Trump’s Iran strikes follow long pattern of presidents sidestepping Congress

President Donald Trump’s decision to order military strikes on Iran without first seeking congressional approval was met with immediate, yet familiar, criticism from lawmakers across the political spectrum.

Presidents have for decades taken actions similar to Trump's and attracted backlash for skirting Congress’s authority. The Constitution gives Congress the power to declare war but presidents the power to control the military and foreign policy.

Gene Healy, a senior vice president with the libertarian Cato Institute, told Fox News Digital that in terms of "crossing a constitutional Rubicon, this is territory that presidents have been dancing over since at least Harry Truman."

"In each case, it’s at odds with the original design of constitutional war powers, which is that one single person should not have the power to embroil the United States in foreign wars," Healy said.

SATELLITE IMAGE SHOWS FORDOW NUCLEAR FACILITY AFTER MASSIVE BOMB STRIKE

His think tank also rebuked former President Barack Obama in 2011 after Obama unilaterally authorized airstrikes in Libya as part of a NATO-led effort to enforce a no-fly zone in the country and protect civilians there.

"The president is derelict in his duty to obey the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution. And Congress is derelict in its duty to assert its constitutional authority," another member of the thinktank wrote at the time.

Congress passed the War Powers Act in 1973 to install guardrails for presidents who seek to authorize military action, but critics have said the resolution has lacked potency and that the legislative branch needs to reassert its authority by passing a tougher policy or making good on government funding threats.

Bob Bauer, who served as Obama’s White House counsel, recently spoke with former federal prosecutor Jack Goldsmith in an interview on Substack about what they viewed as the ever-expanding war powers of the president and the ever-shrinking war powers of Congress.

Bauer said that generally, presidents have consulted with their White House counsel and other agencies to make sure they have acquired enough support behind-the-scenes ahead of any anticipated military action.

"It’s just generally understood that this is a choice the president can make," Bauer said, adding, "This is not a tenable situation over the long run, and we’re facing the consequences again now."

TRUMP HINTS AT REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN WHILE DECLARING ‘MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN’

Trump garnered informal support for his actions from crucial members of Congress, including the Senate and House Republican leaders, but lawmakers at the farthest ends of the political spectrum lashed out at him.

"The President’s disastrous decision to bomb Iran without authorization is a grave violation of the Constitution and Congressional War Powers," Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., wrote on X, calling for Trump’s impeachment.

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., blasted Trump's actions as unconstitutional, saying Congress must pass a resolution giving the president permission to carry out a military act. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, R-Ga., did not outright address Congress’ role in declaring war, but signaled on Monday on X that she opposed Trump’s attack on Iran because, in her view, it defied his Make America Great Again ethos.

The president’s actions were a "complete bait and switch to please the neocons, warmongers, military industrial complex contracts, and neocon tv personalities," Greene said.

The Office of Legal Counsel, which is part of the Department of Justice, justified Obama's attack on Libya in 2011 in a 14-page opinion, spelling out its position that the then-president did not flout the Constitution or the law by bypassing Congress.

'NOT CONSTITUTIONAL': CONGRESS EVOKES NEW WAR POWERS RESOLUTION TO REJECT TRUMP'S STRIKES ON IRAN

The Trump administration's justification for attacking Iranian nuclear facilities echoed sentiments from the Obama-era memo.

Both administrations cited a broad threat to "national interests" rather than a direct threat to the United States or a dire need for self-defense. Neither president's military actions included "regime change" as a goal, though Trump has since floated that language. 

Former President George H.W. Bush did not have explicit authorization from Congress to deploy thousands of troops to Somalia as part of a United Nations mission in 1992, nor did former President Bill Clinton when he sent troops to Bosnia in 1995 and intervened in the Kosovo conflict in 1999 by authorizing airstrikes against Serbian forces.

The Office of Legal Counsel typically advises the executive branch on the legality of its actions, and the memo on the Libya strikes cited a string of other examples that signal presidents have long tiptoed around seeking out congressional authorization, which would require a vote in the House and Senate.

The memo stated that "one possible" limit under the Constitution to a president circumventing Congress to use military force would be when the planned action "constitutes a ‘war’ within the meaning of the Declaration of War Clause."

"But the historical practice of presidential military action without congressional approval precludes any suggestion that Congress’s authority to declare war covers every military engagement, however limited, that the President initiates," the memo read.

Espionage, constitutional concerns abound from Trump detractors, allies over Qatari jet offer

Both Democrats and Republicans have criticized President Donald Trump after he announced the Department of Defense plans to accept a jumbo jet from the government of Qatar, arguing the gift is riddled with both espionage concerns and constitutional questions. But as one expert tells Fox, the latter concern is likely overblown.

Trump ally Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, for example, said during an interview on Tuesday that the acquisition of the plane poses "significant espionage and surveillance problems," while Democrats such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., declared, "Trump cannot accept a $400 million flying palace from the royal family of Qatar. Not only is this farcically corrupt, it is blatantly unconstitutional."

Reports spread Sunday morning that the Trump administration was expected to accept a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from Qatar's royal family, setting off concerns that Trump would personally take ownership of the plane and violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution. ABC News reported that Trump would use the jet until the end of his term, when it would be given to his presidential library. 

Trump confirmed and clarified in a Truth Social post later on Sunday that the Department of Defense was slated to receive the gift, while slamming Democrats for their criticism of the offer. 

HOUSE DEMOCRAT CALLS FOR 'IMMEDIATE' ETHICS PROBE OF QATARI PLANE GIFT TO TRUMP

"So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane," Trump wrote. "Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!! MAGA."

At the heart of Democrats' concern over the matter is the emoluments clause in the Constitution, which states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

"Trump is literally trying to fly around on a plane from a foreign government while serving as president. That’s a violation of the Constitution. The Emoluments Clause wasn’t a suggestion. It’s the LAW," Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said Monday morning following the announcement. 

Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told Fox News Digital on Wednesday that it's questionable if the emoluments clause even applies to the president, as the Constitution typically stipulates when a clause specifically affects a president and cites the title, such as in the impeachment clause. 

