package that will fund the federal government until september 30, current funding expires on friday at midnight. you can read the legislative text in full if you go to our website, c-span.org. and keep it here for live coverage of the u.s. house when members return on c-span. announcer: if you ever miss any of c-span's coverage, you can find it any time online at c-span.org. videos of key hearings, debates and other events feature markers that guide you to interesting and news worthy highlights. these points of interest markers appear on the right-hand side of your screen when you hit play on select videos. this timeline tool makes it easy to quickly get an idea of what was debated and decided in washington. scroll through and spend a few minutes on c-span's points of interest. announcer: nearly 3500 students participated in this year's c-span student cam documentary competition. where we asked students to craft a message to the new president

exploring issues important to them or their communities. this wednesday tune in to c-span's "washington journal" at 8:00 a.m. eastern where we'll announce the grand prize winner of this year's competition. : toe first 100 days of the second trump administering. also a great day to have jeffrey rosen, president and c.e.o. of national constitution center in philadelphia. and what a start with you taking the lead. what do you think has been the most interesting constitutional question that has come up in these first 50 days of the second trump administration? guest: the most interesting question is the scope of the unitary executive. ever since the reagan administration, conservatives as well as some liberals have been arguing that the president should have complete control over the executive branch and that means he should be able to fire any official he wants for political reasons, not just for

cause. ever since the 1930's, the u.s. supreme court has upheld the constitutionality of independent agencies like the federal trade commission, some of which say the president can't fire their officials except for good cause like corruption or malfeasance. the big constitutional question is are independent agencies constitutional? should the supreme court overturn the decision from the 1930's that allowed congress to set up independent agencies and should the president have total control over the executive branch? host: what is an independent agency? guest: an agency established by congress to check the president whose heads can't be fired by the president. in upholding the supreme court said they're quasi-judicial. the federal trade commission might adjudicate claims against companies for violating eapt trust laws as well as enforcing

those laws, or the federal reserve is independent. the head is appointed for a term that transcends the term of a particular president and the president can't tell the fed what to do. that's what makes them independent. host: unitary executive theory, what does that term mean? guest: unitary executive, it comes from alexander hamilton writing in the pacificus letters, the most famously pro-executive of all the founders. he wants an executive so energetic that jefferson accused him of trying to set up a quasi-monarchy. remember at the constitutional convention he says the president should serve for life, so that he can't be corrupted by the legislature. he didn't win on that score, but he did insist the president should be very vigorous, and in a case called the myers case, chief justice william howard taft, a huge admirer of hamilton, says the president should be able to fire any

executive branch official. myers involved a postmaster and the president wanted to fire him and the chief justice agreed saying article 2 of the constitution which makes -- gives the president the executive power invests the executive power in the president to use the language of the constitution, means that the president's control over executive officials should be complete. these questions about hiring and firing, removal they're called, are central to the unitary executive theory. in the myers case, justin louis brandeis, another great hero, except brandeis' hero is thomas jefferson, he dissent and says the point of the constitution is liberty, not efficiency and it's designed to prevercht the president from being an autocrat. brandeis thought the congress should be able to protect executive officials from being fired and the u.s. supreme court embraced brandeis' view.

host: wasn't it brandeis that said sunlight is the best disinfectant? guest: absolutely. a great hero of transparency. host: on the hiring side, we were talking about this week in doge and there was a caller earlier that said that elon musk was never confirmed by the senate, that he should be confirmed, that what he is doing is illegal of the when does the advise and concept role apply and should it apply to an agency within the white house like doge? guest: a crucial question that will likely be tested before the courts and the constitution gives the president power to appoint what are called inferior officers. inferior officers do -- host: they probably don't like that term. guest: nor did lower court judges like that. the constitution is rough when it comes to language. inferior officers do have to be appointed by advise and consent.

if elon musk is an inferior officer, he does have to go through senate confirmation. is he running doge? that their -- in their court rerptions, the administering has said elon musk is not running doge. in the state of the european union, president trump said he was. host: what is your read on the supreme court right now and especially that decision last week when it came to the white house trying to cancel contracts out of usaid and the supreme court saying with the 5-4 ruling last week that the usaid had to honor some $2 billion in contracts? guest: such a fascinating and illuminating decision. chief justice john roberts and justin coney barrett joined three other justices in saying they allowed a lower court it

stay the cancellation of $2 billion in funds. the claim is there would be irreparable harm because a lot of foreign countries have come to rely on this aid and it was arguably in violation of the administrative procedure act to cancel the funds without further study. what is so interesting about this case is it suggests there might be a split on the court in particular with justices roberts and barrett. they might be far more sympathetic to claims about a unitary executive branch than they are to the president's effort to refuse to spend congressionally allocated funds. this is called impoundment when the president doesn't want to spend money congress has allocated. there is a law on the books passed in the wake of watergate that some say is an unconstitutional infringement on the unitary executive power but it's possible, though we have to see, that chief justice roberts

and barrett might say no, we have to enforce the separation of powers. congress allocates money and the president is infringing on congressional prerogatives when he refuses to spend it. that would be a significant difference on the court broad power of the -- over the executive branch but also broad power of congress to require that he spend funds. host: what do you make of some of the concern that's out there right now that the president -- that donned trump could -- donald trump could defy the courts? the dean of the berkley school of law at the university of california, if trump defies the courts, then what? saying judges are constrained in their ability to make presidents obey their court orders. guest: the most widely accepted definition of a constitutional crisis is if the president defied an unambiguous order of the u.s. supreme court. that's never happened before in american history. andrew jackson famously may have

