The time for dancing on the head of a pin is no more.

[berg80]

Article 2 of the Constitution.

That tells me nothing other than you are uneducated about the delineation of powers given to the 3 branches of government.

 

[berg80]

Disregarded by you alone.
Being awake the last 20 years should have been proof enough for you, but you want me to waste my time educating you to what you should already know.

Of the spin doctoring I've seen over not being able to substantiate your assertion that's one of the more lame efforts.

 

[mudwhistle]

I see you'd prefer not to reference your delusional, misinformed belief about the 2020 election. Cuz, that would prove my point about you.

The only reason we didn't have a repeat of the 2020 election is because we found out how they stole the election and made sure that Democrats couldn't pull it off again in 2024.
When the trucks filled with fake ballots showed up they weren't allowed to unload them. You didn't have COVID to help you shut down or exclude Republican observers from the counting areas. We made sure we were watching the machines to make sure that they weren't reprogrammed to switch Trump votes to Kamala.
They even tried counting votes they knew were illegal in Pennsylvania but were stopped.

 

[mudwhistle]

That tells me nothing other than you are uneducated about the delineation of powers given to the 3 branches of government.

Well maybe you need to go back and read about the powers of the presidency.

The separation of powers goes both ways. You claim the president can't tell the courts what to do, but then you try to claim that the courts can tell the president how to run the executive branch.

Uh-uh.....sorry.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Because he has no authority to do so. Were you sick the year they taught civics in your school?

Sure, he does. At least when it comes to executive actions. He is not only the final authority on those, but the ONLY authority:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 1:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Amazing how much you can learn about the Constitution by reading the Constitution, instead of watching the View.

You still haven't said what Democrats should do after they stop dancing on pins and whatnot.

 

[Independent thinker]

I see you'd prefer not to reference your delusional, misinformed belief about the 2020 election. Cuz, that would prove my point about you.

If you want to prove your point about me then prove I denied the 2020 election results. I double dog dare you. I've got thousands of posts on here over the years. Find one that says I deny the 2020 election results. Put up or shut up.

 

[berg80]

It's dictatorial, autocratic, illiberal, and authoritarian.

Here's part of the editorial I mentioned.

Most of us know what it means for something to be unconstitutional. An unconstitutional act is one that violates some aspect of the Constitution as understood by the courts, although the public and its representatives are also free to make claims about the constitutionality of one act or another.

But there are other ways to evaluate the actions of a government. You can ask a somewhat different question: not whether an action is constitutional, but whether it sits opposed to constitutionalism itself. You can ask, in other words, whether it is anti-constitutional.

The project of constitutionalism, the historian Henry Steele Commager wrote, is the project of “government under law, by law, through law, in conformity with law.” It is, to borrow from John Locke, “to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it.” And in the American political tradition, it is the central principle that “governments are not omnipotent” but of “only limited authority.”

Part of the conceptual basis of constitutionalism is a division between sovereignty and government. Sovereignty is the possession of supreme authority over the polity, and government is the instrument of that sovereignty. In an absolute monarchy or dictatorship, sovereignty belongs to the man or woman in charge, who commands the state in its entirety. In a constitutional system such as ours, sovereignty belongs to the people, who invest their authority in a set of rules and norms, a constitution, which binds and subordinates the government to their ultimate will.

This brings us back to the notion of anti-constitutionalism.

An anti-constitutional act is one that rejects the basic premises of constitutionalism. It rejects the premise that sovereignty lies with the people, that ours is a government of limited and enumerated powers and that the officers of that government are bound by law.

The new president has, in just the first two months of his second term, performed a number of illegal and unconstitutional acts. But the defining attribute of his administration thus far is its anti-constitutional orientation. Both of its most aggressive and far-reaching efforts — the impoundment of billions of dollars in congressionally authorized spending and the attempt to realize the president’s promise of mass deportation — rest on fundamentally anti-constitutional assertions of executive authority.

Opinion | Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional

Where all this goes is still up to us.

www.nytimes.com

 

[berg80]

Sure, he does. At least when it comes to executive actions. He is not only the final authority on those, but the ONLY authority:

Executive orders can be ruled to be unconstitutional.

Courts may strike down executive orders not only on the grounds that the president lacked authority to issue them but also in cases where the order is found to be unconstitutional in substance.

Judicial Review of Executive Orders | Federal Judicial Center

Includes landmark legislation, congressional committees, appropriations, administrative agencies, court officers and staff…

www.fjc.gov

You might want to try educating yourself before spewing nonsense........again.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Executive orders can be ruled to be unconstitutional.

Courts may strike down executive orders not only on the grounds that the president lacked authority to issue them but also in cases where the order is found to be unconstitutional in substance.

Judicial Review of Executive Orders | Federal Judicial Center

Includes landmark legislation, congressional committees, appropriations, administrative agencies, court officers and staff…

www.fjc.gov

You might want to try educating yourself before spewing nonsense.

From your link:

In the late 1930s, as the Supreme Court began to uphold New Deal economic regulations similar to those it had previously struck down, it also embraced a more deferential approach to executive action by adopting “rational basis” review. Under this standard, an executive order would survive a due process challenge if it was rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Unlike the reasonableness standard, rational basis review did not require the submission of evidence to establish valid grounds for an order. Instead, any rational basis for the order the court could imagine was sufficient.

