Assessing Leadership: Truths and Endorsements

In Trump v. United States, we have said that the Court went far astray from the Constitution and from its duty, endangering the nation in the short and long terms.  Many have shared this opinion and these fears, and reaction has been profound. In the New York Times, two law professors take up the pen and offer a number of suggestions that purport to restrain and direct the Court towards Congress’ will, assuming that Congress agrees with the authors, that is.  Senator Schumer in a recent bill took a similar though not as extreme direction. We identify the flaws with these approaches, and offer an alternative that would be constitutional, and has an actual chance of being effective, based upon history and constitutional structure. We also take up some fascinating readers’ questions, including one which might matter for some overseas voters.  CLE credit is available for lawyers and judges from podcast.njsba.com.