Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released his committee's changes to the judicial section late, last Thursday night. Notably absent was a "jarring, one-sentence provision that House Republicans buried in their 1,116-page bill," according to HuffPost. The provision in question "would restrict the ability of any court, including the Supreme Court, to enforce compliance with its orders by holding people in contempt." Are you familiar with this provision that the House Republicans included in their version of the "Big Beautiful Bill Act"?

The one-sentence provision appears in Sec. 70302 "Restriction of Funds," and reads, "No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued..." According to HuffPost, "Contempt citations are an essential tool for the courts" because "they allow judges to threaten fines, sanctions or even jail if people disobey their orders." Are you concerned that the House Republicans are trying to remove the enforcement power of the courts which is their only way to enforce their constitutional check of abusive or illegal behavior by the executive branch?

Without contempt citations, the courts could simply be ignored. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told HuffPost that the contempt provision Republicans slipped into the massive spending bill was "a naked attempt to shield members of the Trump administration from court orders," essentially allowing them to operate with impunity, much like royalty. Should any American president have the absolute power of royalty?

"Not only does this provision appear to violate the constitutional separation of powers, but it also violates Senate rules," wrote reporter Jennifer Bendery. "Republicans are relying on a fast-track legislative process known as budget reconciliation to move the bill, which means everything in it must be related to budget matters. Restricting judges' abilities to hand down contempt orders has nothing to do with budgets." Do you understand why this provision is a nonstarter as it is explained above?

Our forefathers deliberately put checks and balances in the US Constitution so no president would ever have the power of an absolute monarch. Do you think President Trump wants to have the final say about all federal policy without any checks from the other two co-equal branches of government, the Congress and the Federal courts?