Vance Says The Courts Cannot Overturn Executive Actions (He's Wrong!)

Vance has hit the trail to try and justify Trump's massive number of executive orders. He's saying "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." He is both right and wrong.

The operative word is "legitimate". No judge should/can overturn an executive order that is legitimate (does not violate the law or the Constitution). An example would be Trump's overturning of Biden's executive orders. It may not be good policy, but any executive order can be overturned by another executive order. That's just common sense - and it's legal.

But Trump has issued some (perhaps many) executive orders that are not legal and/or constitutional. One example is the order to ban birthright citizenship. The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution clearly states that anyone born in the United States (and subject to its laws) is a citizen. Denying that citizenship is a clear violation of the Constitution - and any judge doing his duty must negate that executive order.

Another example is Trump trying to freeze funds that Congress authorized or doing away with organizations created by Congress. The Constitution gives Congress the power to create needed organizations and fund them. In fact, all funding for the government must come from Congress. A president can negotiate funding with Congress or refuse to sign a funding bill. But he cannot refuse to fund anything authorized by Congress after a funding bill becomes law. That's another clear violation of the Constitution - and it's just Trump trying to grab the power of Congress for himself.

When writing the Constitution, our Founding Fathers feared that someday a president might try to grab dictatorial powers (maybe even with the acceptance of Congress). That why they didn't create a government with only one, or two power centers, but created three separate and equal branches of government. The judiciary was created not just to administer the law, but also to make sure the other two branches did not violate the Constitution.

Trump's legal executive orders should survive judicial scrutiny (even if they create bad policy - like his tariffs). But his illegal and/or unconstitutional executive orders should be overturned.Not doing so would seriously damage our constitutional democracy.

Arbitrary Power Depends On The Acquiescence Of Its Subjects

The following is part of a post by Robert Reich:

As of Friday, Trump has signed more than 50 executive orders, covering every aspect of American life and much foreign policy. 

It’s not just that this number of executive orders is unprecedented in modern American politics. Many are unlawful, unconstitutional, or both. 

In the age of monarchs, kings issued decrees. The tsars of imperial Russia proclaimed ukases. The dictators of the 20th century made diktats.

 

Trump issues executive orders.

Average people in the age of monarchs, tsars, and dictators were largely powerless. Resistance meant almost certain death. 

Many people were resigned to vulnerability. They practiced passivity. They knew no life other than repression. But their deference entrenched and ensured the power of monarchs, tsars, and dictators.

Arbitrary power depends on the acquiescence of everyone subjected to it.

 

Right now, after three weeks of Trump’s “flooding the zone” (as Trumpers like to say) some of you may be feeling powerless. 

Trump wants you to feel powerless. He depends on your passivity in the face of his takeover of American democracy. 

He wants to be a strongman who can act unilaterally and arbitrarily — who can issue orders about anything that pops into his head. Purging, firing, prosecuting, or deporting anyone he wants removed. Obliterating, freezing, and pummeling any institution he wants destroyed. Unleashing the richest man in the world to do whatever the hell he wants with the government of the United States. 

If you are dumbfounded into inaction, if you don’t even want to hear the news, if you feel as though you’re living through a nightmare over which you have no control, I get it. Every other day I feel the same.

But hear me out. 

You and I have no real choice but to stand up to Trump, Musk, and their lapdogs. To allow them to bully us into submission invites more bullying, more lawlessness, more gonzo executive orders. 

Trump Tries To Change The Constitution With An Executive Order

Donald Trump wasted no time after being sworn in, issuing a couple of dozens of executive orders. Most were not surprising, but illustrated that we are in for a cruel four years. Perhaps the most ridiculous was an effort to overturn a provision of the Constitution with an executive order. That order would deny citizenship to those born in this country of undocumented immigrants.

Here is what the New York Times wrote about that order:

President Trump on Monday declared that his government would no longer treat the U.S.-born children of undocumented people as citizens, signaling his intent to essentially ignore the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship in a move that is all but certain to invite a legal challenge.

