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

[BirdinHand]

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

Vance is a bought for, paid and groomed mouth piece designed to serve a very specific purpose.

Not even his name is genuine

 

[devildavid]

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 Bill of Rights: What Does it Say?

Español Accordion [accordion classes="" id="59774" expand_first="true"][/accordion] Back to Main Page How Did it Happen?

www.archives.gov

It doesn’t mean that a department had to be specifically listed in the constitution for congress to exercise its power to create one, which in you seem to imply. Congress has the right to create federal government departments are. What those departments can do is then limited by the constitution, not Congress’ authority to create them

There is nothing in the tenth amendment that says something must be explicitly listed in the constitution at all. It is about the powers that the federal government has vs what the states have. They have the authority to create federal departments. They have the authority to create federal laws that apply to all states. Nothing about this violates the 10th Amendment. They have the authority to impose federal taxation to all states.

So in essence the 10th Amendment doesn’t imply what you say it does. It says nothing has to be explicitly spelled out in the constitution at all. It is a general rule to use as a guide.

 

[Mika-El]

The role of the executive as well as the role of the judiciary is codified in the constitution. Judge shopped district judges are usurping presidential responsibility. That the last president ignored that responsibility doesn't require that the current one does as well.

Your comments make no sense.

Your first sentence: "The role of the executive as well as the role of the judiciary is codified in the constitution."

The constitution defines the roles of the three branches of US government: i- President, ii=the elected chambers (Senate, House of Representatives);and iii-Judiciary,

It is exactly for that reason the President can not unilaterally impose laws by Executive Order. If that was the case there would be no need for a Judiciary or elected chambers and all laws would simply be decided by Presidents at their unilateral prerogative during their 5 year term.

That is what you support from what I read-this unilateral declaration and imposition of decrees by Trump with noa accountability to anyone else.

In fact where as it is as you say "codified" in the constutiton, the right to seek legal judgement and ruling on a law or unilateral declaration of the President, and the court declares that declaration illegal fundamental rules of justice apply and that is to say no President can ignore the court ruling. You can not break the law to impose a Presidential decree.

The problem is though its difficult for a court alone to enforce their judgement, The reality is they can hold the President in contempt and could fine or put the President in jail for contempt but we have never had that happen before. Never in the history of the US until Trump did you Americans choose to elect a convicted felon with a history of repeatedly breaking the law.

In fact those of you Magas who voted him in, believe he should break the law and engage in the very corruption, behaviour he accuses others of. You believe he should not be questioned for a continuing display of constant lying, fabrications and paranoid delusional accusations all being exposedas quickly as he presents them.

You Magas clearly do not care about what the principle is called the fundamental rule of justice so you keep repeating that Trump can break any law he wants including violating the constitution because he was elected. So you repeat the above and then contradict it like the above person does thinking the constitution or some other mysterious code allows the President to ignore court rulings or the constitution.

You then stated in your second sentence: "Judge shopped district judges are usurping presidential responsibility."

The term "Judge shopped" makes no legal sense. Judges at the lower levels are elected. Their decisions can be appealed to higher courts of also elected Judges. There is no Judge shopping and at each level the basis for appeal is based not on Judge shopping but the rules of law. At the final level of court appeal. The Supreme Court of the US which has decided decisions unanimously to state Trump's decrees have veen illegal, the very Judges were picked by TRUMP and not elected so your comments are past moronic.


Finally in your third sentence you stated: "That the last president ignored that responsibility doesn't require that the current one does as well."

Please explain what court rulings Joe Biden during his Presidency defied. Please state the court decisions he defied with examples. You will not because he never has. In fact when reading your last sentence what you are trying to argue is that since Biden broke laws, Trump can. If Biden broke laws, which he did not, that does not make Trump breaking laws acceptable-you engage in an imbecilic argument that two wrongs make a right or what is called as well an "what about ism". Breaking a law does not justfy breaking the law. I appreciate in your case you think ICE should break laws to enforce them using that kind of reasoning.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

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?

The Number of Students in Special Education Has Doubled in the Past 45 Years

The number of students in special education in the U.S. has doubled, from 3.6 million in 1976-77 to almost 7.3 million in 2021-22.

www.edweek.org

In other words, who is this Ed kid, and what makes him so special?

Seriously, you're lamenting trying to help out kids with learning disabilities?

I bet the ADA law, which mandated that crosswalks be made wheelchair accessible and vision-impaired friendly must have pissed you off big time.

 

[AZRWinger]

Except that Presidential EOs that violate the US Constitution are not state alone issues.

The issue isn't the scope of Presidential EOs, it's the scope of Federal DISTRICT judge's power. What do you suppose district means? Texas is not in the DC district but that didn't stop King Boasberg of the DC circuit from ruling on the case of 5 plaintiffs in Texas and certifying a class which gave him authority to issue nationwide decrees.

And federal district judges do take an oath to uphold the US Constitution and the laws of the US.

