, Congress unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the SEC by failing to provide an “intelligible principle” by which the SEC could exercise the delegated power. Under our system of government, each branch has certain powers enumerated in the Constitution. To prevent any branch from becoming too powerful, no branch can delegate its unique powers to another branch. At the same time, the executive branch needs some flexibility to fill in minor gaps left by Congress. Such gap-filling is not an unlawful delegation if Congress provides an “intelligible principle” for the executive branch to follow.  

Congress gave the SEC the power to decide whether to bring securities enforcement actions either in an in-house proceeding or within a traditional federal court. It did not create any rules for the SEC to follow in determining which defendants should receive which legal process. Because Congress failed to set forth an “intelligible principle” for the SEC to follow here, the Fifth Circuit found a violation of the nondelegation doctrine.  

Third, statutory restrictions on removal of ALJs violate the Take Care Clause of Article II of the Constitution. The Take Care Clause requires the president to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” which means that the president must have power over officers’ appointment and removal. This provision ensures that officials who enforce the law are accountable to the president and, in turn, to the American people. Bureaucracies insulated from any kind of democratic control threaten individual liberty because they answer to no one. The SEC’s administrative law judges are protected from presidential removal. The court held these ALJ protections unconstitutional. 

Although Jon Stewart concluded his segment by musing that he couldn’t see how the SEC continues to exist after this opinion, none of the opinion’s three core holdings fundamentally threatens the SEC’s ability to enforce the securities laws, as long as its process is fair and protects due process as required by our Constitution. The government can, and should, protect investors from fraud and ensure that defendants’ constitutional rights are respected. Jarkesy shows a path by which the SEC can do both.  

Alison Somin is an attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, a nonprofit legal organization that defends Americans’ liberties when threatened by government overreach and abuse. Follow her on Twitter @AlisonSomin.

Source: TEST FEED1