• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

(Poll) JD Vance: judges cannot "tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for"

Can judges "tell the American people they're not allowed to have what they voted for"


  • Total voters
    88

Cameron

Politically Correct
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 26, 2010
Messages
8,194
Reaction score
10,060
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
Simple yes/no basic civics question.

A basic premise of the Constitution is that there are some things the government cannot do even with the support of a majority of voters. The VP swore an oath to uphold the constitutional rights of all people, which are superior to any legislation or executive action. Judges have final authority to interpret the Constitution. It is disturbing he does not understand this.
 
If voters want something that is antithesis of the Constitution - then amend the Constitution by following the process designed to do such.

You don’t get to simply disregard it.
 
In a presidential election, you are voting for a person, not directly for specific laws or policies. While presidential candidates campaign on certain platforms, their election does not make those policies law.

Once in office, the president must work within the limits of the Constitution and existing laws. To enact most policies, the president needs the cooperation of Congress, which has the authority to pass legislation. Presidents can issue executive orders, but these are limited in scope and cannot override existing laws or create new ones without congressional approval.

So, voting for a president is about choosing a leader and a general direction for the country—not directly deciding which policies become law.
 
Plaintiffs can join in a class action if they feel wronged. District judges are operating out of their constitutional lane when they order nationwide injunctions. It is not sustainable to require unanimous consent from 674 or so appointed judges for every decision
 
People need to be sufficiently alarmed at what people like Vance are saying, which is basically laying down the pretext for ignoring the courts.
 
If voters want something that is antithesis of the Constitution - then amend the Constitution by following the process designed to do such.

You don’t get to simply disregard it.

I generally agree with you, but that should equally apply to (unconstitutional) acts of congress. We have reached the point such that whatever congress deems to be ‘important’ automagically becomes a (new) federal government power, despite the 10A’s explicit limitation of federal government powers. For example, education clearly isn’t a constitutional federal government power, yet congress created a cabinet level federal Department of Education and allocates billions to fund its (congressionally defined) ‘mission(s)’.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AJG
So, what if the Dems decided to hold a referendum on banning guns and won?

Can they claim a referendum win overrides the constitution and the courts can't do anything about it?
 
So, what if the Dems decided to hold a referendum on banning guns and won?

Can they claim a referendum win overrides the constitution and the courts can't do anything about it?

Sure, since no right is absolute. ;)

Of course, some federal judge might decide the 2A and/or 5A prevents that and issue a nationwide injunction delaying the (declared) gun ban’s enforcement.
 
Trump won the 2024 election by 1.5% of the votes cast. Not even remotely close to a mandate.

And no electoral victory provides license to violate the Constitution and ignore the rulings of federal judges.
 
Sure, since no right is absolute. ;)

Of course, some federal judge might decide the 2A and/or 5A prevents that and issue a nationwide injunction delaying the (declared) gun ban’s enforcement.

But surely the judges can't do anything but follow the people and the people will have spoken?
 
Voted "yes" because this is a fairly obvious one. The general idea is we vote for people who represent their constituents and their interests, and then seek to implement those interests via legislation and within existing laws. If there is a desire to change existing law then there is a process for that too. Judges are supposed to be the check and balance to the legislature and executive to ensure what's done is within the letter of the law. Otherwise, what are we doing here?
 
Plaintiffs can join in a class action if they feel wronged. District judges are operating out of their constitutional lane when they order nationwide injunctions. It is not sustainable to require unanimous consent from 674 or so appointed judges for every decision
Except that Presidential EOs that violate the US Constitution are not state alone issues.
And federal district judges do take an oath to uphold the US Constitution and the laws of the US.
 
Plaintiffs can join in a class action if they feel wronged. District judges are operating out of their constitutional lane when they order nationwide injunctions. It is not sustainable to require unanimous consent from 674 or so appointed judges for every decision
Federal laws apply nationally, not jurisdictionally.

I don’t understand this argument that an injunction regarding a federal EO or a federal law should only apply to a district.

I truly don’t.

Care to explain how that works?
 
Once in office, the president must work within the limits of the Constitution and existing laws.
/thread

'lil JD is arguing that winning an election means Daddy Donald can circumvent the Constitution.

It's amazing that not terribly long ago he called Donald "America's Hitler." And then like so many other "conservatives" JD turned his brains and balls over to Daddy for scraps from his table.
 
Mini-me Vance kisses Dr. Evil Trump’s ass on a daily basis. It is disgusting how debased Republicans have become in their sycophantic worship of major asshole Trump. They are no different than the cult voters who idiotically put the jerk in office. They all grovel at his feet and act like he represents what America is. Trump is the incarnation of the Ugly American. He represents the worst of us. Anyone who worships him is anti-American. I will never vote for a Republican for federal office for the rest of my life.
 
I generally agree with you, but that should equally apply to (unconstitutional) acts of congress. We have reached the point such that whatever congress deems to be ‘important’ automagically becomes a (new) federal government power, despite the 10A’s explicit limitation of federal government powers. For example, education clearly isn’t a constitutional federal government power, yet congress created a cabinet level federal Department of Education and allocates billions to fund its (congressionally defined) ‘mission(s)’.

Federal departments created by Congress are not unconstitutional. They have the constitutional authority to do this. It doesn’t have to be explicitly listed in the constitution.
 
