Last week, Gwynne Wilcox, former Chair of the National Labor Relations Board sued President Trump, demanding her reinstatement. She believes her firing is unconstitutional because long standing precedent protects heads of independent agencies from removal. Unfortunately for Wilcox, the conservative majority Supreme Court is unlikely to rule in her favor as President Trump’s action falls in line with the legal Right’s long term goal of ending independent agencies and establishing robust executive control over the federal bureaucracy. Wilcox is relying on the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v. US, where the Supreme Court held that heads of agencies which yield “quasi legislative or judicial” power cannot be removed without cause. Humphrey’s Executor and its successor case, Morrison v. Olson are the bedrocks of modern administrative law. In Morrison, the Supreme Court further limited the President’s removal power by expanding Humphrey’s Executor’s ruling to nearly all officers of the United States. But the Court only achieved this by inventing a legal test that prioritizes independent agencies’ technocratic role over the Constitution’s structure, which solely vests the President with the executive power — including the power to fire federal bureaucrats. At the time, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia was the lone dissenter in Morrison and argued that the removal power was imperative to check abuses of government. Scalia’s iconic dissent in Morrison represents the legal Right’s historic skepticism of independent agencies and shows how they favor expanded executive control of the federal bureaucracy — a view they have held since the Nixon administration. This skepticism has resulted in the rise of the Unitary Executive Theory: a theory of executive power that argues that because the Constitution solely vests the President with executive power, the President exclusively wields power over all executive agencies. Under the Unitary Executive Theory, independent agencies aren’t really independent because they are executive agencies utilizing executive power — meaning they are subject to executive control. Unitary Executive Theory has become popular in conservative legal circles, notably within organizations like the widely influential Federalist Society. Conservatives have good reasons to oppose independent agencies. Historically embedded bureaucrats have fought against conservative presidents’ attempts to deregulate by stalling the deregulatory agenda. In the first Trump Administration, bureaucrats worked to stall Trump’s agenda by withholding expertise or by refusing to inform superiors of relevant litigation. Conservatives dislike this because they think the federal bureaucracy should not work against the people’s elected executive. They also believe there is a democratic interest in enhanced executive control over agency personnel. Conservative thinkers like political scientist John Mariani warned that agencies which are not accountable to democratic pressures create rules harming constituents they try to serve, resulting in tyranny. The conservative legal movement’s hope is that by restoring executive removal powers over independent agencies, they will restore democratic pressures to administrative agencies and create better policies in line with the public’s needs. Their influence was apparent in 2020, when the Supreme Court chose to roll back Morrison’s expansive holding in Seila Law v. CFPB. In Seila, the Court limited Morrison’s good cause protections to independent agencies with multi-member boards. What’s notable is that some members of the Supreme Court’s conservative block were dissatisfied with Selia’s outcome, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch calling Humphrey’s Executor’s survival, ““[A] direct threat to our constitutional structure and, as a result, the liberty of the American people.” Because Amy Coney Barrett is now a Justice, the Court has become more conservative than it was when Seila was decided. This means the Justices are ready to take a renewed challenge to independent agencies as the legal Right has cemented its place on the Supreme Court. Fortunately for the legal Right, President Trump won’t face much resistance at the high court on his decision to fire Chairwoman Wilcox, as Justices Gorsuch, and Thomas already want Humphrey’s Executor and its successor cases overturned. Furthermore, with Barrett on the Court, Chief Justice Roberts can no longer dilute the conservative bloc’s decisions. President Trump has rightly assessed that this Court is poised to overturn Humphrey’s and its progeny and acted swiftly to achieve this goal. Gwynne Wilcox’s lawsuit provides the Supreme Court’s conservative wing the chance to finish what the conservative legal movement has sought for decades and overturn Humphrey’s Executor. By doing so, they will fulfill the conservative legal movement’s aim of restoring democratic accountability to an administrative state which has long been disconnected from the elected executive. * * * Ryan Silverstein is a J.D. Candidate at Villanova University and a fellow with Villanova’s McCullen Center for Law, Religion and Public Policy. His work has appeared in Fox News, the New York Post, and the Daily Wire. The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Lots of couples celebrate their love for one another on Valentine’s Day. It’s not that we need February 14 for our partners to know we care about or appreciate them, but it’s convenient to throw a heart on the calendar as a reminder. Some couples have no problem showing their affection everywhere they go. There’s certainly no shame in expressing your love for one another whenever you want to. However, others tend to keep the public displays of affection to a minimum. Again, that’s also totally fine. It’s a personal choice and no one’s business. Of course, the royal family takes a modest approach to PDA, and we rarely see them canoodling. But this Valentine’s Day, Kate Middleton and Prince William shared a photo of Will stealing a Kiss from Princess Kate on Instagram. She’s smiling and looking totally in love with her real life, Prince Charming. View this post on Instagram A post shared by The Prince and Princess of Wales (@princeandprincessofwales) Princess Kate And Prince William Don’t Kiss In Public Frequently Instead, their private lives remain more private. After a tumultuous year of cancer treatment and finally remission, it seems the prince and princess just wanted the world to know they’re still in love. We don’t blame them for it one bit. If you’re happy and you know it, give your wife a kiss. The prince and princess shared the sweet picture with a simple heart as the captain. Followers adored seeing William kiss Princess Kate on the cheek, and they shared some Valentine’s Day greetings. One wrote, “Happy Valentine’s Day to two people I love and admire! Another shared, “Happy Valentine’s Day to our favorite royal couple!!!” “Such a beautiful picture! One of my all time favorites of you two happy Valentine’s Day! I absolutely love your love for each other,” a comment reads. The picture of William giving Princess Kate a kiss reminded this person of their own relationship, “W&C and the royal family have everything to do with how and why I’ve met the love of my own life.” This story’s featured image is by Arthur Edwards – WPA Pool/Getty Images. The post Princess Kate & Prince William Share A Kiss In Sweet Valentine’s Day Post appeared first on InspireMore.

