Senators saw Trump's efforts to extract payment from the federal government and decided to get in on the action.

I think we'll need more reporting to know whether this vote reflects genuine opposition to the deal or just an awareness of how the deal is going to play with his constituents.

I am assuming they are not, since the MTA is a state agency. The linked press release also makes it sound like the MTA made the decision to deploy the "MTA EAGLE Team" (as they call the bus fare enforcement team), though it does mention that the team has NYPD support.

They periodically stopped my bus during past couple of years. Checking that everyone had paid a fare really slowed down the commute!

I believe the people checking fares on the bus have been MTA fare enforcement agents, rather than NYPD.

(There was also some discussion of whether IEEPA would flunk the standard "intelligible principle" test for delegations, as construed by the government. But a holding along those lines would still allow Congress to give the President the power to tariff, it would just have to come with guidelines.)

Trump's post reflects the way he seems to think the federal government works: All the President's powers flow directly from the Constitution (or not), with no role for Congress at all.

Constitutional considerations may require such a delegation to be especially clear or to come with a principle for using the delegated power that is more specific than the standard "intelligible principle." But at oral argument the challengers did not argue this such a delegation would be impossible

And then, suddenly, all the constitutional checks and balances will start working again.

Now I'm hung on on this question: If you walk two steps and then turn left vs. turn left and then walk two steps aren't you in a different position but the *same* orientation? Or is "orientation" being used in some other way in that example?

This is what we're looking at if the subsidies don't get restored.

Surprised to see that Golden supports both a more representative House (via proportional multimember districts) and enshrining the Senate filibuster in the Constitution. The benefits of a more representative House seem limited if their bills have to get 60 votes in an unrepresentative Senate.

Unless...

922(g)(3)'s availability in these cases may seem less important, given these other sources of liability. That's particularly true if one thinks that the real wrongdoing in this case was the failure to supervise the child, rather than the mother's mere possession of the firearm.

Interesting to consider all the different forms of liability arising out of the case noted above. As described in this article, the mother was convicted of child neglect under state law, in addition to the federal 922(g)(3) charge, and the assistant principle is facing civil and criminal liability.

Unrelatedly, I wonder if the reason Mamdani personally voted against 6 is that it would have shortened his term by a year (I think; unless they were going to extend the current mayor's term to 2032.)

The electorate having the information to choose someone who is in closer alignment with their views is certainly *a* democratic value, though I agree with you that learning the preferences of more people (via higher engagement) seems like the more important value.

Right, this is the charitable version of the anti-6 argument. I.e., "although fewer people are engaged, those who are engaged are very focused on this particular race and more likely to learn about the candidates, making lesser known people who align with this electorate's views more viable."

Seems like the primary argument against was that presidential elections end up taking all the attention. Indeed, a candidate like Mamdani may have had a harder time getting noticed in a presidential election year. Moving these elections to the midterm year may have been a better compromise.