Hand-picked and farm-fresh–
⇒Linked articles in bold purple

◆ Happy St. Patrick’s Day

◆ House, Senate Republicans don’t care for Trump’s Budget (Washington Post)

• Defense not raised enough, say hawks
• Welfare programs cut too deeply, say some rural congressmen

Nobody thinks the budget is going anywhere. Obama’s didn’t, either.

The House GOP plan to revise the Affordable Care Act is embattled, as is Trump’s push to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border. His tax reform and infrastructure plans have yet to get off the ground.

As he passes the halfway mark of his first 100 days, Trump is under increasing pressure to show that he can make good on his ambitious promises. –Washington Post

◆ Two Federal judges block Trump’s latest travel ban (New York Times)

Comment: I am no lawyer, but I do think about constitutional issues. In the temporary immigration ban and court rulings, I see several thorny constitutional/legal issues:

• First, the President has very clear, wide-ranging statutory authority to issues these bans, using his national-security authority
• The President’s authority in this area has not been limited by Supreme Court rulings, as far as I know
• On the other hand, the US does have various laws, court rulings, and regulations that prevent religious discrimination and prohibit “religious tests.” The courts blocking Trump seem to rely heavily on those laws and rulings.
• To say that non-citizens, who are not already on US soil, have some constitutional rights related to our immigration laws is very striking–and perhaps novel. The courts know that and have been very reluctant to even make those arguments. They seem to say that the rights apply to US citizens who want their sister to come here from a banned country. Whether that is a stretch or not will have to be determined by higher courts.
• The courts’ rulings against Trump explicitly say they are not ruling based solely on the text of the Presidential order. Rather, they are “putting this it in context.” The context is that candidate Trump explicitly promised a ban on Muslim immigration. Since the banned countries are Muslim, that must have been his intent. (His counter-argument is that other Muslim countries are not included in the ban and, in any case, the courts have no business ruling on this matter, which is solely within the President’s discretion.)
• SUMMARY COMMENT: I see four big questions here.
  1. Should court rulings be limited to a law’s explicit text or should they take into account the broader political “context” (and, if so, how should judges determine the appropriate context)?
  2. Previous court decisions (on other issues) have explicitly ruled that a candidate’s statements are not relevant to subsequent laws and regulations, passed after the candidate takes office. Why shouldn’t that restriction apply here?
  3. Do these courts imply that non-US citizens, who are not already on US soil, have some constitutional rights that the courts must protect?
  4. Are these rulings–and the clear distaste for Pres. Trump they evince–the prelude to courts assuming a much larger role in national-security issues than they have previously? That would be an important change. It would also put the courts in an very tenuous position. They lack the information (including classified information) and the expertise to make policy judgments in this area. That is why they have normally deferred to the President unless there were clear constitutional violations. The courts are vulnerable to arguments that they are overreaching to impose their own preferred policies in an area where they should be more restrained. They would rightly receive withering criticism if those rulings lead to bad outcomes.

◆ Syria fired missiles into Israel after the Israeli Air Force struck targets in Syria (Associated Press)

Israeli Channel 10 TV reported that Israel deployed its Arrow defense system for the first time against a real threat and hit an incoming missile intercepting it before it exploded in Israel. –Associated Press

The Jerusalem Post also has a story, reporting Israeli air defense sirens sounded in the Jordan Valley.

Comment: Israel has been very careful about being drawn into the Syrian conflict, but it does have two vital interests that could lead to military strikes. Both involve Iran. The Israelis do not want to see Iran’s Revolutionary Guard shipping missiles to Hezbollah (based in southern Lebanon) through Syria. They have bombed those shipments when they learn of them. They are increasingly concerned that the Iranians are moving troops into Syrian territory bordering Israel.

◆ US economy’s strength apparent in new data on housing, unemployment, and consumer confidence (Reuters)

Interest rates are slowly returning to normal, too, after years of near-zero rates, designed to buoy a flagging economy.

U.S. financial markets were little moved by the data as investors digested the Fed’s decision on Wednesday to raise its overnight benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points to a range of 0.75 percent to 1.00 percent. The U.S. central bank also forecast two more rate hikes this year. —Reuters

◆ Venezuela: When a socialist economy has no bread, they know exactly how to solve the problem. They nationalize the bakeries. (Miami Herald)

Comment: Sean Penn had no comment.

♦♦♦♦♦♦♦

♥ Hat Tip for helpful suggestions:
◆ Barry Shaw for the Israel missile story