This isn't enforcement discretion. It's a revival of dispensing power — abolished in England in the 1600s and explicitly barred by the US Constitution.
I appreciate the sharpness of your imagery and the clarity behind it, Virgin Monk Boy. Yes, this goes far beyond TikTok. It strikes at the heart of constitutional governance, where laws are meant to bind everyone equally — including the president. If no one steps in to check this claim, then we’re not dealing with discretion anymore. We’re watching the slow, silent rewriting of the rule of law.
I’ll keep tracking it, and I’m grateful to know you're watching it too.
Another example of an "under the radar" executive power abuse of law. So much of this "under the radar " stuff is going on the average citizen (who tries to stay informed) can hardly keep up. This is why Substack is necessary and people need to subscibe!
What makes this so disorienting isn’t just the scale of what’s happening, but the method: quiet procedural shifts, buried legal manoeuvres, executive orders that don’t look dramatic on the surface but fundamentally alter how power works. I’m deeply grateful for your support as I do my part to track what’s unfolding.
Congress has repeatedly abdicated responsibility reining the executive branch with this regime. As Obama observed - he wouldn’t have gotten away with half of what has happened, and the precedents being set are dangerous.
The danger isn’t just what Trump is doing, but what Congress is not doing. When a president overreaches and no one pushes back, that silence sets precedent too. And you’re right to bring up Obama’s comment — it underscores just how far the goalposts have shifted. What’s being normalised now would’ve been unthinkable a decade ago. That’s why tracking these moves matters. We’re not just witnessing abuse of power. We’re watching the slow rewriting of what this and future presidents will assume they’re entitled to do.
Clarity feels like one of the most necessary forms of resistance right now. When the goal is to confuse, distract, and exhaust, saying the quiet part plainly can be a way of holding the line. I’ll keep doing my part.
This TikTok THING has been at the top of things bothering me because it’s so obviously violates the law and yet nothing is done about it. I expect zip from GOP Congress. I thought the SC had the legal authority to enforce. But I have largely given up on this court. To me this was kind of an early test case and trump has won so far.
You can't grant power you don't have, so I don't like phrasing things that way.
This has felt like a test case from the beginning — not just of the law itself, but of whether any institution will step in when the law is openly defied. And so far, you’re right: Trump’s approach has held, not because it’s legally sound, but because no one has stopped it.
I take your point about language. You’re right: the president can’t grant a power he doesn’t lawfully possess. But when there’s no accountability, the distinction between claiming a power and having it starts to blur — not legally, but practically. That’s the line we’re walking now, and I think it's why this matters so much.
Wtf are we waiting for to remove this traitor??? In plain sight, Trump and his enablers are defying our Constitution, colluding with Putin and Netanyahu, taking money for bribes through his crypto scheme and committing treason. We need to remove all of them and hold the to account.
Exactly! This isn’t subtle — it’s open defiance of the Constitution, laced with foreign entanglements and personal profit. And yet, because the traditional safeguards have either broken down or been captured, there’s no straightforward path to removal.
It doesn’t mean accountability is off the table, but it will take relentless public pressure, legal persistence, and sustained refusal to accept this as normal.
Again, great research. None of which showed up in MSM.
I can't help thinking: If this is the stuff that can be ferreted out, what else is there behind the scenes?
Also: what is the end game? The term "Fascist State" has lost its bite for those who are paying attention and seems to have no meaning for those who aren't.
I'm imagining a cruise ship traveling along the Niagara River. People are laughing and playing and going about their business.
And someone on desk says: "Hey. Anybody else hear that sound?"
That image hits hard, John, and it’s exactly right.
We’re past the point where warnings should feel abstract. The roar is audible now, even if most are trying to talk over it. And yes, if this much can be uncovered through FOIA requests and close tracking, it raises real questions about what’s still hidden, especially with executive power being shielded by secrecy and silence.
As for the term fascist state — I feel that too. It’s been shouted so often that it’s lost its precision, and yet the reality behind it is sharper than ever. Maybe what we need now isn’t louder language, but clearer vision. Naming exactly what’s happening, piece by piece, until the pattern becomes impossible to ignore.