"The clause was specifically inserted because of concerns by the Founders at the Constitutional Convention over corruption of our foreign diplomats, especially by the French government. It is questionable whether the emoluments clause even applies to the president since he is not named and the Constitution usually names the president when a provision applies to him. That is why the impeachment clause specifically provides that it applies to the ‘president, vice president and all civil officers of the United States.’ If ‘officers’ of the U.S. included the president, there would be no need for him to be separately listed," von Spakovsky explained. 

He added that the president is the individual "who appoints the ‘officers’ who are subject to the emoluments clause."

"Antonin Scalia, when he worked at the Justice Department, certainly agreed since he issued an opinion in 1974 pointing out that when the Constitution refers to an ‘officer,’ ‘it invariably refers to someone other than the President or Vice President,’" he continued. 

FLASHBACK: DEM CRITICAL OF TRUMP'S QATARI JET GIFT RODE CAMEL IN EXPENSES-PAID 2021 TRIP TO GULF EMIRATE

The jet offer comes after Trump railed against Boeing for pricey government deals to construct a new fleet of Air Force Ones. Even ahead of his first administration, Trump posted on social media in December 2016 that the Boeing "costs are out of control, more than $4 billion" to build the two aircraft.

Trump in 2018 awarded Boeing a $3.9 billion fixed-price agreement to manufacture two new jets. The construction of the jets, however, is not expected to be completed until 2029. 

"We're very disappointed that it's taking Boeing so long to build a new Air Force One," Trump said during a press conference on drug prices Monday morning. "You know, we have an Air Force One that's 40 years old. And if you take a look at that, compared to the new plane of the equivalent, you know, stature at the time, it's not even the same ballgame." 

TRUMP CLARIFIES OWNERSHIP OF AIRCRAFT IN DEFENSE OF QATAR'S GIFT

"When I first came in, I signed an order to get (the new Air Force One fleet) built," he continued. "I took it over from the Obama administration, they had originally agreed. I got the price down much lower. And then, when the election didn't exactly work out the way that it should have, a lot of work was not done on the plane because a lot of people didn't know they made change orders. That was so stupid, so ridiculous. And it ended up being a total mess, a real mess."

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt also brushed off concern over the Qatari royal family donating a Boeing jumbo jet to the U.S. Department of Defense, arguing on Monday there will be no quid pro quo arrangement and that the donation is under legal review to ensure full compliance with the law. 

Von Spakovsky said that if the plane is in fact a government-to-government gift – and not a personal gift to the president – the Trump administration is likely in the legal clear to accept the gift. 

"If this gift is being considered as a gift to the government of the U.S., there is no legal issue to consider, since there is no constitutional or legal problem with such a gift. If this is a personal gift to the president, the Justice Department would be weighing the constitutional issue I have raised – whether the emoluments clause even applies to the president," he said. 

Von Spakovsky said such a government-to-government gift "is no different than the thousands of cherry trees gifted to the U.S. by the Japanese government" in 1912 that still draw more than a million tourists to Washington, D.C., each spring. 

Allies of the president, such as Cruz, said espionage concerns weigh heavily over the planned deal, citing Qatar's ties to terrorist groups. 

"I’m not a fan of Qatar. I think they have a really disturbing pattern of funding theocratic lunatics who want to murder us, funding Hamas and Hezbollah. And that’s a real problem," Cruz said during an interview Tuesday on CNBC.

"I also think the plane poses significant espionage and surveillance problems," he added. "We’ll see how this issue plays out, but I certainly have concerns." 

TRUMP DEFENDS QATAR JUMBO JET OFFER AS TROUBLED BOEING FAILS TO DELIVER NEW AIR FORCE ONE FLEET

Democrats, such as Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Dick Durbin of Illinois also warned that the plane would come with security issues. Reed, for example, claimed in a statement that using the plane as Air Force One "would pose immense counterintelligence risks by granting a foreign nation potential access to sensitive systems and communications."

While Democrats and some Republicans have criticized Trump over the move, other Republican lawmakers have said they are zoned in on legislative matters and are not looped into the plane issue. 

"I actually haven't paid attention to it," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., previously told Fox News Digital. "I'm sorry to be so out of the loop on that. I've just been thinking about Medicaid and about what the House is sending over."

QATAR OFFERS TRUMP JUMBO JET TO SERVE AS AIR FORCE ONE

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, another Trump ally, said she didn't know enough about the deal to comment on it when pressed by Fox News Digital. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine, Dan Sullivan of Alaska and Eric Schmitt of Missouri also said they did not know details of the plane. 

Trump is currently in the midst of a four-day trip to the Middle East, including visiting Qatar on Wednesday, where his motorcade was met by dozens of camels, as well as Tesla Cybertrucks in an apparent nod to Department of Government Efficiency official and Tesla CEO Elon Musk.

The plane is not expected to be presented to the president nor accepted by Trump during his trip abroad. 

"The Boeing 747 is being given to the United States Air Force/Department of Defense, NOT TO ME!" Trump posted to his Truth Social account while in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. "It is a gift from a Nation, Qatar, that we have successfully defended for many years. It will be used by our Government as a temporary Air Force One, until such time as our new Boeings, which are very late on delivery, arrive."

Supreme Court to debate Trump restrictions on birthright citizenship and enforcement of nationwide injunctions

The case on the Supreme Court's docket this week ostensibly deals with a challenge to the Trump administration's efforts to narrow the definition of birthright citizenship.

But overriding that important constitutional debate is a more immediate and potentially far-reaching test of judicial power: the ability of individual federal judges to issue universal or nationwide injunctions, preventing temporary enforcement of President Donald Trump's sweeping executive actions.

That will be the focus when the nine justices hear oral arguments Thursday morning about how President Trump's restrictions on who can be called an American citizen can proceed in the lower federal courts.

Trump signed the executive order on his first day back in office that would end automatic citizenship for children of people in the U.S. illegally.

SUPREME COURT POISED TO MAKE MAJOR DECISION THAT COULD SET LIMITS ON THE POWER OF DISTRICT JUDGES

Separate coalitions of about two dozen states, along with immigrant rights groups, and private individuals — including several pregnant women in Maryland — have sued.

Three separate federal judges subsequently issued orders temporarily blocking enforcement across the country while the issues are fully litigated in court. Appeals courts have declined to disturb those rulings.

Now the three consolidated cases come to the high court in an unusual scenario, a rare May oral argument that has been fast-tracked for an expected ruling in coming days or weeks.

The executive order remains on hold nationwide until the justices decide.

