Author: Rick

For anyone who does not already know, Senator Grassley is the Chair of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, a committee he has served on in different capacities since at least 2009*. Especially given his presence on this committee, I was pleased to see his recent comments this morning in the Des Moines Register regarding President Trump potentially defying court rulings: “He wouldn’t get away with that and shouldn’t”. However, the Senator went on to indicate he does not believe the President would go so far as to ignore court rulings.

Here are some of the recent statements which give me concern that this Executive Branch may not give deference to the Judiciary:

• J.D. Vance stated, “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.

• President Trump said “Maybe we have to look at the judges because I think that’s a very serious violation.

• Elon Musk posted that a judge “needs to be impeached, NOW!”

• White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed, “each injunction is an abuse of the rule of law and an attempt to thwart the will of the people.”

It seems likely that these comments are attempting to lay the groundwork for ignoring the rulings of the courts on the grounds that they are not legitimate rulings. In fact, a judge has already ruled that the Executive Branch has not fully complied with recent rulings. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞.

In the event the judicial branch oversteps its authority and provides an illegitimate ruling, it is the role of Congress to step in. Congress has the power to write new legislation which would either clarify or codify the ruling deemed to be judicial overreach – of course, this would also require a Presidential approval. Congress also has the power to impeach federal judges and remove them from office if they are deemed to have violated their oath to the Constitution. Regardless of which action is most prudent, both lie with the Legislative Branch. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐨𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐞𝐜𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐝𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐣𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐛𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐞.

The likelihood that our current Executive Branch decides not to honor the rulings of the Judicial Branch seems to be higher than ever before in my lifetime; I would also like to point out I find it possible the Executive Branch does not comply with rulings while claiming they are in compliance. Given this increased likelihood, I have asked my representation in Congress: 𝐈𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐡𝐨𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐭𝐨 𝐝𝐢𝐬𝐫𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐢𝐧𝐠𝐬 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐉𝐮𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐁𝐫𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐡, 𝐡𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐲𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭? I encourage you all to ask your Congressional representation the questions you have as well.

In response to questions about shutting down government departments, Senator Grassley admitted he did not know if Trump had the authority, but did not seem bothered by his actions, instead saying that the 2024 election was a “clear mandate to drain the swamp in D.C.”.

So, what defines an electoral mandate? There is no formal definition but, in the past, we have typically considered a mandate to require several key pieces: a resounding victory with a significant margin between the two candidates, a voter turnout that was larger than normal, and a clear policy objective that drove the enthusiasm and victory for the elected candidate.

The 2024 election ended up with a margin of 49.8% for Trump to 48.3% for Kamala Harris – a margin of victory of 1.5 percentage points. Since 1972, only two Presidents have won the presidency with a smaller margin of victory, George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016, both of whom lost the popular vote.

The 2024 election ended up with a total voter turnout of 155 million, which constituted approximately 63.4% of the voting eligible population. While the total voter turnout has been going up over time, this actually is a relative increase in the voter turnout since the data was tracked starting in 1980, however, it is a lower turnout in terms of the eligible population in 2020 and a lower overall turnout compared with 2020 which saw 158 million voters and 65.3% of the eligible population cast a ballot. This means that Joe Biden had a higher turnout in 2020 compared with Donald Trump in 2024, and a much higher margin of victory at 4.5 percentage points.

I don’t know what formally defines an electoral mandate. But if the 2024 election constitutes an electoral mandate for President Trump, we must also consider that Joe Biden won an electoral mandate with his victory in 2020. Furthermore, we would also expect that we must consider Barack Obama’s victory in 2008 constituted an electoral mandate in that election, specifically with the clear policy objective and key platform of passing Health Care Legislation during his term.

Naturally then, we would trust that Senator Grassley supported the mandated legislation in 2009; however, he strongly opposed the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), voting against it. He even said if every single amendment he proposed had passed he still would have voted against it. Moreover, we would expect that Senator Grassley worked closely together with Joe Biden after his victory and electoral mandate in 2020; however, he staunchly opposed almost every action of his administration and toed the Republican line during his four years in office.

𝐈 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐢𝐧 𝐨𝐟 𝐯𝐢𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲 𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐢𝐦𝐩𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐥𝐲, 𝐈 𝐝𝐨𝐧’𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐫𝐞. I did not care about a mandate in 2008, in 2020, or today. What I do care about is the mechanisms being used to achieve political objectives. When Barack Obama won in 2008 he did not push through executive actions to enforce his mandate; he pushed Congress to do their job. He pushed Congress to write a bill, debate it, pass it and put it on his desk. With a mandate in hand, Congress came together to do just that and passed the Affordable Care Act which Senator Grassley had the opportunity to discuss, debate, and amend.

𝐀𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧, 𝐈 𝐝𝐨 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐰𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐢𝐧𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐧 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥 𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐛𝐮𝐭 𝐢𝐭 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫. What I do know is using this line is merely an excuse. Senator Grassley has an undeniable constitutional duty to ensure the means President Trump uses to “drain the swamp” adhere to the Constitution of the United States of America. 𝐈𝐭 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐧𝐜𝐮𝐦𝐛𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐨𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐦, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐚𝐥𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐬, 𝐭𝐨 𝐞𝐧𝐬𝐮𝐫𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐚𝐛𝐝𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐮𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧.

𝐏𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐞, 𝐜𝐚𝐥𝐥, 𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐢𝐥 𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐲𝐨𝐮 𝐢𝐧 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐬 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐲 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐮𝐩 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐩𝐞𝐫𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦 𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐢𝐫 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐜 𝐝𝐮𝐭𝐲 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐜𝐡𝐞𝐜𝐤 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲.

I received and appreciated quite a bit of positive feedback from my prior post regarding the presidency not existing in a vacuum. I have almost always been on the mailing list for all Congress members who represent me regardless of whether I supported their candidacy or not and I have been curious how those for whom I am a constituent would react to the current White House.

