it s also undermined because he s acting in direct defiance of congress, and as you know, the youngstown steel case says that the argument for deference is at its weakest when it s in defiance of congress. so i think they re leave it to richard blumenthal to go full youngstown as law school nerds would say. that s the classic precedence that overruled truman. can i ask you something that s not legal, that s basic. what is the point of what you and everyone in congress does if you have years long debates over how to fund the government. the constitution says you have the funding power, and any president, could be a different president in the future, said no, i m going to spend billions a different way because i declared something. i mean, doesn t that defeat the whole point? that s also a key legal argument because, again, in youngstown, in all of the cases that talk about deference, this power of the purse is a core constitutional prerogative.
for him. it will be greatly developed, and the youngstown steel case says it is the weakest. leave it to richard blooum blumenthal to go full on. what is the point of what you and erin in congress does in both parties if you have years long debates about how to fund the government. and a president, any president, could be a different president in the future says i will spend billions because i declared something. that is also a key legal argument because again, in youngstown and all of the cases, talking about deference, this p.o.w. of the pouurse is a core
segment, the president says, quote, it s a national emergency, but quote, it s one that he could have done later or not at all. does that mean legally it s not an emergency in your view? i think that the lawyers arguing for the president are going to say the court should defer to the president, the deference argument is the chief one he has going for him, and it is certainly defeated or tends to be greatly undermined by that statement. it s also undermined because he s acting in direct defiance of congress, and as you know, the youngstown steel case says that the argument for deference is at its weakest when it s in defiance of congress. leave it to richard blumenthal to go full youngstown as law school nerds would say. that s the classic precedence that overruled truman. can i ask you something that s not legal, that s basiibasic. what is the point of what you and everyone in congress does if you have years long debates over how to fund the government.
stick to stop him from claiming something, right? oh, yeah, of course they can. they can negate the presidential action in a heart beat if they came up with veto proof which they should do, both political parties. look, in the past we ve had presidents overreach roosevelt using national security emergency powers. we had truman in the youngstown steel case. at the end of the day it seems if you defy the will of congress who refuses to fund something and allow the president to get away with this, you re ending up neutering the principle responsibility of congress. i think your point is very well made there. if there s one precedent that would unite our two guests harry truman saying he could seize the steel mills, right? people think the military should have all sorts of support within the country. i don t think that s a
defined employer as anyone engaged in business affecting commerce who has employees. where in the text of the law did congress exempt employers of animal trainers? thank you for the question, senator. the first point i want to make is that was not a case that involved potential compensation of the family. that was handled through the state tort system or through insurance or through a settlement with the sea world and the family. the case had nothing to do with compensation. it had to do with a separate regulation of sea world. the issue was precedent. i follow as a judge, i follow precedent. the precedent of the labor department as i read it was the labor department would not regulate what it called the intrinsic qualities of a sports or entertainment show. lots of sports and entertainment shows have serious dangers,