King Trump: What if he chooses to ignore the judiciary?
- Thread starter Huckleberry
- Start date
We don't need a DOGE imo as much as we need a Federal Revenue & Proration Act. This wouldn't be the same as a balanced budget amendment because we can't get there anyway.
For example, If we need to reduce spending by 3%, the every program or agency gets automatically curtailed 3% in the following fiscal year unless you can raise revenue by 3%. Failure to follow could result in more severe cuts or civil money penalties.
For example, If we need to reduce spending by 3%, the every program or agency gets automatically curtailed 3% in the following fiscal year unless you can raise revenue by 3%. Failure to follow could result in more severe cuts or civil money penalties.
The problem is the very people who are spending us into oblivion are the ones who would have to pass it.
There's a reason why the executive branch has historically been the one to make these moves.
Well if you get it passed i would be okay with the President enforcing it through the OMB and/or IRS. At least then the program/agency heads are responsible for finding the revenue/cuts without throwing mass hysteria into the process.
If a subcontractor knew his payment was getting by 3%, he would be incentivized to find the savings in his job somewhere...
If a subcontractor knew his payment was getting by 3%, he would be incentivized to find the savings in his job somewhere...
My point is you're dreaming if you think the modern congress is going to vote for anything like this. Sure, it'd be great, but there's literally a zero percent chance it happens. Literally.
QED.Apparently not to the supreme court, even this SC.
It is not the Constitution's place to conform to the Supreme Court (which is a creature of the Constitution). It is the job of the Supreme Court to conform to the provisions of the Constitution. Being a human institution, the court is flawed and prone to making mistakes.
Your position kind of makes my point. The Supreme Court claims the power to rule anything they do not like as unconstitutional. (A federal judge Virginia declared the Constitution unconstitutional, citing the preamble of the Declaration of Independence to do so.) Since the federal judiciary claims the unconstitutional power* to declare others' actions unconstitutional, what prevents the president from doing the same thing?
* Article III: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;
Last edited:
With someone like Trump, the Supreme Court doesn't have an enforcement force. If he says make me what exactly does the Supreme Court do then? With a feckless and compliant Congress, all the ingredients are in the bowl. My fear is that is when our democracy completely fails...
Last edited:
Has the SC ever had the ability to enforce? I genuinely don’t think so.
No they relied on a respecting executive branch for complaince with judicial orders. This is a weakness in our form of government when you dont have an executive branch the respects the rule of law and a legislative branch unwilling to use its impeachment power.
Last edited:
President Abraham Lincoln ignored a Supreme Court ruling in the Ex parte Merryman case. Lincoln continued to suspend the writ of habeas corpus without congressional approval, so this is hardly a recent development. There are probably other examples out there, but I’d rather take my post-lunch nap than look for them.
You're likely right. So what are you saying? It's been done before so it's not a big deal? It's been done before so it's ok for Trump to do it? Trump is another Lincoln? (Just kidding on that last one.)President Abraham Lincoln ignored a Supreme Court ruling in the Ex parte Merryman case. Lincoln continued to suspend the writ of habeas corpus without congressional approval, so this is hardly a recent development. There are probably other examples out there, but I’d rather take my post-lunch nap than look for them.
Last edited:
Another classic example of whataboutism...
As I posted yesterday, excusing failures to follow the law and imposing consequences are the reasons we are confronted the crisis we are in now. And a significant portion of America is okay with it. Someone once said the supreme expression of freedom is simply giving away your freedom...
As I posted yesterday, excusing failures to follow the law and imposing consequences are the reasons we are confronted the crisis we are in now. And a significant portion of America is okay with it. Someone once said the supreme expression of freedom is simply giving away your freedom...
President Abraham Lincoln ignored a Supreme Court ruling in the Ex parte Merryman case. Lincoln continued to suspend the writ of habeas corpus without congressional approval, so this is hardly a recent development. There are probably other examples out there, but I’d rather take my post-lunch nap than look for them.
The point is that it’s not a recent development. That’s literally all I’m saying here.