His order directed federal agencies not to issue citizenship documents to such children, starting in 30 days.

It flew in the face of the guarantee, rooted in common law and enshrined in the Constitution for more than 150 years, that anyone born in the United States is automatically an American citizen.

In the executive order, Mr. Trump said he would interpret the 14th Amendment differently than had been done in the past, arguing that it “has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

The order would mean that citizenship would not be extended to a child whose mother and father are not authorized to be in the United States at the time of birth.

Mr. Trump has long said that conferring American citizenship on the children of undocumented immigrants was unacceptable to him. But because birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, such an order would face major legal challenges. Any change to the Constitution requires supermajority votes in Congress, and then ratification by three-quarters of the states. . . .

The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”. . .

By directing federal agencies to deny the children of undocumented immigrants citizenship-affirming documents like Social Security cards and passports, the Trump administration is effectively ordering them to be cutting them off from government services like public schools, health care, nutrition and housing benefits. The policy — acting as if the 14th Amendment did not apply to those people — is very likely to draw a legal challenge as well.

The chart above show that most citizens oppose Trump denying birthright citizenship. It is the CBS News / YouGov Poll -- done between January 15th and 17th of a nationwide sample of 2,174 adults, with a 2.5 point margin of error.

What Biden's Executive Order On Abortion Accomplishes

President Biden can't reverse the Supreme Court decision on abortion. The president doesn't have that kind of power. But he's doing what he can, and has signed an executive order. In this op-ed at MSNBC.com, Steve Benen explains what the executive order accomplishes:

The process of overturning Roe v. Wade took decades. It was an expensive, multifaceted campaign, which was difficult to pull off.

For reproductive rights advocates, undoing what Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices have done will also take time and effort, though President Joe Biden helped get that process underway in earnest this afternoon with a new executive order on protecting abortion access. NBC News reported:

The order aims to safeguard access to reproductive health care services, including abortion and contraception; protect patients’ privacy and access to accurate information; and promote the safety and security of patients, providers and clinics, the White House said in a release.

To be sure, executive orders are often limited in scope, and as powerful as the American presidency can be, Biden can’t unilaterally snap his fingers and restore reproductive rights nationwide.

But according to a White House summary, Biden’s new order isn’t just a hollow, face-saving exercise of a Democratic president going through the motions. There are some worthwhile measures in the broader policy, including:

• The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will expand access to abortion care through medication.
• The White House and Attorney General Merrick Garland’s office will convene “private pro bono attorneys, bar associations, and public interest organizations to encourage robust legal representation of patients, providers, and third parties lawfully seeking or offering reproductive health care services throughout the country.” This will apparently include protecting the right to travel out of state to seek reproductive care.
• The administration is prioritizing patient privacy, including taking new steps to prevent the transfer and sales of sensitive health data, and blocking digital surveillance related to reproductive health care services. This will apparently include enlisting the Federal Trade Commission to protect the privacy of people seeking information on abortion services.

Obviously, reproductive rights advocates will keep their celebrations in check in response to an order like this — it’s not as if anyone is going to say, “Whew, problem solved” — but for those who’ve pushed the White House for a more robust response to the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling, this is certainly a start.

It’s also a foundation Biden seems prepared to build on, just as soon as Congress sends him legislation. To codify abortion rights, the president said before signing his executive order, “We need two additional pro-choice senators and a pro-choice House.”

Biden added that the Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices effectively dared the electorate to choose a Congress that would protect reproductive rights. “Vote, vote, vote,” the president said. “Consider the challenge accepted, court.”

President Acts On Gun Reform & Wants Congress To Act

The epidemic of gun violence in the United States continues unabated -- with the nation averaging more than one mass shooting every day, and on track to have more than 40,000 gun deaths for the second year in a row. 