We should at least try to get creative: What person or entity could have standing to sue the Trump regime over this? It seems to my non-lawyer brain that any member of Congress who voted for this law would have standing? Any lawyers out there who could opine? Assuming I’m right, this seems to me an excellent example of an obvious place where Jeffries or Schumer could finally show some spine and force a case all the way to SCOTUS. While I’m certain SCOTUS would find plenty of ways around stare decisis in this case, why not force them to explain themselves while putting another stick in the gears of this authoritarian takeover? It’s just dereliction of duty that these two can’t figure out how to effectively litigate the tsunami of illegal and unprecedented EOs.
That’s such a thoughtful and important line of inquiry, Timothy. I’ve also wondered whether members of Congress might have a clearer path to standing in this case, especially given the direct defiance of a law they passed. But I’m not a lawyer either, and I’d really welcome insight from someone with the legal expertise to say where that line might be drawn.
If there is a viable path, it does feel like an obvious moment for leadership to step up and pursue it — even if just to force the issue into the open and slow the erosion by making it visible.
Thank you for your response! I did some searching on this issue. It seems to fall under the “Vote Nullification” theory, and isn’t an outrageous idea, although it has nuances and caveats. Minimally it would slow things down, inspire more resistance, display leadership, etc., all of which I think we want in abundance at this point!
That’s so helpful — thank you for looking into it, Timothy. I’d not heard of the “Vote Nullification” theory before, but if the law Congress passed is being directly defied, then one would hope there’s at least a moral imperative, if not a legal path, to challenge that defiance.
But I do have one hesitation: do you still have faith that Congress would actually act? That Jeffries or Schumer would be willing to take that kind of public, high-stakes stand — even just to make the Supreme Court squirm or to spark wider resistance? I want to believe it’s possible. But I also find myself hesitating to trust that they’d follow through, even if the standing question were resolved in their favour.
Admittedly, I haven't had time to read this yet, but I asked ChatGPT to analyze it and Chat summarized it this way: "In summary, a Congress person could have standing, if they demonstrate that the President’s disregard of a law undermines their ability to perform core legislative functions, and if enough legislators join the suit to reflect institutional injury. However, the article emphasizes that this standing should be rare and not open the floodgates to litigation over ordinary political disputes." Chat further indicated that standing should be possible without a majority of Congress, but a large minority could be enough, if their votes would have made the difference in passage, which was the case here.
I don't think any reasonable person could argue that the President's disregard of the law has undermined Congress' ability to perform core legislative functions in the past six months... However, it's also true that just over half of Congress has regularly prostrated themselves and abandoned their Article I powers so Congress' 'ability' in this situation is a relevant consideration.
Regarding your second point, No. I don't have faith that either Jeffries or Schumer will act commensurate with the threat that should have been obvious since January. When Schumer folded on the budget bill in March, I knew responsibility for real resistance would fall to all of us, the People. Who can blame Schumer, he had a pre-scheduled book tour about to begin, no time for real resistance when personal royalties are at stake! (Yes, I know he cancelled, after the backlash.)
I have come to view Jeffries and Schumer as two guys who own the neighborhood Blockbuster circa 2004-2010, wondering why foot traffic to their store has declined so precipitously and still pursuing late fees on unreturned democracy DVDs while the Trump regime streams authoritarianism 24/7 through every broadband, mobile, and satellite linked screen on the planet.
Jeffries and Schumer may be fine people, but they live in some bygone yesteryear of decorum and procedure and process and tradition. That ship sailed down a golden escalator in 2015 and has only drifted further off the horizon ever since. It's not coming back under the current circumstances. The current moment needs an army of relentless truth speakers that expose the lies every day, all day, on every media outlet they can access. I know you follow Anthony Christian, I think on a daily basis he articulates both the problem and the solution as well as anyone. Thank you for what you are doing here!
Fantastic post! Thanks for bringing this up. Very concerning developments that no amount of Supreme Court legal theory window-dressing can ever come close to justifying.
Dispensing power, revived like a necromancer’s wet dream.
The king is naked, drunk on divine right cosplay, and Congress is busy playing Sudoku.
This isn’t about TikTok. It’s about whether the Constitution still has teeth or just dentures.
Keep sounding the alarm. The monastery of madness is listening.
I appreciate the sharpness of your imagery and the clarity behind it, Virgin Monk Boy. Yes, this goes far beyond TikTok. It strikes at the heart of constitutional governance, where laws are meant to bind everyone equally — including the president. If no one steps in to check this claim, then we’re not dealing with discretion anymore. We’re watching the slow, silent rewriting of the rule of law.