But the cases will likely not be decided on the merits at this stage, only on whether to narrow the scope of those injunctions. That would allow the policy to take effect in limited parts of the country or only to those plaintiffs actually suing over the president's authority.

SUPREME COURT TO HEAR ORAL ARGUMENTS IN BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP CASE

A high court decision could be sweeping, setting a precedent that would affect the more than 310 — and counting — federal lawsuits against White House actions filed since Jan. 20, according to a Fox News data analysis.

Of those, more than 200 judicial orders have halted large parts of the president's agenda from being enacted, almost 40 of them nationwide injunctions. Dozens of other cases have seen no legal action so far on gateway issues like temporary enforcement.

While the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on the use of universal injunctions, several conservative justices have expressed concerns over  power.

Justice Clarence Thomas in 2018 labeled them "legally and historically dubious," adding, "These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system – preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch."

And it comes to the Supreme Court as part of the so-called emergency or "shadow" docket, time-sensitive appeals known officially as "applications" that usually arrive in the early stages.

They seek to temporarily block or delay a lower court or government action that, despite its procedurally narrow posture, can have immediate and far-reaching implications.

Things like requests for stays of execution, voting restrictions, COVID vaccine mandates or access to a federally approved abortion medication and, since January, Trump's sweeping executive reform plans.

Some members of the court have expressed concern that these kinds of appeals are arriving with greater frequency in recent years, high-profile issues leading to rushed decisions without the benefit of full briefing or deliberation.

'ACTIVIST' JUDGES KEEP TRYING TO CURB TRUMP’S AGENDA – HERE’S HOW HE COULD PUSH BACK

Justice Elena Kagan last year said the shadow docket's caseload has been "relentless," adding, "We’ve gotten into a pattern where we're doing too many of them."

The pace this term has only increased with the new administration frustrated at dozens of lower court setbacks.

"We've seen a lot of justices critical of the fact that the court is taking an increasing number of cases and deciding them using the shadow docket," said Thomas Dupree, a former top Justice Department lawyer and a top appellate advocate. 

"These justices say, 'Look, we don't have to decide this on an emergency basis. We can wait.'"

Many progressive lawyers complain the Trump administration has been too eager to bypass the normal district and intermediate appellate court process, seeking quick, end-around Supreme Court review on consequential questions of law only when it loses.

The debate over birthright citizenship and injunctions is expected to expose further ideological divides on the court's 6-3 conservative majority.

That is especially true when it comes to the 13 challenges over Trump policies that have reached the justices so far, with six of them awaiting a ruling.

The court's three more liberal justices have pushed back at several preliminary victories for the administration, including its ban on transgender individuals serving in the military and the use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport scores of illegal immigrants suspected of criminal gang activity in the U.S.

TRUMP'S REMARKS COULD COME BACK TO BITE HIM IN ABREGO GARCIA DEPORTATION BATTLE

Dissenting in one such emergency appeal over the deportations to El Salvador, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, "The Government’s conduct in this litigation poses an extraordinary threat to the rule of law." 

"Our job is to stand up for people who can't do it themselves. And our job is to be the champion of lost causes," Sotomayor separately told an American Bar Association audience last week. "But, right now, we can't lose the battles we are facing. And we need trained and passionate and committed lawyers to fight this fight."

Trump has made no secret of his disdain for judges who have ruled against his policies or at least blocked them from being immediately implemented.

He called for the formal removal of one federal judge after an adverse decision over deporting illegal immigrants. That prompted Chief Justice John Roberts to issue a rare public statement, saying, "Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."

And in separate remarks last week, the chief justice underscored the judiciary's duty to "check the excesses of Congress or the executive."

The first section of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Trump said last month he was "so happy" the Supreme Court will hear arguments, adding, "I think the case has been so misunderstood."

The president said the 14th Amendment, granting automatic citizenship to people born in the U.S., was ratified right after the Civil War, which he interpreted as "all about slavery."

"If you look at it that way, we would win that case," the president said in Oval Office remarks.

Executive Order 14160, "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship," would deny it to those born after Feb. 19 whose parents are illegal immigrants. And it bans federal agencies from issuing or accepting documents recognizing citizenship for those children.

An estimated 4.4 million American-born children under 18 are living with an unauthorized immigrant parent, according to the Pew Research Center. There are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the country, 3.3% of the population. Although some census experts suggest those numbers may be higher.

But in its legal brief filed with the high court, the Justice Department argues the issue now is really about judges blocking enforcement of the president's policies while the cases weave their way through the courts, a process that could last months or even years. The government initially framed its high court appeal as a "modest request."

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS ADDRESSES DIVISIONS BETWEEN JUSTICES AFTER SEVERAL RECENT SCOTUS SKIRMISHES

"These injunctions exceed the district courts’ authority under Article III [of the Constitution] and gravely encroach on the President’s executive power under Article II," said Solicitor General John Sauer, who will argue the administration's case Thursday. "Until this Court decides whether nationwide injunctions are permissible, a carefully selected subset of district courts will persist in granting them as a matter of course, relying on malleable eye-of-the-beholder criteria."

The plaintiffs counter the government is misguided in what it calls "citizenship stripping" and the use of nationwide injunctions.

"Being directed to follow the law as it has been universally understood for over 125 years is not an emergency warranting the extraordinary remedy of a stay," said Nicholas Brown, the attorney general of Washington state. "If this Court steps in when the applicant [government] is so plainly wrong on the law, there will be no end to stay applications and claims of emergency, undermining the proper role and stature of this Court. This Court should deny the applications."

The consolidated cases are Trump v. CASA (24a884); Trump v. State of Washington (24a885); Trump v. New Jersey (24a886). 

‘Pulling an Alvin Bragg’: Left-wing DA’s ‘flimsy’ suit against Elon Musk’s $1M giveaway slammed by expert

Left-wing Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner filed a lawsuit against tech billionaire Elon Musk over his $1 million giveaway amid the highly anticipated Pennsylvania election – a suit that is being slammed as riddled with legal issues by an expert. 

"As a prosecutor for the city and county of Philadelphia, Krasner has no legal ability to prosecute anyone for alleged violations of federal law. So instead, he is pulling an Alvin Bragg by concocting a flimsy legal theory that Musk somehow is violating Pennsylvania’s lottery law," Cully Stimson, deputy director of the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center of Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, wrote in a Daily Signal commentary piece published Monday. 