There is a lot that could be done without violating the Constitution's Second Amendment, but Congress is still refusing to act. At least the Republicans in Congress refuse to act. The house has passed a bill that would plug the holes in the background check law -- requiring all gun buyers, including those buying at gun shows or from a private seller, to first have a background check. Unfortunately, it looks like it will be killed by a Republican filibuster in the Senate. It seems likely that Congress will accomplish nothing to curb the epidemic of gun violence.

That's not good enough for President Biden. On Thursday, he issued some executive orders. They won't solve the problem completely (or even largely), but at least he is trying to do something. And he urged Congress to try and do something also.

Here, from Mother Jones, is what President Biden did:

Less than a month after mass shootings in Atlanta, Georgia, and Boulder, Colorado, left 18 people dead, President Biden called gun violence an “international embarrassment,” called for a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, and announced a series of executive actions aimed at restricting access to firearms.

“Enough prayers,” he said in the Rose Garden Thursday. “Time for some action.”

Biden insisted that none of his executive actions violate the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, noting that even the First Amendment has its limitations. He called on Congress to pass a national extreme risk protection order law, or “red flag” law, and announced an executive action directing the Justice Department to draft model legislation that would make it easier for states to pass such laws, meant to bar people from accessing firearms if they pose a threat to themselves or others.

Other aspects of Biden’s order are aimed at stopping the proliferation of homemade “ghost guns” that lack serial numbers, investing in community-based violence mitigation, and ensuring that the Justice Department publishes an annual report on firearms trafficking. 

Majority Approves Of President Biden's 1st Executive Orders

 

The charts above are from the ABC News / Ipsos Poll -- done on January 22nd and 23rd of a national sample of 504 adults with a 5 point margin of error.

It shows that the public likes the first executive orders signed by President Biden. They were ready for a reversal of Trump's cruel and ridiculous policies.

Trump To End Birthright Citizenship By Executive Order

Donald Trump has wanted to end birthright citizenship for years -- the idea that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen of the U.S., regardless of whether their parents are citizens or not. The idea is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

There is a belief among some on the extreme right that the 14th Amendment was just intended to recognize the citizenship of freed slaves, and does not extend to the children of non-citizen immigrants. Trump is one of those who believe this.

Aides say he is going to issue an executive order before leaving office that will end birthright citizenship. Most in the legal community agree that the order would be unconstitutional, and would be quickly overturned by our courts. But it looks like Trump will try it anyway, hoping that the right-wingers on the court will back him.

Here is part of how Brett Samuels reports this in The Hill:

The Trump administration has revived discussions around taking executive action targeting birthright citizenship in its final weeks before leaving office, according to two people familiar with the discussions.

President Trump has spoken throughout his first term about ending birthright citizenship. Drafts of a possible order have been circulating for some time, and there is now internal discussion about finalizing it before the Biden administration takes over in January, sources said.

The administration is aware the order would be promptly challenged in court, but officials would hope to get a ruling on whether birthright citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment, according to one source familiar with the plans. Many lawmakers and experts have argued it is protected, but the courts have not definitively ruled on the issue. . . .

The president first proposed ending the practice that grants citizenship to those born in the United States during his 2016 presidential campaign. He revived the idea in 2018 during an Axios interview, saying he would sign an executive order to enact the change.

Trump in August 2019 again said his administration was “very seriously” considering a measure to end birthright citizenship.

In each instance, lawmakers and legal experts have pushed back on the idea and cast doubt on Trump's ability to unilaterally end birthright citizenship. They have asserted that birthright citizenship is protected under the 14th Amendment, which states, in part, that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”. . .

Even if an order targeting birthright citizenship fails on legal grounds as some of his other immigration measures have, or if it is quickly undone by the Biden administration, experts cautioned that it could still have a chilling effect on those seeking to come to the United States.

Biden Will Begin By Immediately Reversing Trump Executive Orders

 

We don't know what the make-up of the Senate is going to be yet. If the Democrats can win a couple of run-offs in Georgia they will control the Senate. If they can't, McConnell will still be the Majority Leader --and will likely try to Bloch any legislation passed by the Democratic House or requested by Biden.