It's worse than that. After the decision in Ex-Parte Merryman, Lincoln, it seems issues arrest warrants for the justices who voted against Lincoln.President Abraham Lincoln ignored a Supreme Court ruling in the Ex parte Merryman case. Lincoln continued to suspend the writ of habeas corpus without congressional approval, so this is hardly a recent development. There are probably other examples out there, but I’d rather take my post-lunch nap than look for them.
Last edited:
Indefinitely stall prosecution of any crimes committed *against* flagrant violators.
In Taney's opinion in Ex Parte Merryman, Taney wrote, “The clause in the Constitution which authorizes the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is in the ninth section of the first article [the article on the federal legislature's powers]. This article is devoted to the Legislative Department of the United States, and has not the slightest reference to the Executive Department,”
Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,” he said. Taney ordered a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.
Lincoln didn’t respond directly or immediately to the Ex Parte Merryman decision. Instead, he waited until a July 4th address to confront Taney at a special session of Congress.
“Soon after the first call for militia it was considered a duty to authorize the Commanding General in proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in other words, to arrest and detain without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety,” Lincoln said. “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?”
Lincoln's logic is that, since one federal law was violated with impunity somewhere, the president was not longer bound by any federal law anywhere.
“Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power; but the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; [no it most certainly is not silent] and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it can not be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion,” Lincoln argued.
Using Lincoln's logic, if the president says, that a federal law is being violated somewhere, the president can arrest without charges anyone anywhere as long as the president says he deems the situation a "dangerous emergency."
And this is the guy with a Roman temple dedicated to him in Washington.
If Trump does the exact same thing, will Lincoln lovers applaud as vehemently?
Taney noted that he didn’t have the physical power to enforce the writ in this case because of the nature of the conflict at hand. “I have exercised all the power which the Constitution and laws confer on me, but that power has been resisted by a force too strong for me to overcome,” he said. Taney ordered a copy of his opinion be sent directly to President Lincoln.
Lincoln didn’t respond directly or immediately to the Ex Parte Merryman decision. Instead, he waited until a July 4th address to confront Taney at a special session of Congress.
“Soon after the first call for militia it was considered a duty to authorize the Commanding General in proper cases, according to his discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in other words, to arrest and detain without resort to the ordinary processes and forms of law such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public safety,” Lincoln said. “Are all the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the Government itself go to pieces lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if the Government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it?”
Lincoln's logic is that, since one federal law was violated with impunity somewhere, the president was not longer bound by any federal law anywhere.
“Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the Executive, is vested with this power; but the Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; [no it most certainly is not silent] and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it can not be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by the rebellion,” Lincoln argued.
Using Lincoln's logic, if the president says, that a federal law is being violated somewhere, the president can arrest without charges anyone anywhere as long as the president says he deems the situation a "dangerous emergency."
And this is the guy with a Roman temple dedicated to him in Washington.
If Trump does the exact same thing, will Lincoln lovers applaud as vehemently?
When asked if the Administration will comply with court orders on fired federal workers, WH Press Secretary Leavitt says the orders are unconstitutional: You cannot have a low level district court judge filing an injunction to usurp the executive authority of the President…
And here is another one:
US deports hundreds of Venezuelans despite court order
Not sure who gave the order to proceed with the deportation, but we have a federal employee who followed the lead of George McClellan, U.S. Grant, and Willie T. Sherman: "just obeyed orders."
When you celebrate those who violated the Constitution, you get more violations of the Constitution.
US deports hundreds of Venezuelans despite court order
Not sure who gave the order to proceed with the deportation, but we have a federal employee who followed the lead of George McClellan, U.S. Grant, and Willie T. Sherman: "just obeyed orders."
When you celebrate those who violated the Constitution, you get more violations of the Constitution.
Latest threads
-
-
-
Texas Hill Country flooding...- Started by TIDE-HSV
- Replies: 10
-
40th Anniversary Redux: The Rick Camp Game (Braves vs Mets)- Started by selmaborntidefan
- Replies: 7
-
-