I’ll keep tracking it, and I’m grateful to know you're watching it too.
Another example of an "under the radar" executive power abuse of law. So much of this "under the radar " stuff is going on the average citizen (who tries to stay informed) can hardly keep up. This is why Substack is necessary and people need to subscibe!
Exactly, W.J.
What makes this so disorienting isn’t just the scale of what’s happening, but the method: quiet procedural shifts, buried legal manoeuvres, executive orders that don’t look dramatic on the surface but fundamentally alter how power works. I’m deeply grateful for your support as I do my part to track what’s unfolding.
Frightening but not surprising.
Laissez un-faire
Congress has repeatedly abdicated responsibility reining the executive branch with this regime. As Obama observed - he wouldn’t have gotten away with half of what has happened, and the precedents being set are dangerous.
Yes — that’s exactly it, Lisa.
The danger isn’t just what Trump is doing, but what Congress is not doing. When a president overreaches and no one pushes back, that silence sets precedent too. And you’re right to bring up Obama’s comment — it underscores just how far the goalposts have shifted. What’s being normalised now would’ve been unthinkable a decade ago. That’s why tracking these moves matters. We’re not just witnessing abuse of power. We’re watching the slow rewriting of what this and future presidents will assume they’re entitled to do.
Your prose clarity is as extraordinary as the message.
That means a great deal — thank you, Carleton.
Clarity feels like one of the most necessary forms of resistance right now. When the goal is to confuse, distract, and exhaust, saying the quiet part plainly can be a way of holding the line. I’ll keep doing my part.
This TikTok THING has been at the top of things bothering me because it’s so obviously violates the law and yet nothing is done about it. I expect zip from GOP Congress. I thought the SC had the legal authority to enforce. But I have largely given up on this court. To me this was kind of an early test case and trump has won so far.
You can't grant power you don't have, so I don't like phrasing things that way.
I hear you completely, Steve.
This has felt like a test case from the beginning — not just of the law itself, but of whether any institution will step in when the law is openly defied. And so far, you’re right: Trump’s approach has held, not because it’s legally sound, but because no one has stopped it.
I take your point about language. You’re right: the president can’t grant a power he doesn’t lawfully possess. But when there’s no accountability, the distinction between claiming a power and having it starts to blur — not legally, but practically. That’s the line we’re walking now, and I think it's why this matters so much.
Wtf are we waiting for to remove this traitor??? In plain sight, Trump and his enablers are defying our Constitution, colluding with Putin and Netanyahu, taking money for bribes through his crypto scheme and committing treason. We need to remove all of them and hold the to account.
Exactly! This isn’t subtle — it’s open defiance of the Constitution, laced with foreign entanglements and personal profit. And yet, because the traditional safeguards have either broken down or been captured, there’s no straightforward path to removal.
It doesn’t mean accountability is off the table, but it will take relentless public pressure, legal persistence, and sustained refusal to accept this as normal.
Subscribed today.
(Free for the moment.)
Would appreciate same.
Thank you.
Done! Look forward to reading some of your work Scott.
Wow.. sigh
Again, great research. None of which showed up in MSM.
I can't help thinking: If this is the stuff that can be ferreted out, what else is there behind the scenes?
Also: what is the end game? The term "Fascist State" has lost its bite for those who are paying attention and seems to have no meaning for those who aren't.
I'm imagining a cruise ship traveling along the Niagara River. People are laughing and playing and going about their business.
And someone on desk says: "Hey. Anybody else hear that sound?"
That image hits hard, John, and it’s exactly right.
We’re past the point where warnings should feel abstract. The roar is audible now, even if most are trying to talk over it. And yes, if this much can be uncovered through FOIA requests and close tracking, it raises real questions about what’s still hidden, especially with executive power being shielded by secrecy and silence.
As for the term fascist state — I feel that too. It’s been shouted so often that it’s lost its precision, and yet the reality behind it is sharper than ever. Maybe what we need now isn’t louder language, but clearer vision. Naming exactly what’s happening, piece by piece, until the pattern becomes impossible to ignore.