But that does not mean change cannot happen that's good for the country. Biden is already planning to immediately reverse most, if not all of Trump's executive orders. This will include rejoing the Paris Accords, rejoing the World Health Organization, protecting DACA immigrants, reverse Trump's environmental damage, and change immigration policy.

Here's part of how The Washington Post reports the plans:

President-elect Joe Biden is planning to quickly sign a series of executive orders after being sworn into office on Jan. 20, immediately forecasting that the country’s politics have shifted and that his presidency will be guided by radically different priorities.

He will rejoin the Paris climate accords, according to those close to his campaign and commitments he has made in recent months, and he will reverse President Trump’s withdrawal from the World Health Organization. He will repeal the ban on almost all travel from some Muslim-majority countries, and he will reinstate the program allowing “dreamers,” who were brought to the United States illegally as children, to remain in the country, according to people familiar with his plans.

Although transitions of power can always include abrupt changes, the shift from Trump to Biden — from one president who sought to undermine established norms and institutions to another who has vowed to restore the established order — will be among the most startling in American history.

Trump's Unemployment Order Won't Work And Isn't Legal

Last Saturday, Donald Trump tried to position himself as the savior of workers in this recession. He did it by signing an executive order, which he said would provide unemployed workers with an additional $400 a week in benefits.

Unfortunately, it was nothing more than political theater -- designed to help him get reelected. The order itself is probably illegal, would not work, and has already been dismissed by governors in both parties.

One might suspect that this would make Trump angry. I doubt it does. He never really intended to help workers. He just wanted to do something that he hoped would make himself look good, and would be able to blame governors when it failed.

Here's part of how Catherine Rampell, in The Washington Post, describes Trump's pathetic bit of theater concerning workers:

Then there’s the unemployment benefit supplement. What. A. Mess.

With passage of the Cares Act pandemic relief in March, Congress created a $600 federal supplement to state unemployment benefits. This was a lifeline to millions of families. The supplement expired July 31, though, because members of Congress couldn’t come to terms on an extension. Republicans insisted the supplement was so generous that it discouraged work. (Five studies find otherwise.)

So Trump decided to supplement unemployment benefits by executive fiat, allegedly providing an additional $400 per week. The administration said it would take $44 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, earmarked for natural disasters, to fund a new $300 weekly payment per worker. But states would get the money only if they kicked in $100 for each worker from their own coffers, on top of whatever benefits they had already been distributing.

States would also have to build an information technology system from scratch to administer this $400, because they cannot legally use their existing unemployment insurance infrastructure to pay out benefits that haven’t been authorized by Congress.

Now, bear in mind that states are broke.

Actually, not just broke; they’re $555 billion in the hole, thanks to lower tax revenues and higher expenses related to covid-19. Nonetheless, they’re being asked to pony up an additional $100 per week per worker, plus spend precious resources on a separate IT system when their existing unemployment IT systems are crumbling. The IT build could take weeks or months, while the $300 federal benefit that this not-yet constructed system would distribute is expected to last only about six weeks.

Additionally, the parallel unemployment benefit system might not survive a legal challenge, given that Trump may not have statutory authority to redirect congressionally appropriated funds this way.

If you were a governor, would you opt into this program under these conditions?

In a TV interview Sunday, the director of the National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, acknowledged that the White House had … not asked states this question. Soon, though, it got an answer: Governors from both parties declared the program administratively unworkable. The bipartisan National Governors Association expressed concern “about the significant administrative burdens and costs this latest action would place on the states” and asked for congressionally appropriated funds instead.

So, Trump and high-level officials kept changing the details, apparently in an attempt to make the plan more appealing to states.