Donald Trump has signed an executive order demanding Guantanamo Bay be ready to hold 30,000 immigrants while some in Texas have called to build another detention facility there. This is not normal.

Elon Musk has been given significant discretion to seemingly do whatever he wants and has taken over the payment systems for the federal government. The position he took over (DOGE was renamed from the U.S. Digital Service) is supposed to give advice to federal agencies on digital security, not take over such systems. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥.

The President has signed numerous executive orders significantly impacting foreign partnerships via tariffs, including effectively ripping up the trade pact he himself negotiated with Mexico and Canada (USMCA) by placing tariffs on some of our biggest trade partners. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥.

The President has attempted to overturn the birthright citizenship section of the 14th amendment, which is clearly a part of the U.S. Constitution and has been approved and ratified by the states. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥.

The President has fired many federal workers across numerous agencies, including related to aviation security, and after casting blame for a tragic crash he proceeded to request further resignations from Air Traffic Controllers less than 24 hours later. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥.

The President has pardoned thousands who were convicted for breaching the capitol on January 6th, 2020, including many who had also previously been convicted for other violent crimes. This is not normal.

The new administration has announced investigations of NPR and PBS, two news stations that have been critical of Donald Trump, which is well within their first amendment right and a signal to other news outlets to stay away from criticizing him. 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥.

So what are my congressional representatives doing? Zach Nunn has sent standard emails about legislation he is trying to pass. Joni Ernst is celebrating her initiative in passing Sarah’s Law. Chuck Grassley is praising the Laken Riley Act. They are simply acting like everything is business as usual.

𝐈 𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞: 𝐓𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐧𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐚𝐥.

I understand the counterpoint that there were issues with the federal government and significant changes were necessary. I don’t understand pushing such drastic measures from the executive and I cannot fathom why Congress is willingly ceding their constitutional authority.

Why aren’t those who represent me standing up to this administration? I have heard all three of these members of Congress stand up and argue against almost literally every action of the prior administration and yet, they are too scared to speak up against Donald Trump. I know not everyone reading is represented by the same politicians I am, but I encourage you all to research what your representation is saying and doing and please share your thoughts with them. While the courts are a check on the presidency, it is ultimately Congress that has the power to legislate and truly curb the power of the presidency.

Once again, I welcome civil responses to my post and would like to promote a return to calm, bipartisan discussion.

I hesitate to post anything political on social media, but I think I have reached the point that I simply cannot resist. Over the past twenty years, my eligible voting history, I have voted for members of both parties; I try to always vote in municipal and state elections and inform myself on all candidates for each office. That task can be overwhelming, but I consider it my civic duty to remain engaged with what is going on in the world, the country, and in my community.

In this environment, we desperately need a return to bipartisan politics and civil discussion between politicians. Rhetoric has grown more and more divisive over time, and we have reached a point where it is difficult to even open dialogue with others in our personal lives because of anxiety regarding the reaction we may receive.

That said, here is my two cents:

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐮𝐦.

Executive orders signed by any President must fit within the existing legal framework in the United States – the Constitution and laws passed by Congress – to actually be enacted. The determination of legality (both of the laws passed by Congress and actions of the Executive) of course being made by the Supreme Court. I will not touch on the ethics of the Supreme Court at this moment.

I easily understand the desire to curb illegal immigration. But I have not spoken to a single parent who wants their children to witness ICE handcuff and potentially drag people they know out of their schools or pull them away from bus stops. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐮𝐦.

I can understand not agreeing with the past administration regarding how they allowed migrants to claim asylum due to general violence in their home countries (Haiti, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba, primarily) but to forcibly deport the millions of migrants who followed the instructions our executive branch gave them, doing their best to follow United States guidance, and do the best they can for their families I cannot understand. Discontinuing the program I would understand but not agree with; retroactively imposing new rules I find unconscionable. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐮𝐦.

I can understand wanting to put your own leadership in place via cabinet appointments. However, some of the cabinet selections seems to me to be designed as a test. A test of loyalty of the Senate which has the power to approve such appointments. Particularly, the appointments of Matt Gaetz, Pete Hegseth, and Robert F Kennedy Jr. seem to me to clearly lack the traditional experience and qualifications we have come to expect and demand from such offices and the incoming President wanted to see which members would support these nominees in spite of evident shortcomings. The presidency does not exist in a vacuum.

It is only with the support of enough members of Congress and the Supreme Court that the presidency can act unrestrained. I write today in hopes that my Representative, Zach Nunn, and my Senators, Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley, will work tirelessly to ensure we maintain civility and compassion. That they work to ensure the powers of the presidency do not become too significant and when the president acts to put actions in place that do not meet midwestern common sense that they reach across the aisle and implement laws that will balance the power of the presidency and do what is right for Iowa and the United States of America.

𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐮𝐦.

Please codify schools as a place where ICE officials cannot detain people. Please allow the process to continue for people with existing asylum claims. It is too late for Pete Hegseth, and Matt Gaetz of course withdrew his nomination, but please do not vote to confirm RFK Jr. as Health Secretary. Please work to ensure the basic human civil rights of all people.

Again, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐲 𝐝𝐨𝐞𝐬 𝐧𝐨𝐭 𝐞𝐱𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐢𝐧 𝐚 𝐯𝐚𝐜𝐮𝐮𝐦. I call on every one of us to stay informed and vote in local and state elections – many of which are not in line with the presidential cycle. These offices are the ones that check the presidency to create balance and we must be diligent to elect common sense leaders who will reach across the aisle and work together with civility.

I encourage 𝐜𝐢𝐯𝐢𝐥 discussion on this post.

Thank you.