We should at least try to get creative: What person or entity could have standing to sue the Trump regime over this? It seems to my non-lawyer brain that any member of Congress who voted for this law would have standing? Any lawyers out there who could opine? Assuming I’m right, this seems to me an excellent example of an obvious place where Jeffries or Schumer could finally show some spine and force a case all the way to SCOTUS. While I’m certain SCOTUS would find plenty of ways around stare decisis in this case, why not force them to explain themselves while putting another stick in the gears of this authoritarian takeover? It’s just dereliction of duty that these two can’t figure out how to effectively litigate the tsunami of illegal and unprecedented EOs.
That’s such a thoughtful and important line of inquiry, Timothy. I’ve also wondered whether members of Congress might have a clearer path to standing in this case, especially given the direct defiance of a law they passed. But I’m not a lawyer either, and I’d really welcome insight from someone with the legal expertise to say where that line might be drawn.
If there is a viable path, it does feel like an obvious moment for leadership to step up and pursue it — even if just to force the issue into the open and slow the erosion by making it visible.
Thank you for your response! I did some searching on this issue. It seems to fall under the “Vote Nullification” theory, and isn’t an outrageous idea, although it has nuances and caveats. Minimally it would slow things down, inspire more resistance, display leadership, etc., all of which I think we want in abundance at this point!
That’s so helpful — thank you for looking into it, Timothy. I’d not heard of the “Vote Nullification” theory before, but if the law Congress passed is being directly defied, then one would hope there’s at least a moral imperative, if not a legal path, to challenge that defiance.
But I do have one hesitation: do you still have faith that Congress would actually act? That Jeffries or Schumer would be willing to take that kind of public, high-stakes stand — even just to make the Supreme Court squirm or to spark wider resistance? I want to believe it’s possible. But I also find myself hesitating to trust that they’d follow through, even if the standing question were resolved in their favour.
Here is what I found:
https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1232&context=mlr
Admittedly, I haven't had time to read this yet, but I asked ChatGPT to analyze it and Chat summarized it this way: "In summary, a Congress person could have standing, if they demonstrate that the President’s disregard of a law undermines their ability to perform core legislative functions, and if enough legislators join the suit to reflect institutional injury. However, the article emphasizes that this standing should be rare and not open the floodgates to litigation over ordinary political disputes." Chat further indicated that standing should be possible without a majority of Congress, but a large minority could be enough, if their votes would have made the difference in passage, which was the case here.
I don't think any reasonable person could argue that the President's disregard of the law has undermined Congress' ability to perform core legislative functions in the past six months... However, it's also true that just over half of Congress has regularly prostrated themselves and abandoned their Article I powers so Congress' 'ability' in this situation is a relevant consideration.
Regarding your second point, No. I don't have faith that either Jeffries or Schumer will act commensurate with the threat that should have been obvious since January. When Schumer folded on the budget bill in March, I knew responsibility for real resistance would fall to all of us, the People. Who can blame Schumer, he had a pre-scheduled book tour about to begin, no time for real resistance when personal royalties are at stake! (Yes, I know he cancelled, after the backlash.)
I have come to view Jeffries and Schumer as two guys who own the neighborhood Blockbuster circa 2004-2010, wondering why foot traffic to their store has declined so precipitously and still pursuing late fees on unreturned democracy DVDs while the Trump regime streams authoritarianism 24/7 through every broadband, mobile, and satellite linked screen on the planet.
Jeffries and Schumer may be fine people, but they live in some bygone yesteryear of decorum and procedure and process and tradition. That ship sailed down a golden escalator in 2015 and has only drifted further off the horizon ever since. It's not coming back under the current circumstances. The current moment needs an army of relentless truth speakers that expose the lies every day, all day, on every media outlet they can access. I know you follow Anthony Christian, I think on a daily basis he articulates both the problem and the solution as well as anyone. Thank you for what you are doing here!
You are a phenomenal educator.
Alemany — thank you. I’ll carry those words with me, for times when I’m doubting. 🙏
https://substack.com/@stevekennefick289637/note/c-134674013?r=3l88s8
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-crooks-fbi-photo/
Fantastic post! Thanks for bringing this up. Very concerning developments that no amount of Supreme Court legal theory window-dressing can ever come close to justifying.
For those who want to learn more, here's another great article on the subject: https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/165-tiktok-and-the-dispensing-power.
Thanks so much for the extra context David, appreciate it. 🙏
Terrifying
He is still a total shitbag! He will fall hard when it comes!!