Sometimes the White House said maybe the feds would provide the entire $400 without requiring states to kick in 25 percent. Sometimes aides said other money the states were already spending would count as a sort of artificial 25 percent funding match, meaning each worker would get an additional $300, not the $400 advertised. Sometimes this phony match could be achieved by tallying what each individual worker currently receives from their state; sometimes by what a state spent overall on benefits, across all workers.

By Tuesday evening, at least five contradictory versions of this parallel benefit system had been communicated by various Trump officials, according to a running tally from Georgetown law professor David Super. And if the original design was in a statutory gray area, Super says, the revised versions waiving additional state contributions are “not remotely legal.”

That’s because the 25 percent ($100) state funding match included in Trump’s executive action wasn’t there just for kicks. It was there because it’s required under the law Trump cited as giving him authority to create this benefit program: the Stafford Act. Counting existing state spending on jobless benefits, rather than new spending, to meet the state-match requirement would also violate Office of Management and Budget Circular A-87.

Given the whipsawing design of the program, which may not be legal, plus the fact that the Trump administration has already changed the rules midstream for other covid-19 unemployment benefits programs, opting into this would be extremely risky for states.

“It’s not a matter of whether states are willing to sign on the dotted line,” Super told me. “It’s: What are you actually asking me to sign up for?"

Even if no one challenges the policy in court, states might still reasonably fear that the Trump administration would renege on the deal to reimburse them for $300 in weekly benefits, once administration attorneys and budget officials belatedly remember the Stafford Act’s requirements. In which case states might be on the hook for the entire cost of the plussed-up benefits. If a state couldn’t come up with a quarter of this money, footing the whole bill seems impossible.

Meanwhile, the White House is declaring victory, with outside adviser Stephen Moore proclaiming Trump’s toothless, legally dubious actions “a masterstroke.” Premature victory laps on administrative actions are par for the course with this administration, which has lost 90 percent of all legal challenges to its regulatory policies. . . .

But in declaring that he’s solved all these problems, President I-Alone-Can-Fix-It hasn’t hastened advanced legislative negotiations — he’s made a deal less likely to happen. And America’s unemployed will pay the price.

Trump's Moment Of Political Theater Won't Help

Last Saturday, Trump accused Democrats of trying to obstruct giving help to Americans hurt by the recession. Of course, that was just another of his lies.

Democrats actually passed a stimulus bill in the House of Representatives, and Senate Democrats would love to vote to pass that bill. But Republicans refuse to allow debate or a vote on that bill. And the White House has refused to negotiate in good faith on the bill.

The truth is that Trump and the Republicans are the ones obstructing getting anything done to help hurting citizens.

Trump then signed four "executive orders" that he claimed will solve the problem. That was another lie. Those orders were likely illegal, and even if they aren't, won't help to solve the crisis. It was nothing more than a rather pathetic display of political theater.

Here is what Steve Benen, at MSNBC.com, had to say about Trump's sad "executive orders":

The president specifically boasted that he was signing "some bills" -- none of which were actually bills -- that he said would "take care of, pretty much, this entire situation."

If only it were that simple.

At first blush, the politics of this, if nothing else, seems to make quite a bit of sense. As CARES Act benefits expire, leaving tens of millions of families facing dire economic conditions, Trump will no doubt claim that he's taking bold, albeit unilateral, action. If lawmakers file suit to block his legally dubious power-grab, the president will almost certainly argue that Congress is standing in the way of the White House delivering aid to struggling Americans.

At least, that's what the tweets and talking points will likely say.

A more reality-based look at the latest developments, however, reveals that Trump's actions aren't quite what they appear to be.

Take the supplements for the unemployed, for example. Under the CARES Act, jobless Americans were getting $600 per week, on top of benefits made available at the state level. With that aid having expired, Democrats have been fighting to keep the $600 weekly payments going for the rest of the year, while Republicans have demanded it be cut to $200. Trump claims to be splitting the difference, using $44 billion in FEMA money to send $400 weekly checks.