Stimson compared the suit to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg charging former President Trump with 34 counts of falsifying business records, which prosecutors linked during the spring 2024 trial to an election scheme to illegally influence the 2016 election. Trump was found guilty in the case, and has since maintained his innocence as legal experts rallied that the case was an "absolute joke" and "witch hunt" against the 45th president. 

Krasner filed a lawsuit Monday against Musk and his super PAC, the America PAC, for "running an illegal lottery in Philadelphia" and across the state. 

Musk announced earlier this month that voters in battleground states, such as Pennsylvania or Michigan, were eligible for a $1 million a day giveaway after signing the America PAC’s petition backing the Constitution. Musk endorsed Trump in July, and recently joined him on the campaign trail to rally support for his re-election bid, most notably in the key battleground state of Pennsylvania. 

PHILADELPHIA DA LARRY KRASNER IMPEACHED BY PENNSYLVANIA LAWMAKERS IN GOP-LED EFFORT: 'CRISIS OF CRIME'

The initiative outlines that it only applies to registered voters in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin and North Carolina, and if they sign the petition. 

"The First and Second Amendments guarantee freedom of speech and the right to bear arms. By signing below, I am pledging my support for the First and Second Amendments," the petition reads. 

HERE'S HOW ELON MUSK'S $1M A DAY GIVEAWAY TO BATTLEGROUND VOTERS WORKS

Musk has already announced winners for the giveaway, including one in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, on Saturday. 

"Oct 22 - Nov 5: Each day, one petition signer from either PA, GA, NV, AZ, MI, WI, or NC will earn $1,000,000," the America PAC website reads. 

Stimson wrote that Krasner is "one of George Soros’ bought-and-paid-for district attorneys" who "doesn’t care about the law" and launched the suit to quench his alleged thirst "for media attention."

"Musk isn’t paying individuals to register to vote; he is paying already-registered voters to sign a petition, which is entirely lawful," Stimson explained. 

ELON GOES ON CAMPAIGN BLITZ AGAINST GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS, VOWS TO REVEAL BIZARRE ALLEGED SCHEMES

"​​In his civil complaint against Musk, Krasner asserts that by ‘lulling’ registered voters into giving their personal identifying information such as their postal address, cellphone number, and email address, voters have paid Musk consideration – as when a person gives a dollar to purchase a Mega Millions lottery ticket," he continued. 

In his suit, Krasner cited the 1976 case "Commonwealth v. Lane," which detailed that under Pennsylvania law, a lottery is deemed unlawful under three elements: "(1) a prize to be won; (2) a winner to be determined by chance; and (3) the payment of a consideration by the player." 

Stimson said the first two elements are satisfied when considering the Musk giveaway, but "the third element is nowhere to be found."

"Consideration is the payment of money, which is completely lacking in the Musk proposal. Registered voters didn’t pay money to sign the petition. Their personally identifiable information isn’t, under either the Lane case or state law, ‘consideration,’" Stimson explained. 

PENNSYLVANIA SUPREME COURT DEBATES FUTURE OF IMPEACHMENT TRIAL FOR PHILADELPHIA PROSECUTOR LARRY KRASNER

Stimson, whose background includes extensive investigations into "rogue" prosecutors who have politically benefited from donations made by left-wing billionaire George Soros, added in his commentary piece that it’s a "bit rich of Krasner to sue Musk, since the Philadelphia DA is a two-time violator of state campaign finance laws."

Stimson cited previous research that found Krasner received $1.7 million from Soros-funded groups during his 2017 election, and an additional $1.25 million from the same groups during his 2021 re-election campaign. 

FAR-LEFT PHILADELPHIA DA LARRY KRASNER'S COMPANY OWES $86,000 IN UNPAID TAXES

"In both races, he broke campaign finance laws and got into hot water with Philadelphia’s Board of Ethics."

The Philadelphia Inquirer reported in 2019 that Krasner settled with the ethics board over accepting more than $11,000 in excess in-kind contributions from the Soros-backed Real Justice PAC. Krasner paid a $4,000 fine and agreed to reimburse the city for the excess in-kind contribution from the PAC, while the Real Justice PAC agreed to pay $8,000 in penalties.

Following his 2021 re-election, Krasner’s campaign and the Real Justice PAC again admitted to breaking campaign finance law. Krasner agreed to pay $10,000 in penalties, while the Real Justice PAC agreed to pay $30,000 in penalties, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that year.

WIDOW OF SLAIN PHILADELPHIA POLICE OFFICER BLAMES PROGRESSIVE POLICIES OF DA LARRY KRASNER FOR HUSBAND'S DEATH

"Krasner has been a disaster as Philadelphia’s district attorney," Stimson wrote. "... Crime has exploded in Philly as a result of Krasner’s pro-criminal, anti-victim, cop-hating policies."

"In the five years before he was elected, an average of 271 homicides occurred per year. Since he was elected in 2017, an average of 368 homicides per year have occurred – an ‘extra’ 97 dead bodies per year."

Fox News Digital reached out to Krasner’s office for a response to Stimson’s arguments, but did not receive a reply. 

Following Musk’s announcement of the giveaway this month, Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro set the stage that it would likely come under legal scrutiny. 

"I think there are real questions with how he is spending money in this race, how the dark money is flowing, not just into Pennsylvania, but apparently now into the pockets of Pennsylvanians. That is deeply concerning," Shapiro said on NBC’s "Meet the Press."

PHILADELPHIA'S FORMER DEMOCRATIC MAYOR SLAMS SOROS-FUNDED DA FOR REFUSING TO CALL MURDER SURGE A 'CRISIS'

He continued, "Look, Musk, obviously has a right to be able to express his views, and he’s made it very, very clear that he supports Donald Trump, and we have a difference of opinion. I don’t deny him that right, but when you start flowing this kind of money into politics, I think it raises serious questions that folks may want to take a look at."

"You think it might not be legal, yes or no?" host Kristen Welker asked.

Shapiro responded, "I think it’s something that law enforcement can take a look at."

Musk announced the eighth winner of the giveaway on Saturday in Lancaster, home to Pennsylvania’s rolling hills dotted with Amish farms, where he again touted the petition backing the Constitution. 

