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

[Juin]

Simple yes/no basic civics question.

I definetely do not see it as a basic yes/no question. That's too dangerous. The devil is always in the details. Judges rule on specifics and so must be examined only on each specific ruling, not on vague hypotheticals.

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.

Judges should not legislate from the bench either

 

[Juin]

What is happening under the Trump administration is not unconstitutional, it's a struggle between branches of government for jurisdiction and power. The government is operating exactly as was intended.

Agree, totally

 

[rahl]

That's yet to be seen.

It’s been shown repeatedly lol. It’s why he keeps having his ass handed to him in court. By judges on both sides of the political spectrum, including ones appointed by him.

 

[Ganondagan]

It's not. The judicial branch doesn't have power if the Executive decides to ignore its ruling and the Legislative decides it's okay with that. Constitutions are ideas in print. They have no force if actual living, breathing people decide they're not bound to those ideas.

The Executive branch has the sole power of enforcement

 

[rahl]

I definetely do not see it as a basic yes/no question. That's too dangerous. The devil is always in the details. Judges rule on specifics and so must be examined only on each specific ruling, not on vague hypotheticals.




Judges should not legislate from the bench either

There is no mechanism by which a judge can legislate.

 

[Ganondagan]

It’s been shown repeatedly lol. It’s why he keeps having his ass handed to him in court. By judges on both sides of the political spectrum, including ones appointed by him.

What, you think this is over? Not by a long shot.

 

[rahl]

What, you think this is over? Not by a long shot.

The completely unhinged and unamerican idea that Trump supporters have, that he can and should operate in an unconstitutional manner is mind blowing to watch. The actions he is taking are blatantly unconstitutional. Why do you support such anti American actions?

 

[CaughtInThe]

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Back in the 1940s and 50s, there were a number of court cases that pitted the federal government against states' rights. The feds lost most of these cases, based largely on the 10th amendment.

Starting in the early 60s, the feds changed their tactics. Instead of trying to flex federal power and getting shot down by the courts in the process, they decided to flood the states with federal money. Congressmen and senators were more than happy to go along with this because they could be seen as "bringing home the bacon." The states loved that federal money. It was like manna from heaven.

Of course, once the states started including federal funds in their budget projections, the feds started adding conditions on recieving those funds. Either comply with the federal rules or forego the funds. It has to be that way else the states would spend funds in all kinds of weird ways not intended by the feds and mandated by Congress. The states almost always caved and agreed to comply. One example: Texas currently recieves about $1.8 BILLION in DOE funds annually. Even a big state like Texas would feel the hurt if that much money goes away.

Another example: There is no constitutional authority to establish a federal maximum speed limit. Nevertheless, back the 70s, during the OPEC OIL embargo, when there was in effect a nationwide maximum speed limit of 55mph to reduce consumers' use of foreign oil. How did they accomplish this? Quite simple, really. The law passed by Congress tied compliance to federal highway funds. States had a choice: comply or forego the federal highway funds. There was, unsurprisingly, 100% compliance.

The Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act[16] was a bill in the U.S. Congress that included the National Maximum Speed Limit.[17] States had to agree to the limit if they desired to receive federal funding for highway repair. The uniform speed limit was signed into law by Nixon on January 2, 1974, and became effective 60 days later,[18] by requiring the limit as a condition of each state receiving highway funds, a use of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.[19]

The legislation required 55 mph (89 km/h) speed limits on all four-lane divided highways unless the road had a lower limit before November 1, 1973. In some cases, like the New York State Thruway, the 50 mph (80 km/h) speed limit had to be raised to comply with the law. The law capped speed limits at 55 mph (89 km/h) on all other roads.[18]

The point is, states have no one to blame but themselves if they are unhappy with the federal controls tied to federal funds.

The irony is the same people who lament conditions imposed by the feds for federal funds also cheer Trump's ham-fisted wielding of this power as he strips colleges and universities of research funds for failure to bow to him.

 

[multivita-man]

The Executive branch has the sole power of enforcement

Correct, and what is a nation that only selectively enforces the laws of its legislature and orders of its courts?

This is what I've recognized all along with the MAGA movement: it's not about constitutions, rule of law, protection against tyranny, or freedom of speech or gun rights. It's about having power and using it for their own perceived benefit. History would suggest that you don't have much that can be described as a republic at that point - if this continues to its conclusion.