But read the fine print in the presidential memorandum: Trump wants to set up a new "lost wages assistance program" in which the federal government will pay for $300 in weekly checks, with the expectation that states will pitch in the other $100. What happens in states that can't afford that? What happens if FEMA needs that money during hurricane season? How will this new "lost wages assistance program" be created and administered?

For now, the White House doesn't seem eager to delve into these questions, which has predictably led to widespread confusion. Trump did say on Saturday, however, that "it's not a hardship" for struggling families to see their $600 federal weekly supplement slashed in half. He struggled to explain why, saying only that the reduced benefit is what unemployed Americans "need" and "want," adding, "and this gives them a great incentive to go back to work."

On a separate issue, Trump also said over the weekend, "I'm protecting people from eviction. Yet you've been hearing a lot about eviction, and the Democrats don't want to do anything having to do with protecting people from eviction."

Substantively, this was gibberish. The Democratic plan, which was approved in mid-May, included unambiguous eviction protections. Trump's new executive order, however, doesn't include an eviction moratorium, doesn't include funds to help Americans pay mortgages or rent, and simply asks relevant agencies to "consider whether any measures temporarily halting residential evictions of any tenants for failure to pay rent are reasonably necessary."

In other words, instead of actual protections, Trump issued an order asking administration officials to see if there's something they can do. A Politico analysis added, "President Donald Trump’s vow to protect millions of Americans from the threat of eviction has one serious shortcoming: It would do nothing to help the vast majority of the country’s tenants."

Perhaps most importantly, the president suggested he's also creating a payroll tax cut. He's not. As NBC News' report explained, "The payroll-tax memo defers rather than eliminates them, which means the government could choose to collect the money at a later date. Nothing in the order requires employers to stop withholding the tax, which is earmarked to pay for Social Security and Medicare, and it is not clear how many will do so, considering that all the money may have to be paid back."

Or put another way, those in the workforce might get a little extra money in their paychecks -- the unemployed would get nothing, since they're not receiving any paychecks -- but those Americans will be expected to pay that money back several months from now. Business leaders quickly found themselves unsure how, or even whether, to proceed.

Trump added that he intends to eliminate the payroll tax altogetherif he's re-elected, but in practical terms, that means the Republican is simply vowing to eliminate the revenue stream for Social Security.

So, let's take stock. Trump, who refused to get involved in policy negotiations, traveled over the weekend to a private golf club he owns and profits from, and signed some executive actions (one executive order and three executive memos). Those actions, based on a highly dubious legal authority, do very little to help those in need, will have a negligible effect on the economy, and fail to provide the very protections the president claimed to be extending to vulnerable families.

Donald Trump's Backdoor Attack On Social Security

On Saturday, Trump signed an executive order that would delay payroll taxes for the rest of the year, and promised that if he was re-elected that he would permanently do away with payroll taxes.

He thinks voters will be happy that he's "cutting taxes", but he's wrong. Those payroll taxes are the only funding that Social Security gets, and eliminating them would completely defund the Social Security program. It's not a tax cut -- it's a backdoor attempt to destroy the Social Security program (and Medicare also).

Republicans have always opposed Social Security, and have tried many times to destroy the program. This is nothing more than Trump's sneaky way to accomplish that.

I'm not the only one who believes that. The following is a statement from Nancy Altman, the president of Social Security Works.

“Donald Trump once promised that he would be ‘the only Republican that doesn’t want to cut Social Security.’ We now know that what he meant is that cutting Social Security doesn’t go far enough for him: He wants to destroy Social Security.

Donald Trump’s executive order, which seeks to defer Social Security contributions, is bad enough. But his promise to ‘terminate’ FICA contributions if he is reelected is a full-on declaration of war against current and future Social Security beneficiaries.

Social Security is the foundation of everyone’s retirement security. At a time when pensions are vanishing and 401ks have proven inadequate, Trump’s plan to eliminate Social Security’s revenue stream would destroy the one source of retirement income that people can count on. Moreover, Social Security is often the only disability insurance and life insurance that working families have. If reelected, Trump plans to destroy those benefits as well.