"We're trying to get attention for this very important petition to support the Constitution. And, it's like, if we, you know – we need the right to free speech; we need the right to bear arms," Musk said at the rally in Lancaster.

"So we're going to be giving out a million dollars every day through Nov. 5," he continued. "And also, all you have to do is sign the petition in support of the First and Second Amendments. That's it. You don't even have to vote. It'd be nice if you voted, but you don't have to. And then just basically sign something you already believe in, and you get a test to win a million dollars every day from now through the election."

Amy Coney Barrett asserts her voice, carries on Scalia legacy

After her fourth term on the bench, Supreme Court Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett is asserting her voice and following in the footsteps of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a pioneer of originalism on the high court and her former boss. 

Barrett, appointed by President Donald Trump in October 2020 to fill the seat of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, surprised some this term by voting in a few key cases with the Democrat-appointed minority.

But legal experts say that the former law professor is proving that her interpretation of the Constitution is consistent with what the Founding Fathers intended, and that disagreements between her and her fellow conservative justices should be "celebrated."

"This term we have seen all the originalist justices engaged in a healthy debate about how to apply tenets of originalism and textualism in many different contexts," Carrie Severino, president of JCN, told Fox News Digital in an interview. "And that is a sign that the originalist project has matured, and that the justices are fleshing out these important principles, and it should be celebrated."

AOC FILES ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AGAINST JUSTICES ALITO, THOMAS, ALLEGES 'UNCHECKED CORRUPTION'

For many years, a widely lauded and accepted judicial philosophy was that the Constitution was a "living and breathing document." But conservative legal practitioners contested that approach as too volatile to political whims, judicially inappropriate and a departure from what the founders actually wrote in their original intent. 

But in the 1980s, the concept of an originalist interpretation of the law started to grow, largely driven by Reagan-appointed Justice Scalia.  

"It used to be that the late, great, Justice Scalia was basically the only originalist on the court," said John Shu, a constitutional lawyer and former official in both Bush administrations. "Then, in 1991, it became Scalia and Thomas and sometimes Rehnquist. In 2005 and 2006, it became Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito.  And since 2017, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and of course Justice Barrett joined the Court, and she is very much following in Justice Scalia’s, for whom she clerked, footsteps."

Some experts say that approach bore out this term when Barrett sided with her liberal colleagues in the case in which the majority ruled in favor of a participant in the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot who challenged his conviction for a federal "obstruction" crime. 

That case will likely aid the legal arguments of former President Trump who was charged with obstruction, among other crimes, by Special Counsel Jack Smith.

JUSTICE AMY CONEY BARRETT SAYS PUBLIC SCRUTINY OF SCOTUS IS 'WELCOME'

In her dissent, Barrett wrote that by "narrowing" a federal statute, the Court "failed to respect the prerogatives of the political branches."

"[S]tatutes often go further than the problem that inspired them, and under the rules of statutory interpretation, we stick to the text anyway," Barrett wrote, adding that the Court’s majority abandoned that approach and does "textual backflips to find some way— any way—to narrow the reach" of the statue at issue. 

Severino says that in her dissent, Barrett was "exactly in line" with Scalia's approach to that type of clause.

"Within originalism and textualism, there are people who in some particular instances may disagree on how those principles apply in a specific case," Severino wrote. "So it's not surprising that Barrett is going to have a different approach than Thomas or Alito or Gorsuch or Kavanaugh. They all have their own slightly different flavors, different personality, to exactly how they apply those," Severino said. 

"It’s a great sign that the justices are openly discussing what's the best way to apply originalism and textualism, the original intent and the actual text, which is what good and fair judges are supposed to do," said Shu.

"Justice Barrett’s opinions from this term indicate that the Scalia approach, over time, carried the day," he said.  "He also was great at showing how the originalist perspective is the common-sense perspective, and the one most faithful to the law and to a judge’s responsibilities."

Ilya Shapiro, senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, noted that Barrett "was law professor for a long time, so she has a different background than everybody else on the court."

"She's very thoughtful, she's very intellectual, she's very theoretical. She wants to get the theory right. She's a professor's justice," he observed. 

"She’s still very much in the Scalia mode. She's thinking about how to apply history and tradition and what that test means, and getting the theory of the matter right," he said. 

Which he said "was clear in the immunity decision, where she agreed fully with Robert's majority opinion, but said it would have been better to reframe this as an unconstitutional application of criminal law, rather than calling it immunity."

BIDEN'S SCOTUS CRITIQUES LARGELY UNPRECEDENTED, EXPERTS SAY, CONTRAST WITH CLINTON'S DEFERENCE IN 2000

"She's not a moderate. She's not a centrist. She’s not moving left," Shapiro said. "She’s an originalist and a textualist."

Jennifer Mascott, law professor at Catholic University and former Justice Department official, said Barrett’s writings this term "show a highly intelligent, careful principal jurist who is looking herself, as all the justices do, independently at the questions before her, and just taking the time for the American public to explain in important cases where she may have done something differently than the majority opinion." 

Notably, Barrett authored a concurrence in the case in which the high court unanimously ruled that Colorado could not remove Trump from 2024 election ballot. 

"The Court has settled a politically charged issue in the volatile season of a Presidential election. Particularly in this circumstance, writings on the Court should turn the national temperature down, not up," she wrote. For present purposes, our differences are far less important than our unanimity: All nine Justices agree on the outcome of this case. That is the message Americans should take home."

The former Notre Dame professor is not without criticism on the right, with some conservative observers saying she can be too cautious or timid when it comes to upsetting precedent.

Giancarlo Canaparo, senior fellow at the Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, says Barrett is "extremely mindful of the difference between conservative judges and conservative politicians, and she's trying very hard to be a conservative judge."

"And that means, I think, for her, not only being faithful to the text of the law and the Constitution, but also making sure that the court doesn't move on a particular issue until it’s sort of aware of the downstream effects on this doctrine or that doctrine," he said.

Canaparo observed that Barrett "needs to feel like she knows everything that can possibly be known" about a matter in order to make a move. 

"She's going to take positions when she feels like she knows everything, which is often in in those few areas where she wrote that she wrote about as a professor, but in other cases, we see areas where she's unwilling to make moves based on whatever information she has on hand, which you know that can be a good thing sometimes. Sometimes not."

But "sometimes, like a general, you've got to go with what information you have," he said. 