said john marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it. he probably didn't because the court didn't order him to do anything but neither jackson nor any other president has directly defied an unambiguous order. if the president did that, that would be a crisis. if he doesn't, according to that definition it's not a crisis. it's true that the president can't be forced to obey the supreme court. he has -- the courts have neither purse nor shield as alexander hamilton said in the feld ral -- federalist papers. so it is significant that despite some very serious judge bashing by administration officials of lower court decisions, the president has not said he will defy the u.s. supreme court. he suggested he would comply with the u.s. supreme court and in that sense we are not yet in a constitutional crisis. host: do you think we throw around the term constitutional crisis too easily or too much

these days? guest: yes, i think we do because -- host: when should we use it? guest: i like the rigorous definition, a president defies an unam bigger use -- unambiguous order of the supreme court. short of that i don't think we are in a crisis. host: jeffrey rosen is with us. taking your phone calls in the last 35 minutes or so. phone lines split as usual, democrats -- 202-748-8000. republicans -- 202-748-8002. independents, 202-748-8003. folks are calling in and if they've never visited that beautiful building in philadelphia, what is the national constitution center? guest: it's so exciting. as we prepare for 23026 -- 2026 in the 250th anniversary of the declaration, you have to come to the national constitution center. bring your kids and come see it. of course it's right on independence mall across from independent hall.

the most inspiring view of independence hall in america. there's the statues of the framers. you can see how tall they were and imagine what it was like to be in the room where it happened. live thweatter for -- theater for kids. we are about to announce a new founding principles gallery with really exciting documents for 2026 that we will talk about soon. mazing exhibits about -- amazing exhibits about the first amendments. it's the most inspiring place imaginable. if you can't come to philly, you have to go to the website constitutioncenter.org. it's such an illuminating resource in these challenging times. you can find the best scholars on the left and the right, liberals and conservatives exploring areas of agreement and disagreement about the constitution. you can find justin amy coney barrett with 1,000 words about what the habeas corpus clause

means. it's this modeling of civil dialogue about the constitution and a great resource. host: i will say it's a great resource for somebody in this job. it's helpful. constitutioncenter.org. barbara is up first,barbara and. you are on with jeffrey rosen. go ahead. caller:hi, . i have a question about, it was in the news, nobody was talking about it, either last year or the year before, where president biden was not signing his executive orders, supposedly. and the question is, who was signing those documents? mike johnson, the speaker of the house mike johnson, met with joe biden a year and a half ago, and

he asked him a question about when he signed the order to stop the lng, you know, delivery, whatever, having lng available to people, and he said no, i did not do that. it was really for an investigation to see how that would work, whatever. joe biden did not know what he was signing, so constitutionally, talking about a crisis, what is going to happen to those documents, and who is signing them? host: barbara, i think we got your question. guest: thanks so much. i do not know the details whether or not president biden signed executive orders. but the question is important, because it does remind us that the use of executive orders by presidents to achieve what they are unable to achieve by congress is something presidents of both parties have been doing, and they've been doing it ever since the new deal, when executive orders numbers jumped

from about 300 and the theodore roosevelt and administration to 3000 or 4000 in the fdr administration. president biden famously attempted to cancel student debt, even after the supreme court said he could not. he did not defy an unambiguous ruling of the supreme court, he tried to do a different statutory provision, but it was not under his executive authority to try to, you know, try to get around the courts and congress. that said, president trump is not trying something new. host: how much does the constitution revert to executive orders? is there a specific place where he or she cannot use an executive order for yucca guest: the word executive order does not appear in the constitution.

the first executive order was issued by president washington, who issue just a handful of them, i think less than 10. there's an amazing copy of washington's constitution, president washington going through the constitution, writing president, powers, taking notes in the margin, president, and here are my powers. there are so few powers. he's got to execute the law. washington decided on his own that he could choose ambassadors, even though that was not in the constitution. george washington decided he had the power to issue executive orders, though it was not implicitly in writing. host: amazing to see the first president do his homework and be able to read it. guest: it is so diligent and thoughtful and included in the text. you have such a sense of role of what he was and was not allowed to do. that is what he is the greatest american of all time. host: chester, virginia,

democrat. your question for jeffrey rosen? caller: yes, the supreme georges our government officials, the president is a government official, the senators are government officials. what stops the president from taking over their responsibilities and duties? guest: great question. the constitution would stop him. article three of the constitution appoints judges of the supreme court for life, for good behavior, along with the judges on such inferior courts, as congress may choose to establish. so that tenure from judges come from the constitution. congressional terms comes from the constitution as well. the constitution specifies how long house members and senators are appointed, and therefore it is really clear from the constitution that although the president may have a lot of control, complete control to hire and fire executive branch

decision, he has no power, zero control, over the other branches. host: robert in ohio, republican, you are on with jeffrey rosen. caller: how are you doing? host: what is your question, robert? caller: my question is, you know, you said we've never been in a constitutional crisis, but just when biden was president, he refused to accept the supreme court's ruling over us not paying for everybody else's college. i did not get to go to college. i could not go to college. the reason was i could not pay for it. i cannot afford it. but now i'm paying for everybody else's college. if we ain't never been in a constitutional crisis, what was that? guest: great question, and as i suggested a moment ago, president biden was not defying an explicit order of the supreme