Every member of Congress must speak up now to denounce Donald Trump’s unconstitutional raid on Social Security. Voters should treat any Senator or Representative who is silent as complicit in destroying Social Security. Furthermore, every American who cares about Social Security’s future must do everything they can to ensure that Trump does not get a second term.”

Trump Attacks Social Security Funding With Executive Order

On Saturday, Donald Trump issued an executive order eliminating payroll taxes through the end of the year. And he said if he is re-elected, he will make that permanent.

He says he did it to help Americans, but it will provide very little help to Americans hurt by the Trump Virus and Trump recession. The people really hurting are those without a job, and this move will not help them at all.

There is something it will do though. It will defund the Social Security program -- the program that keeps millions of seniors out of poverty. Social Security is completely funded through those payroll taxes. Trump's executive order means Social Security will not get any funds through the end of this year, and if he's re-elected, will not get any funding even after this year.

How does he expect to pay for the Social Security program? Does he even care. He, and his Republican cohorts, have never liked the Social Security program. They and their rich friends don't need it, and they don't care about the millions of Americans who need it to survive.

The Republicans have tried to eliminate Social Security many times. And when they couldn't succeed, they resorted to trying to chip away at the program -- by increasing age limits and reducing benefits. Trump's latest action is just another hidden effort to defund and destroy Social Security. Once Social Security cannot pay the benefits, they will then eliminate it -- throwing millions of seniors into poverty.

Trump is disguising this as tax relief for workers, but it's just an attack on Social Security.

This is just one more reason why Trump and the Republicans MUST be voted out of power in November.

Texas Governor Issues Order Requiring Masks

On May 1st, Texas Governor Greg Abbott decided to follow the Republican line and reopen the state of Texas. He eliminated requirements in place for social distancing and the wearing of face masks, and by the middle of May he had opened all businesses to serve the public at 50% capacity.

Things went OK for a while. But the COVID-19 virus takes a while to incubate, and near the end of June the number of new cases started to get out of hand (see chart above from The COVID Tracking Project).

In July, the governor finally realized he had made a serious mistake. On July 2nd, he issued an executive order requiring the wearing of face masks in most Texas counties (those with at least 20 cases of COVID-19). He did exempt some things to pander to his right-wing base -- the wearing of face masks is NOT required at voting precincts or in churches.

Here is the operative part of the executive order:

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, by virtue of the power and authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas, do hereby order the following on a statewide basis effective at 12:0 1 p.m. on July 3, 2020:

Every person in Texas shall wear a face covering over the nose and mouth when inside a commercial entity or other building or space open to the public, or when in an outdoor public space, wherever it is not feasible to maintain six feet of social distancing from another person not in the same household; provided, however, that this face-covering requirement does not apply to the following:

1. any person younger than 10 years of age;
   
   
2. any person with a medical condition or disability that prevents wearing a face covering;
   
   
3. any person while the person is consuming food or drink, or is seated at a restaurant to eat or drink;
   
   
4. any person while the person is (a) exercising outdoors or engaging in physical activity outdoors, and (b) maintaining a safe distance from other people not in the same household;
   
   
5. any person while the person is driving alone or with passengers who are part of the same household as the driver;
   
   
6. any person obtaining a service that requires temporary removal of the face covering for security surveillance, screening, or a need for specific access to the face, such as while visiting a bank or while obtaining a personal- care service involving the face, but only to the extent necessary for the temporary removal;
   
   
7. any person while the person is in a swimming pool, lake, or similar body of water;
   
   
8. any person who is voting, assisting a voter, serving as a poli watcher, or actively administering an election, but wearing a face covering is strongly encouraged;
   
   
9. any person who is actively providing or obtaining access to religious worship, but wearing a face covering is strongly encouraged;
   
   10. any person while the person is giving a speech for a broadcast or to an audience; or
   
   11. any person in a county (a) that meets the requisite criteria promulgated