"Sometimes it seems like maybe she doesn't actually want a particular party to win, or she doesn't want to make a particular move, and so she uses the claim that there isn't enough information in the record as sort of an out."

Canaparo's critique aside, though, conservative legal watchers appear to sign on to Bush administration veteran John Shu's opinion that, "all in all, I think it’s great that a former Scalia clerk is now on the Court to carry on his legacy."

‘Constitutional authority’ of Senate Dems quashing Mayorkas impeachment trial questioned by experts

Constitutional law experts are examining the implications of the precedent set by Senate Democrats on Wednesday, when they killed the impeachment trial of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, effectively dismissing it. 

After the Senate deemed both articles of impeachment unconstitutional, the upper chamber adjourned, quashing all hope for a trial on Mayorkas' alleged crimes. This was historically significant, as an impeachment trial had never been dismissed, tabled or otherwise discarded without the accused official having first exited their role in one way or another. 

"The Senate has no constitutional authority to rule that the articles approved by the House do not state impeachable offenses," explained Andrew McCarthy, a former chief assistant United States attorney in the Southern District of New York and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute. 

SENATE STRIKES DOWN BOTH IMPEACHMENT ARTICLES AGAINST BIDEN BORDER CHIEF

The sole power to determine impeachable offenses lies with the House, McCarthy noted. This means neither the Senate nor a court of law would be within their rights to undermine the House's ability to make such determinations. 

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., proposed two points of order during the court of impeachment deeming both articles of impeachment unconstitutional, which were passed by the Democratic majority. 

"This essentially nullifies the House’s important role in the impeachment process," McCarthy said. 

Alternatively, the Senate would have been well within its rights to "hold a trial and ultimately acquit Mayorkas of the charges," he added. 

REPUBLICANS PREDICT DEMS TO PAY 'HEAVY PRICE' IN ELECTION AFTER MAYORKAS IMPEACHMENT BID FAILS

The brief impeachment trial proceedings revealed "yet another of our constitutional norms is being undermined," said Randy Barnett, a renowned legal scholar and professor of constitutional law at the Georgetown University Law Center. 

However, Alan Dershowitz, a prominent constitutional scholar and emeritus professor of law at Harvard Law School, claimed, "There are no constitutional impeachment criteria charged."

He explained further that "dismissal is proper."

SENATE DEMS REVEAL MASSIVE $79M AD SPEND TO PROTECT MAJORITY AHEAD OF KEY MATCHUPS

McCarthy warned that "Democrats will come to regret it." He explained that in the case that Democrats take over the House's majority and Republicans the Senate, "Democrats will be undermined by the precedent they have set — especially if Donald Trump is elected president again."

Democrats would likely seek to once again impeach former President Trump if he is elected in November, McCarthy said, and "they have now handed Republicans a precedent authorizing the Senate to ignore the House."

Barnett claimed that impeachment is "ultimately a political power" and thus, political use of it is expected. However, he suggested that "the political nature of impeachment" is exactly what "necessitates the House having the opportunity to present its case both to the Senate and to the electorate in a public trial." This was prevented from taking place in the Senate. 

WHITE HOUSE DEEMS HOUSE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY 'OVER,' PRESIDENT BIDEN FORMALLY DECLINES TO TESTIFY

"The only reason Republicans impeached Mayorkas was to get a high-profile hearing that would rivet the public’s attention to Biden’s border crisis," added McCarthy, who noted that the House understood they would never see a conviction or removal. 

"The Senate Democrats’ move does deny that public hearing," he said. For this, Democrats will "take a political hit," he continued. 

However, McCarthy described that Senate Democrats made a political calculation, ultimately determining that "it would be better to be criticized for not conducting a trial than to hold a trial," placing President Biden's border policies at the forefront and Democratic senators on record acquitting Mayorkas. 

This, he said, would look like the Democrats "endorsing Biden’s non-enforcement policies."

NRA gets unanimous GOP backing in suit to dismantle governor’s ‘unlawful’ gun order

FIRST ON FOX: The National Rifle Association hit Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham with a lawsuit Thursday in the state's Supreme Court over an "unconstitutional" rule temporarily suspending open and concealed carry across Albuquerque and the surrounding county. 

"Please rescind your unlawful and blatantly unconstitutional orders and uphold your oath to defend the constitutional rights of those in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. Until then, we’ll see you in court," NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch wrote to Lujan Grisham on Thursday, according to a letter exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital. 

The suit, filed Thursday in the New Mexico Supreme Court, names Lujan Grisham, Chief of New Mexico State Police Troy Weisler and New Mexico Department of Health Secretary Patrick Allen. 

The NRA was joined by every single GOP state House and Senate member, along with retired law enforcement, the Republican Party of New Mexico and the Libertarian Party of New Mexico as petitioners. 

NRA SLAMS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR'S GUN ORDER, ISSUES HARSH ADVICE

The lawsuit argues Lujan Grisham's gun order is unconstitutional and unlawful, and called on the state's highest court to "issue an extraordinary writ invalidating" the order. 

Lujan Grisham temporarily suspended open and concealed carry laws in Bernalillo County, where Albuquerque is located, for at least 30 days in a public health order announced Friday. The governor cited the fatal shootings of a 13-year-old girl in July, a 5-year-old girl in August and an 11-year-old boy this month as motivation behind the rule. 

The governor has been hit with at least four other lawsuits over the order, all of which argue the rule defies the U.S. Constitution. On Wednesday, a federal judge appointed by President Biden blocked part of the public health order that suspended carrying firearms in public. 

Lujan Grisham argued following the judge's ruling that she will "stand up to protect families and children" from crimes involving guns. 

"I refuse to be resigned to the status quo. As governor, I see the pain of families who lost their loved ones to gun violence every single day, and I will never stop fighting to prevent other families from enduring these tragedies," she said. 

Lujan Grisham said when she announced the order that she anticipated legal challenges and raised some eyebrows over her remarks on the Constitution. 

"No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute," Lujan Grisham told a reporter who asked whether it’s "unconstitutional" to order Americans not to exercise their right to bear arms.

Kozuch, the director of the NRA's lobbying arm, hit back in his letter to Lujan Grisham Thursday that the NRA "strongly disagrees" with her comment that her oath is not "absolute."