 

[Mika-El]

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.

He does understand it-he does not care the same reason all Magas understand it and do not care.

 

[Cameron]

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

Thanks for your opinion, but this thread is not about nationwide injunctions.

 

[Hamish Howl]

The completely unhinged and unamerican idea that Trump supporters have, that he can and should operate in an unconstitutional manner is mind blowing to watch. The actions he is taking are blatantly unconstitutional. Why do you support such anti American actions?

MAGAs want a king.

 

[BirdinHand]

Yep, thus the number (and percentage) of ‘special needs’ students is on the rise. Could that be due to the federal (reward?) funds available for those ‘specially’ designated students

What a disgusting comment and post that demonstrates absolute ignorance.

Your post reflects that you posses have zero appreciation at all for how much parents have to FIGHT to get their kids accommodations and special education.

Schools don’t like to give students IEP and 504 plans. And often push back against students getting the services that they are entitled to because those services are expensive and schools are reticent to put in legal documents that they will provide them, because then they are held to doing such.

 

[Cameron]

Judges rule on specifics and so must be examined only on each specific ruling, not on vague hypotheticals.

Judges should not legislate from the bench either

Neither of these points prevents you from answering "yes, if what they voted for would violate the Constitution".

 

[BirdinHand]

What is happening under the Trump administration is not unconstitutional, it's a struggle between branches of government for jurisdiction and power. The government is operating exactly as was intended.

Only if you don’t have even a remedial understanding of the Constitution can one view things in this manner.

 

[Hamish Howl]

What a disgusting comment and post that demonstrates absolute ignorance.

Your post reflects that you posses have zero appreciation at all for how much parents have to FIGHT to get their kids accommodations and special education.

Schools don’t like to give students IEP and 504 plans. And often push back against students getting the services that they are entitled to because those services are expensive.

I have to ask what you expected.

 

[BirdinHand]

The Executive branch has the sole power of enforcement

Wrong.

 

[Deuce]

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)’.

Your position requires us to eliminate the USAF and I guess dismantle anything the military uses at the Federal level that is capable of flight.

 

[BirdinHand]

I have to ask what you expected.

The bar keeps dropping, that’s for sure.

When you think it’s reached the lowest level - they always find a way to go lower.

 

[Perotista]

Or maybe it was a homegrown version of the Constitution's system of checks & balances?

Since most if not all members of congress of the president’s party are more part of the administration than the institution of congress, they try to give the president of their party everything he wants to include more power. The only way to have any checks on the power of the presidency is divided government. But when a president rules via EO’s instead of governing by legislation, even divided government offers no checks on the presidency.

 

[Hamish Howl]

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)’.

Article 2, section 2:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

 

[The AntiDonald]

People need to be sufficiently alarmed at what people like Vance are saying, which is basically laying down the pretext for ignoring the courts.

We are already seeing the Chief Justice and others refute what idiot Vance is saying. My guess is the more he pushes his unitary executive theory, the more the judges will push back. Vance/Trump can't win. Public sentiment is already working against them.

Don't anyone think the Supreme Court of the U.S. will allow the presidency to take away their power. While we all have our own reasons for agreeing or disagreeing with the court's rulings, there is a reason they are called the Supreme Court.

Unless the conservative majority on this court has an agenda that aligns with Trump becoming a King/Dictator, they will keep him reigned in.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Vance is a moron, unsure why this statement of his is generating this sort of debate.

 

[multivita-man]

We are already seeing the Chief Justice and others refute what idiot Vance is saying. My guess is the more he pushes his unitary executive theory, the more the judges will push back. Vance/Trump can't win. Public sentiment is already working against them.

The problem is, he has two "justices" (fascists in robes) who seem to be completely on board with a unitary executive. I could totally see this administration pointing to them whenever they get a ruling they don't like and essentially saying, the minority is right and we're going to ignore the majority. They would argue, as they basically already have, that the majority are really a coalition of corrupt left-wing activists and obstructionists and establishment, globalist, never-Trump RINOs that are trying to interfere with the MAGA agenda and that the President has the right to carry the will of the people into effect, whatever the cost.