I generally agree with you, but that should equally apply to (unconstitutional) acts of congress. We have reached the point such that whatever congress deems to be ‘important’ automagically becomes a (new) federal government power, despite the 10A’s explicit limitation of federal government powers. For example, education clearly isn’t a constitutional federal government power, yet congress created a cabinet level federal Department of Education and allocates billions to fund its (congressionally defined) ‘mission(s)’.
And when states don’t enforce the Constitution, federal agencies grow to check and make sure that they do 🤷‍♀️

The department of education came into existence because of discrimination being perpetrated by the states. And because states were not offering equal access to education.

The federal government has grown because of inequality among states and - as we are witnessing - that inequality grows when the federal government isn’t involved.

I have more bodily autonomy in NJ than a woman in TX does since the fall of Roe 🤷‍♀️.

Now, with the dismantling of the Dept of Ed - a disabled student in a public school in NJ is going to have more recourse in NJ than they currently have in TX, because state laws in NJ are stronger - so is state funding.

The dismantling of the dept of education has resulted in thousands of case files that will likely sit for months - if not longer - without being reviewed at a federal level.

At least here in NJ, state petitions are being heard. I can’t speak for what’s happening elsewhere. But we know the federal complaints are completely backlogged at this juncture because the firings within the dept of education have made it impossible for the remaining staff to get through the complaints in a timely fashion.
 
I generally agree with you, but that should equally apply to (unconstitutional) acts of congress. We have reached the point such that whatever congress deems to be ‘important’ automagically becomes a (new) federal government power, despite the 10A’s explicit limitation of federal government powers. For example, education clearly isn’t a constitutional federal government power, yet congress created a cabinet level federal Department of Education and allocates billions to fund its (congressionally defined) ‘mission(s)’.
The U.S. Constitution vests the power to create laws in the Congress, not the President,. This power is specifically mentioned in Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution. The Congress is responsible for enacting laws that are necessary to carry out the powers granted to the federal government, including the power to raise revenue, declare war, and organize the executive and judicial branches.
 
But surely the judges can't do anything but follow the people and the people will have spoken?
The US is a republic, not a pure democracy, like say the city-state of Athens. The US Constitution forms the basis for government (& guarantees rights & responsibilities), including the system of checks & balances that keeps power decentralized. The political processes allow for change, but they're evolutionary, not revolutionary.
 
Simple yes/no basic civics question.

A basic premise of the Constitution is that there are some things the government cannot do even with the support of a majority of voters. The VP swore an oath to uphold the constitutional rights of all people, which are superior to any legislation or executive action. Judges have final authority to interpret the Constitution. It is disturbing he does not understand this.
What did the American people vote for last year? Perhaps it might be more accurate to say what did the American people vote against. They voted for Trump to fix rising prices, inflation, the number one issue last year when it came for folks deciding who to vote for. Trump hasn’t addressed this issue yet. Number two on the list was immigration, at least Trump and company have addressed this issue and are doing something about it. But last years election was more a vote against how Biden and company governed than a vote for Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-results/general/president/0

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/approval-rating

Trump just happened to be the alternative and in our two-party system, the only viable alternative. Yet with 57% of all Americans thinking Biden and company had done a very poor job of governing, the percentage of all Americans who disapproved of the Biden administration overall job performance, Trump barely won, managing to defeat Harris by a mere 1.5 points, 49.8% to 48.5%. The republicans also lost two house seats last year, the Americans people voted more for the democrats in the house than republicans. So, what exactly did Americans vote for? That seems a mixed message, voting barely republican for president and voting barely for the democrats in the nationwide house elections. The American people really didn’t vote for anyone or anything. Perhaps they didn’t know what they wanted?
 
Federal departments created by Congress are not unconstitutional. They have the constitutional authority to do this. It doesn’t have to be explicitly listed in the constitution.

What, if anything, does the 10A mean to you?

The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defines the relationship between the federal government and state governments, stating that any powers not specifically granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people. In essence, it clarifies that the federal government's power is limited to what the Constitution explicitly grants it.
The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn’t listed, it belongs to the states or to the people.

 
What did the American people vote for last year? Perhaps it might be more accurate to say what did the American people vote against. They voted for Trump to fix rising prices, inflation, the number one issue last year when it came for folks deciding who to vote for. Trump hasn’t addressed this issue yet. Number two on the list was immigration, at least Trump and company have addressed this issue and are doing something about it. But last years election was more a vote against how Biden and company governed than a vote for Trump.

https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/exit-polls/national-results/general/president/0

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/joe-biden/approval-rating

Trump just happened to be the alternative and in our two-party system, the only viable alternative. Yet with 57% of all Americans thinking Biden and company had done a very poor job of governing, the percentage of all Americans who disapproved of the Biden administration overall job performance, Trump barely won, managing to defeat Harris by a mere 1.5 points, 49.8% to 48.5%. The republicans also lost two house seats last year, the Americans people voted more for the democrats in the house than republicans. So, what exactly did Americans vote for? That seems a mixed message, voting barely republican for president and voting barely for the democrats in the nationwide house elections. The American people really didn’t vote for anyone or anything. Perhaps they didn’t know what they wanted?
Or maybe it was a homegrown version of the Constitution's system of checks & balances?
 
Back
Top Bottom