"You claim that your oath to uphold the rights covered by these amendments is ‘not absolute.’ The National Rifle Association strongly disagrees. New Mexicans and other law-abiding Americans visiting or travelling through Albuquerque and Bernalillo County have an absolute right to carry the firearm of their choosing to defend themselves and their families," he wrote. 

GOP ASKS UNLIKELY BIDEN ADMIN ALLY TO STEP IN TO STOP NM'S 'UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER GRAB'

The NRA pointed to the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico state Constitution as both "clearly" protecting "the right of peaceable people to carry firearms for self-defense." 

Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution states: "[n]o law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."

Quickly following the announcement last week, Second Amendment groups, New Mexico residents, Democrats and even gun control activist David Hogg spoke out that the rule was unconstitutional. 

"In a shocking move, Governor Lujan Grisham is suspending Second Amendment rights by administrative fiat, ignoring the U.S. Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution," Kozuch told Fox News Digital earlier this week. 

"Instead of undermining the fundamental rights of law-abiding New Mexicans, she should address the soft-on-criminal policies which truly endanger its citizens," he added. 

Kozuch again stressed in his letter Thursday that the governor should "hold criminals responsible" for spreading violence, and highlighted that even the governor admitted in her press conference last week that criminals would not follow the 30-day gun ban. 

"When announcing these orders, you claimed that they are meant to deal with the very real problem of violent crime in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. Yet, in the very press conference where you made that claim, you admitted that the criminals responsible for that rising violence will not follow these orders," he wrote. 

"The NRA urges you to hold criminals responsible for the damage they inflict, but we will not stand by as you attempt to blame and restrict the rights of peaceful Americans who simply want to protect themselves, their families, and their community."

NEW MEXICO GOV. GRISHAM SWIPES AT FELLOW DEMOCRAT WHO CALLED HER GUN CARRY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

The governor's press secretary Caroline Sweeney told Fox News Digital on Sunday that the "order does not suspend the Constitution but instead state laws over which the governor has jurisdiction." Sweeney added that the governor "was elected to serve the people of New Mexico, and not a day goes by that she doesn’t hear from a constituent asking for more to be done to curb this horrific violence."

Before the lawsuits against the order grew larger Thursday, New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez distanced himself from the governor, telling her he would not defend her administration in court. 

NEW MEXICO REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS CALL FOR DEM GOV. GRISHAM'S IMPEACHMENT AFTER GUN ORDER: 'SHE'S ROGUE'

"Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico's chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence. Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster," Torrez wrote in his letter to Lujan Grisham this week. 

The governor also does not have support from the Bernalillo County Sheriff, who called the order "unconstitutional," while Bernalillo County district attorney, the Albuquerque police chief, and Albuquerque mayor have all said they won’t enforce the order. Lujan Grisham said the state police would enforce the order, and that violations could carry a fine of up to $5,000.

GOP asks unlikely Biden admin ally to step in to stop NM’s ‘unconstitutional power grab’

FIRST ON FOX: Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are demanding U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland step in and protect the Second Amendment rights of New Mexico residents following Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s order temporarily banning open and concealed carry. 

"Governor Grisham has issued an order which is being used to blatantly trample on the Second Amendment rights of the citizens of New Mexico, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) must act swiftly to stop this unconstitutional power grab," a group of Republican senators wrote to Garland on Wednesday in a letter exclusively obtained by Fox News Digital. 

The letter was spearheaded by Republican North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis, who was joined by South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Texas Sen. John Cornyn, Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy, Tennessee Sen. Marsha Blackburn and Arkansas Sen. Tom Cotton. 

"By preventing certain New Mexicans from exercising their constitutional rights to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home, Governor Grisham is violating the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and Article IV of the Constitution," the senators continued.

NEW MEXICO GOV. GRISHAM SWIPES AT FELLOW DEMOCRAT WHO CALLED HER GUN CARRY BAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL

"This is a chilling action, and it is imperative that your Department act immediately to show that this kind of unconstitutional abuse will not be tolerated in New Mexico or anywhere else in the United States."

NRA SLAMS DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR'S GUN ORDER, ISSUES HARSH ADVICE

Lujan Grisham temporarily suspended open and concealed carry laws in Bernalillo County, where Albuquerque is located, for at least 30 days in an executive order announced Friday. The announcement was spurred by the fatal shootings of a 13-year-old girl in July, a 5-year-old girl in August and an 11-year-old boy this month. 

The announcement shocked New Mexico residents, with more than 100 people forming a protest in Old Town Albuquerque on Sunday, where they defied the order and openly carried firearms. Protesters formed another rally Tuesday on Albuquerque's Civic Plaza.

Gun rights groups have also slammed the governor as enacting an "unconstitutional" order that stripped law-abiding citizens of their rights to bear arms. 

NEW MEXICO REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS CALL FOR DEM GOV. GRISHAM'S IMPEACHMENT AFTER GUN ORDER: 'SHE'S ROGUE'

"In a shocking move, Governor Lujan Grisham is suspending Second Amendment rights by administrative fiat, ignoring the U.S. Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution. Instead of undermining the fundamental rights of law-abiding New Mexicans, she should address the soft-on-criminal policies which truly endanger its citizens," NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch told Fox News Digital earlier this week. 

The governor has been hit with at least four lawsuits over the order, which all argue the rule defies the U.S. Constitution. 

"Gov. Luhan Grisham is throwing up a middle finger to the Constitution and the Supreme Court," said Dudley Brown, president of the National Association for Gun Rights, one of the groups that filed a suit against Lujan Grisham. 

The governor's press secretary Caroline Sweeney told Fox News Digital on Sunday that the "order does not suspend the Constitution but instead state laws over which the governor has jurisdiction."

Sweeney added that the governor "was elected to serve the people of New Mexico, and not a day goes by that she doesn’t hear from a constituent asking for more to be done to curb this horrific violence."

The Democratic governor has also come under fire from members of her own party, including California Rep. Ted Lieu, who posted this week that the order "violates the U.S. Constitution," and liberal gun control activist David Hogg, who echoed the California lawmaker.

NEW MEXICO ATTORNEY GENERAL WON'T DEFEND GOVERNOR'S GUN ORDER

Democratic New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez additionally sent Lujan Grisham a letter this week outlining that he will not defend her administration against the recent lawsuits because he believes the order does not pass "constitutional muster."

