Time for SCOTUS to Reign In Lower Courts?

[AZrailwhale]

You really think that he's been faithfully executing the laws as passed by Congress as required by the Constitution.

Isn't that special.

WW

Considering that the agencies that he is cutting funding to don't have any legal right to even exist under the Constitutions, I'd say YES.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Considering that the agencies that he is cutting funding to don't have any legal right to even exist under the Constitutions, I'd say YES.

So when is he cutting the Air Force and Space Force?

They aren't mentioned.

WW

 

[80zephyr]

You really think that he's been faithfully executing the laws as passed by Congress as required by the Constitution.

Isn't that special.

WW

Which ones hasn't he executed?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Which ones hasn't he executed?

Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

A public resource tracking the legal challenges to the Trump administration's executive orders and actions.

www.justsecurity.org

This should be a start.

WW

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So when is he cutting the Air Force and Space Force?

They aren't mentioned.

WW

they fall under the military which is mentioned retard.

 

[WorldWatcher]

they fall under the military which is mentioned

The constitution says Army and Navy, doesn't say Air Force or Space Force.

Gunny, maybe you are thinking of Article I Section 8 that says "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

So if the Air Force can be made up under an interpretation of "common Defense" why would education not be providing for general Welfare of the country?

Or, maybe...

It's military I like, that bull will not be gored. Funding education for poor people, people with disabilities, and programs to help kids go to college - those are bad. Funding cancer research? Bad. Providing services to Vets so they can get care under the VA? Bad.

retard.

\No need to be insulting.

WW

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The constitution says Army and Navy, doesn't say Air Force or Space Force.

Gunny, maybe you are thinking of Article I Section 8 that says "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

So if the Air Force can be made up under an interpretation of "common Defense" why would education not be providing for general Welfare of the country?

Or, maybe...

It's military I like, that bull will not be gored. Funding education for poor people, people with disabilities, and programs to help kids go to college - those are bad. Funding cancer research? Bad. Providing services to Vets so they can get care under the VA? Bad.



\No need to be insulting.

WW

doesnt have to say a specific branch retard.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The constitution says Army and Navy, doesn't say Air Force or Space Force.

Gunny, maybe you are thinking of Article I Section 8 that says "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States."

So if the Air Force can be made up under an interpretation of "common Defense" why would education not be providing for general Welfare of the country?

Or, maybe...

It's military I like, that bull will not be gored. Funding education for poor people, people with disabilities, and programs to help kids go to college - those are bad. Funding cancer research? Bad. Providing services to Vets so they can get care under the VA? Bad.



\No need to be insulting.

WW

the function must be a power granted by the Constitution education is not a power granted.

 

[WorldWatcher]

doesnt have to say a specific branch

Fine. So provide for the general Welfare doesn't have to specify education.

Everyone understands that having an educated population promotes general welfare.

retard.

No need to be insulting.

WW

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Fine. So provide for the general Welfare doesn't have to specify education.

Everyone understands that having an educated population promotes general welfare.



No need to be insulting.

WW

that is not a granted power it is not meant as such if it were they would not have needed to list the specific powers granted as that would cover everything.

 

[WorldWatcher]

that is not a granted power it is not meant as such if it were they would not have needed to list the specific powers granted as that would cover everything.

The Air Force and Space Force aren't specifically mentioned.

If they can be "interpreted" into the Constitution because of "common Defense", then education can be interpreted in as "general Welfare" (no one can deny that it is a general benefit to have an educated population).

So it's one way or the other. Either everything not mentioned it cut, or you take the liberal interpretation of a living Constitution that you can read into it what you want. Such as reading in "Air Force" when it's not mentioned.

It's kind of hypocritical (as a general position, not you specifically) for some to say "well we can interpret common Defense" but "you (royal you) can't interpret general Welfare".

WW

 

[AZrailwhale]

So when is he cutting the Air Force and Space Force?

They aren't mentioned.

WW

Both come under the defense parts of the Constitution here is an abstract of the relevant section on Article One Section Eight: "...provide for the common Defence..."

 

[WorldWatcher]

Both come under the defense parts of the Constitution here is an abstract of the relevant section on Article One Section Eight: "...provide for the common Defence..."

Only through interpretation. They are not mentioned.

And education comes under general Welfare.

An educated population contributes to the general Welfare. No?

WW

 

[WorldWatcher]

Only through interpretation. They are not mentioned.

And education comes under general Welfare.

An educated population contributes to the general Welfare. No?

WW

See how this works?

If we get to interpret "Air Force" into defense. Then the LIBs (and thinking Republicans) can interpret "Education" into general welfare.

Consistency is a good thing.

WW

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Air Force and Space Force aren't specifically mentioned.

If they can be "interpreted" into the Constitution because of "common Defense", then education can be interpreted in as "general Welfare" (no one can deny that it is a general benefit to have an educated population).

So it's one way or the other. Either everything not mentioned it cut, or you take the liberal interpretation of a living Constitution that you can read into it what you want. Such as reading in "Air Force" when it's not mentioned.

It's kind of hypocritical (as a general position, not you specifically) for some to say "well we can interpret common Defense" but "you (royal you) can't interpret general Welfare".

WW

the sentence about general welfare is not a power again if it were they wouldn't have needed to list any powers as being granted to Congress that would cover everything.

 

[WorldWatcher]

the sentence about general welfare is not a power again if it were they wouldn't have needed to list any powers as being granted to Congress that would cover everything.

And they listed those entities involved with common defense in Section 8, they included the Army, the Navy, and calling up the State's Militias.

No mention of Air or Space Force.

I mean the idea of using the liberal tactic of interpretation the Constitution for things you like and wanting literal text for other things.

But it's a pretty hypocritical tactic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not dis'ing the Air Force, but then again education contributes to the general Welfare. Any thinking person knows this.

WW

 

[toobfreak]

The idea of lower court judges being able to issue injunctions against the United States seems to have reached its ultimate absurdity. Regardless of the merits of a particular case, these judges should not have the power to implement national policy, even for brief periods.

I think that injunctions of this kind should have to be approved by a higher court before they can be implemented. What say you?

As it stands, these lowly courts have usurped the power of the Supreme Court as an unelected, unconstitutional forth branch of the government. Indeed, as much power as the Supreme Court itself with power over the President that suddenly, now the Executive CIC of the Federal government now operates at /their/ pleasure.

Every one of these district judges needs to be heavily fined if not barred from practicing law.

 

[80zephyr]

Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions

A public resource tracking the legal challenges to the Trump administration's executive orders and actions.

www.justsecurity.org

This should be a start.

WW

As president, doesn't he have a right to have his case make its way thru the courts?

 

[WorldWatcher]

As president, doesn't he have a right to have his case make its way thru the courts?

You asked for examples of where he broke the law.

I provided a list of litigation that is currently on going claiming things he did that where illegal.

Where did I say he didn't get to appeal any of the rulings?

WW

 

[80zephyr]

You asked for examples of where he broke the law.

I provided a list of litigation that is currently on going claiming things he did that where illegal.

Where did I say he didn't get to appeal any of the rulings?

WW

Appealing the ruling is not breaking the law.