More spending cut this week for the Department of Education

'affordable and reliable energy'

New York is getting its comeuppance. In the four years that Trump was out of office, no state political establishment besides the Biden White House did more to persecute the former president through banana republic-style weaponization of courts. What’s more, New York became the poster child of what happens when you abandon Trump’s border policies and turn them on their heads. New York City, a sanctuary city in a sanctuary state, was absolutely flooded with illegal aliens under President Joe Biden. On the one hand lawlessness, on the other lawfare. Anarcho-tyranny. That’s pretty much the Democrat Party’s modus operandi. Now the tables have turned. Trump is back in the White House and from the flurry of actions he’s taken so far, it looks like he means business in putting a kibosh on the state’s sanctuary status. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Wednesday that the Department of Justice is taking legal action against New York over its sanctuary policies that abet illegal immigration in violation of federal law. Proud to announce new litigation against the State of New York for prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens. This is a new DOJ. If you are not complying with federal law—you are next. pic.twitter.com/QVZg07T9Rt— Attorney General Pamela Bondi (@AGPamBondi) February 13, 2025 “They have a ‘tip-off’ provision that requires New York’s DMV commissioner to promptly inform any illegal alien when a federal immigration agency has requested their information,” Bondi said according to ABC News. “It’s tipping off an illegal alien. And it’s unconstitutional, and that’s why we filed this lawsuit.” Trump’s Justice Department is also suing some of New York’s top officials, including Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James. It should be noted that James was one of the leaders of the movement in New York to prosecute Trump. The Trump administration isn’t just suing New York. It is cutting off federal funds that were used to facilitate illegal immigration. Illegal aliens who poured in from Biden’s open wound at the southern border made their way to New York City en masse. The influx of illegals transformed the Big Apple. I’ve witnessed this firsthand. A local park near where I live, Tompkins Square Park, became a daily hangout for hundreds of foreign young men. They seemed to mostly be in their teens and early 20s. The city had set up a shelter nearby. Large parts of the park quickly became a mess. This story repeated the city over. Many neighborhoods saw a sharp increase in crime where shelters had been set up, though the city has made it difficult to track data on the subject. Schools were occasionally shut down to house illegals. Housing became a nightmare in the city as hotels were filled to capacity. It seemed like many of the newcomers were figuratively and literally giving the middle finger to authorities. Illegal aliens were driving the crime surge in popular tourist areas like Midtown. Many of them have been involved in violent gangs. The now notorious Roosevelt Hotel became a symbol of the crisis. The hotel, which allegedly received a great deal of money from the Biden administration through FEMA, became a cesspool of criminality. The money wasn’t just going to this one hotel. FEMA was sending tens of millions of dollars to New York so that they could keep the flow of illegal aliens coming. This wasn’t just a terrible sanctuary law hurting locals; it was a money pit costing taxpayers and diverting resources away from needy Americans. Rep. Mark Harris, R-N.C., called it a “betrayal” in a recent interview with The Daily Signal’s Virginia Allen. “While North Carolinians are still struggling to rebuild their communities in the wake of Hurricane Helene, FEMA sent $59 million to New York for illegal aliens to be housed in luxury hotels. This is a betrayal of the highest order,” Harris told The Daily Signal.   I agree. Strangely enough, Trump may have found a New York ally in his pursuit of curtailing illegal immigration. New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Democrat who found himself on the wrong side of the Biden administration for having qualms about the scale of illegal aliens coming into his city, has expressed willingness to work with Trump. The Justice Department recently dropped bribery charges against Adams. Critics have said this is part of a deal to make Adams cooperative, though Adams and the White House have denied it. Adams has indicated he will reopen the shuttered Immigration and Customs Enforcement office at Rikers Island and will give ICE agents more leeway to do their jobs. Whether through working with Adams or not it appears that the Trump administration isn’t going to let New York, either the city or the state, get away with the policies that have facilitated the arrival of hundreds of thousands of people who have no legal right to be in the United States. New York’s political establishment wasted years trying to destroy Trump. All it seems they’ve done is fill the president with a terrible resolve. The post Trump v New York appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Emerson and Rasmussen: America Has Crossed the Streams!