"Though I recognize my statutory obligation as New Mexico's chief legal officer to defend state officials when they are sued in their official capacity, my duty to uphold and defend the constitutional rights of every citizen takes precedence. Simply put, I do not believe that the Emergency Order will have any meaningful impact on public safety but, more importantly, I do not believe it passes constitutional muster," New Mexico AG Raul Torrez wrote in his letter to Lujan Grisham. 

NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN TAKING UP FIREARMS CLASSES FOR SELF DEFENSE: 'REFUSING TO BE VICTIMS'

The Republican senators added in their letter to Garland that the fatal shooting of an 11-year-old boy in New Mexico this month was "horrific" and "inexcusable," and said they would work with the Department of Justice to "combat violent crime in communities across the nation." The senators, however, continued that the governor overstepped her bounds in issuing the order and called on Garland to uphold and enforce the Constitution. 

"While the public health order may invoke state law to authorize this unconstitutional infringement, it should be no match for the authority which the DOJ has to enforce our rights under the U.S. Constitution. That is why we are calling on you to enforce the Constitution and intervene on behalf of the constitutional rights of New Mexicans to stop this unconstitutional act from standing," the senators said. 

Liberals turn on New Mexico governor over gun suspension: ‘Violates the US Constitution’

Democratic New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is coming under fire from members of her own party after temporarily suspending open and concealed carry across Albuquerque under an emergency health order.

"I support gun safety laws. However, this order from the Governor of New Mexico violates the U.S. Constitution. No state in the union can suspend the federal Constitution. There is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution," California Democratic Rep. Ted Lieu tweeted

Lujan Grisham temporarily suspended open and concealed carry laws in Bernalillo County for at least 30 days, starting Sept. 8. The announcement was spurred by the fatal shootings of young children, including a 13-year-old girl in July, a 5-year-old girl in August and an 11-year-old boy this month.

"As I said yesterday, the time for standard measures has passed," the governor said, according to her office’s press release on the order. "And when New Mexicans are afraid to be in crowds, to take their kids to school, to leave a baseball game – when their very right to exist is threatened by the prospect of violence at every turn – something is very wrong."

NEW MEXICO REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS CALL FOR DEM GOV. GRISHAM'S IMPEACHMENT AFTER GUN ORDER: 'SHE'S ROGUE'

Liberal gun control activist David Hogg responded to Lieu saying that he "agreed" that the order violates the Constitution, and followed up that Lujan Grisham’s reasoning for the temporary ban does not hold water.

NATIVE AMERICAN WOMEN TAKING UP FIREARMS CLASSES FOR SELF DEFENSE: 'REFUSING TO BE VICTIMS'

"I support gun safety but there is no such thing as a state public health emergency exception to the U.S. Constitution," Hogg posted on X, formerly known as Twitter. 

Hogg appeared to follow up in another post saying "one of the things I appreciate most about the Democratic Party is we are not in a cult," and members hold different views on issues such as gun control. 

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR TEMPORARILY SUSPENDS OPEN, CONCEALED CARRY ACROSS ALBUQUERQUE: 'VIOLENCE AT EVERY TURN'

"It’s a good rule of thumb to make sure you never agree with someone 100% because no one is ever all ways [sic] right especially me. I will tell you this though, I will say and do what I feel is right no matter how unpopular it’s might be. If Dems don’t do enough on gun violence I have and will tell you. If I feel they approach it in a way I don’t agree with I will also tell you," he posted.

Lujan Grisham's press secretary Caroline Sweeney told Fox News Digital on Sunday that the order "does not suspend the Constitution but instead state laws over which the governor has jurisdiction," when asked about Lieu's and Hogg's posts. 

"The governor is looking for proactive partners who will bring solutions to the table - not naysayers who have no real answers to the gun violence epidemic we are faced with," Sweeney continued. "She was elected to serve the people of New Mexico, and not a day goes by that she doesn’t hear from a constituent asking for more to be done to curb this horrific violence. If Ted Lieu is so interested in addressing this issue, we invite him to join our next police academy class in January."

The governor on Sunday also responded to Lieu's tweet, inviting him to a police academy class to help "curb gun violence."

"Hey Ted, conceal and open carry are state laws that I have jurisdiction over. If you’re really interested in helping curb gun violence, I’d welcome you to join our next police academy class," Grisham tweeted. 

Conservatives and social media commenters were quick to mock the New Mexico governor for losing support from two liberals who champion gun control, while others, including Republican Sen. Ted Cruz, expressed shock over agreeing with a Democrat on a gun issue. 

Two Republican legislators in New Mexico, Reps. Stefani Lord and John Block, have meanwhile called for Lujan Grisham’s impeachment over the order for an "abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical" agenda on residents.

NEW MEXICO GOVERNOR SHOCKS WITH COMMENT ABOUT CONSTITUTION AFTER ISSUING TEMPORARY GUN BAN: NOT 'ABSOLUTE'

"I am calling on counsel to begin the impeachment process against Governor Grisham," Lord said.

"This is an abhorrent attempt at imposing a radical, progressive agenda on an unwilling populous. Rather than addressing crime at its core, Governor Grisham is restricting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Even Grisham believes this emergency order won’t prohibit criminals from carrying or using weapons; a basic admission that this will only put New Mexicans in danger as they won’t be able to defend themselves from violent crime," Lord continued. 

The New Mexico governor has also been hit with a few lawsuits from Second Amendment groups, including The National Association for Gun Rights, whose president said Lujan Grisham "is throwing up a middle finger to the Constitution."

The NRA also slammed the order as "shocking" in exclusive comment to Fox News Digital, and called on the governor to address "soft-on-criminal policies" to remedy crime trends instead of banning guns. 

"In a shocking move, Governor Lujan Grisham is suspending Second Amendment rights by administrative fiat, ignoring the US Constitution and the New Mexico Constitution. Instead of undermining the fundamental rights of law-abiding New Mexicans, she should address the soft-on-criminal policies which truly endanger its citizens," NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch told Fox. 

Jonathan Turley chides Dem impeachment manager Neguse for calling 1992 position ‘recent’

Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley took issue with Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Colorado, Tuesday after the congressman referenced a decades old essay as evidence of “recent” views on whether a former official can still face impeachment.