Not even you are stupid enought to say that deporting members of a terrorist gang is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Since it is so patently obvious that Judge whats-his-name is stalling, and is severely conflicted on the issue, it makes sense for Trump to ignore his so-called "orders," when taking emergency measures for the safety of American citizens.

Hypothetically, if Judge Boasberg were arrested on corruption charges, would Trump still be obligated to follow orders he issues from his jail cell, or from the bench if he is bailed out?

Also, you never asnwered this about your OP: What are you recommending Democrats do, instead of dancing on pins as they are doing now? Because they sure need to so something.

 

[marvin martian]

You mean like those unelected judges that ruled a President is above the law?

Why does Trump only get outraged when cases go against him?

All judges in our country are unelected, dipshit.

 

[berg80]

From your link:

In the late 1930s, as the Supreme Court began to uphold New Deal economic regulations similar to those it had previously struck down, it also embraced a more deferential approach to executive action by adopting “rational basis” review. Under this standard, an executive order would survive a due process challenge if it was rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Unlike the reasonableness standard, rational basis review did not require the submission of evidence to establish valid grounds for an order. Instead, any rational basis for the order the court could imagine was sufficient.

Not even you are stupid enought to say that deporting members of a terrorist gang is not rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. Since it is so patently obvious that Judge whats-his-name is stalling, and is severely conflicted on the issue, it makes sense for Trump to ignore his so-called "orders," when taking emergency measures for the safety of American citizens.

Hypothetically, if Judge Boasberg were arrested on corruption charges, would Trump still be obligated to follow orders he issues from his jail cell, or from the bench if he is bailed out?

Also, you never asnwered this about your OP: What are you recommending Democrats do, instead of dancing on pins as they are doing now? Because they sure need to so something.

Is this your quote........ "At least when it comes to executive actions. He is not only the final authority on those, but the ONLY authority:"

The hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Is this your quote........ "At least when it comes to executive actions. He is not only the final authority on those, but the ONLY authority:"

The hole you are digging for yourself is getting deeper.

Yes, that is true.

How does that dig a hole?

When are you going to answer the question?

 

[marvin martian]

Executive orders can be ruled to be unconstitutional.

Courts may strike down executive orders not only on the grounds that the president lacked authority to issue them but also in cases where the order is found to be unconstitutional in substance.

Judicial Review of Executive Orders | Federal Judicial Center

Includes landmark legislation, congressional committees, appropriations, administrative agencies, court officers and staff…

www.fjc.gov

You might want to try educating yourself before spewing nonsense........again.

Like Joe Biden's illegal and unconstitutional attempt to shift student loan debt from the borrowers to the taxpayers.

 

[berg80]

Yes, that is true.

How does that dig a hole?

When are you going to answer the question?

"At least when it comes to executive actions. He is not only the final authority on those, but the ONLY authority:"

Courts may strike down executive orders not only on the grounds that the president lacked authority to issue them but also in cases where the order is found to be unconstitutional in substance.

Those statements are mutually exclusive. The first is your uninformed opinion. The second is fact. Now put down your shovel.

 

[sparky]

So the Dems, the party of lawfare, are now being investigated and are insisting it's all unconstitutional

Which is great entertainment........ ~S~

 

[Concerned American]

It's dictatorial, autocratic, illiberal, and authoritarian.

I agree, Joe Biden should have been impeached for his disregard of SCOTUS directives.

 

[berg80]

So the Dems, the party of lawfare

Horseshit. trump used lawfare to keep himself out of prison.

 

[sparky]

Horseshit. trump used lawfare to keep himself out of prison.

yeah well, now he's going to put those folks in prison Berg

~S~

 

[Seymour Flops]

"At least when it comes to executive actions. He is not only the final authority on those, but the ONLY authority:"

Courts may strike down executive orders not only on the grounds that the president lacked authority to issue them but also in cases where the order is found to be unconstitutional in substance.

Those statements are mutually exclusive. The first is your uninformed opinion. The second is fact. Now put down your shovel.

Yes, if the president went outside of executive authority, of course the courts would strike it down. As an example I've given many times, if a president issued an executive order to a judge telling him what jury instructions to read, I would hope that judge would laugh at that order. If a president issued an executive order to Congress telling them which Senators to assign to which committees, I would hape that list would be immediately round filed.

Deporting violent illegal aliens is square in the middle of executive authority, and cases involving senior officials of the executive branch must go straight to the Supreme Court as made very explicit in the Constitution: Article III, Section 2.

So, yeah.

Let me know when the USSC rules that Trump went outside of executive authority. Some obscure low-level judge literally telling the president to pause protecting the American people so that the judge can have "time to think," only makes me laugh.

 

[rightwinger]

Deporting violent illegal aliens is square in the middle of executive authority, and cases involving senior officials of the executive branch must go straight to the Supreme Court as made very explicit in the Constitution: Article III, Section 2.

The question is……How are they declared to be violent criminals?

Are they entitled to Due Process?