The post Think You’re Smarter Than Most? Take This IQ Test to Prove It appeared first on Animal Channel.

The post How Fast Can You Match All 50 Capitals to Their States? appeared first on Animal Channel.

Social media users quickly corrected the record after the Wall Street Journal appeared to grossly distort comments Vice President JD Vance made regarding Ukraine and Russia during a recent interview.On Friday, Bojan Pancevski and Alexander Ward of the WSJ published an article based on an exclusive interview with Vance. The headline for the article — "Vance Wields Threat of Sanctions, Military Action to Push Putin Into Ukraine Deal" — has drawn severe criticism online.'As we've always said, American troops should never be put into harm's way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security.'William Martin, the communications director for the vice president, immediately tweeted out screenshots of a transcript of the interview, revealing that the headline did not accurately reflect Vance's statements.According to the screenshots, Vance admitted that President Donald Trump has an array of "instruments of pressure" he can use to convince President Vladimir Putin to abide by any agreement reached with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Among them are "economic" and "military tools of leverage."Vance also reiterated that whenever President Donald Trump walks into a negotiation, "everything is on the table."However, the vice president did not threaten sanctions or military action. Instead, he simply declined to eliminate any possible leverage Trump could use as he works to bring peace to the region.There is also little chance that the interviewer misunderstood Vance's point. A screenshot of the transcript showed that the interviewer asked a follow-up question to "make sure": "So just want to make sure I understand you correctly. You're saying that even though the possibility of a Ukraine NATO accession at the end of this process, or even the presence of U.S. troops in Ukraine is not officially off the table?"Trump "wants to have a productive negotiation, both with Putin and with [Zelenskyy]," Vance told the WSJ, even as he "doesn't like the idea of moving Ukraine into NATO."Martin claimed that the framing from the WSJ was "fake news.""This is pure fake news. Compare the transcript of @JDVance's conversation with WSJ to the headline being run here. The Vice President didn’t make any threats. He simply stated the fact that no one is going to take options away from President Trump as these negotiations begin," he wrote.According to a post from Libs of TikTok, the WSJ article was even slapped with a community note denying the accuracy of the headline, but as of early Friday afternoon, no such community note is currently attached to the WSJ post.'Such liars. That’s not at all what VP Vance said.'Vance reacted to the WSJ headline by quote-tweeting Republican strategist Andrew Surabian, who called the headline "one of the most intentionally dishonest things I've seen in a long time" and likened the WSJ to the Huffington Post. Vance did not mention anything about the headline or the WSJ in his message. Rather, he reiterated the administration's stance on the Ukraine-Russia war:President Trump is the ultimate deal maker and will bring peace to the region by ending the war in Ukraine. As we've always said, American troops should never be put into harm's way where it doesn’t advance American interests and security. This war is between Russia and Ukraine.Other social media users have also excoriated the WSJ for the misleading headline: "Who wrote this headline? Whoever it was didn't read the article because J.D. said nothing like that," said Brick Suit, an eccentric figure frequently spotted wearing a brick-patterned ensemble at Trump campaign rallies."Such liars. That’s not at all what VP Vance said," said a user called Queen Isabel."No one takes you seriously anymore. You’ve lied, yet again. You are just a bunch of partisan hacks, and the people who buy your bs are just as bad. Keep it up, you’re sending yourselves into an irrelevant oblivion," came another popular response.In an era in which news is regularly aggregated by other outlets, such a specious headline can have far-reaching implications. For instance, the New York Post similarly adopted the WSJ framing, writing up an article entitled "JD Vance threatens Russia with sanctions, possible military action if Putin doesn’t agree to end Ukraine war."Pancevski, Ward, and Victor Nava, author of the Post article, did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Once upon a time, Trump derangement syndrome was the most diagnosed ailment among the Democrat Party. Now that Elon Musk and the DOGE have begun making budget cuts, Democrats seem to also be developing EDS — Elon derangement syndrome. In the first DOGE subcommittee meeting, Rep. Majorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) was faced with those newly suffering from the disorder. “I find it ironic of course that our chairwoman, Congresswoman Greene, is in charge of running this committee,” Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) commented during the meeting. “In the last Congress, Chairwoman Greene literally showed a d**k pic in our Oversight congressional hearing, so I thought I’d bring one as well.” Garcia then held up a photo of Elon Musk. “Now, this of course, we know, is President Elon Musk. He’s also the world’s richest man. He was the biggest political donor in the last election,” Garcia said, smug as ever. Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” is having a hard time stifling her laughter. “They keep trying to name him as president, thinking that’s going to be a thing. They’re like, ‘Oh we got him, we’re just saying that he’s running the country,’ as if the president has never had the power to delegate responsibility,” Gonzales mocks. “It’s just the funniest thing to me, they’re just absolutely pathetic. I mean, do they think that it’s a winning strategy to go against the guy that is saving the taxpayer money? It’s so crazy to me that they think that this is going to be the optics of that,” she continues. “To me, the richest man in the world is obviously going to be good with money,” she adds. “So I’d rather him be good with my money.” Want more from Sara Gonzales?To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.