That's right. But the Constitution specifies there will be a SCOTUS and inferior courts. The SCOTUS being the court of final appeal has national jurisdiction. The inferior, district, courts do not. But hey, give a petty tyrant like King Boasberg the option of deciding their own powers, it's no surprise they expand their royal imperium.

 

[southwest88]

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.

EOs are a poor replacement for legislation. Which is why the Judiciary is mostly shooting down attempts to rule by EO. Plus EOs are temporary - get a different president/administration - even if of the same political party - & the EOs are subject to withdrawal, cancellation, or even 180-degree reversal.

 

[BirdinHand]

The issue isn't the scope of Presidential EOs, it's the scope of Federal DISTRICT judge's power

Explain how your rationalize EOs that have federal reach in every district but want district courts to only apply to a single jurisdiction.

Federal law and EOs = apply everywhere.

Rulings regarding those apply everywhere.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

The issue isn't the scope of Presidential EOs, it's the scope of Federal DISTRICT judge's power. What do you suppose district means? Texas is not in the DC district but that didn't stop King Boasberg of the DC circuit from ruling on the case of 5 plaintiffs in Texas and certifying a class which gave him authority to issue nationwide decrees.

That's right. But the Constitution specifies there will be a SCOTUS and inferior courts. The SCOTUS being the court of final appeal has national jurisdiction. The inferior, district, courts do not. But hey, give a petty tyrant like King Boasberg the option of deciding their own powers, it's no surprise they expand their royal imperium.

Where have I heard this before? "TAKE IT UP ON APPEAL!" If lack of jurisdiction is a legit issue, then that will be addressed by a higher court.

The fact is, a federal district court ruling IS THE APPLICABLE RULING NATIONWIDE until it is reversed by a higher court. And many times, the higher courts will even refuse to grant an appeal because the appeal fails to raise a constitutional question overlooked by the lower court.

Appelate courts are not triars of facts. They rule on constitutional issues only. "We don't like the court's decision" is not a constitutional issue.

 

[Captain America]

Hmmm...

Our state recently did a statewide referendum regarding the recreational use of marijuana and it passed by a significantly large margin. It's what the people wanted. Seems to be the same thing regarding abortion rights here. Yet, our republican lawmakers refuse to give the people what they want. So, the Magatard premise of, "tell the American people they’re not allowed to have what they voted for" falls on deaf ears around here because the republicans are famous for just that. How convenient they would suddenly come to that conclusion now. Yawn......

 

[Nickyjo]

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 Tenth Amendment has been ignored for many years, “honored more in the breach” than in observance, as Shakespeare put it. I am unaware if those upset with this have sued to stop things. (Does anyone know?) And there have been strict constructionists and loose ones since the Founders. But the bottom line for legislators as you suggest are the funds for desired programs, protecting students with disabilities, for example. Analogy: think of all the undeclared presidential wars that seemed to have violated Congress’s excluypower plainly stated in the Constitution.

 

[Mika-El]

The issue isn't the scope of Presidential EOs, it's the scope of Federal DISTRICT judge's power. What do you suppose district means?

You are absolutely wrong and show you have no clue how your laws or judicial system work. Using your reasoning District Courts have no "jurisdiction" to be the starting court to rule on the subject matter they did. If they did not then another court would exist at the initial stage.

Using your reasoning, there is no initial court that starts a judicial review process of a Presidential decree or action and they never happen. This is of course false.

The law is very clear the District court absolutely has jurisdiction or legal power to make the initial ruling and then and only then after that ruling could it then be considered for further appeal to higher courts.

District as a term does not determine the scope of legal jurisdiction (subject matter) a District court has to consider initial legal reviews of Presidential decrees or other legal matters as you suggest it does.

Instead of coming on this board and displaying your complete lack of ignorance as to what the jurisdiction of a specific court is like the District Court you make an effort to find out what it is.

Again as a Canadian what should I assume that: 1-you really are that ignorant of your own country's legal system; or 2-you are a Russian spammer?

Go on you made an assertion prove it. Produce the wording that says District Courts have no jurisdiction to consider at the first level of consideration Presidential decrees. Please share with us all. You make assertions of law, start first by proving they exist and no do not tell me to baby sit you and prove you wrong.

You won't.

Let us all be clear. It is ABSOLUTELY true that in specific cases higher courts have overruled lower district courts and you can actually keep track here:

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

Sometime sin specific situations a higher court rules there was no jurisdiction in the lower court. It does not mean they had no jurisdiction to consider the issue before them. Its used a second way to mean they had no jurisdiction (power) to order an INJUNCTION or other kind of remedy.

You can see up above on the tracker, if District Courts had NO jurisdiction to consider any Presidential decree many decisions finding Trump to have acted illegally would not have been ruled on and are now in force.

It is true on the other hand that in specific subject matters, asking for an injunction may not be allowed.

What this article tries to explain is the above person's assertion District courts have no jurisdiction is not true. What varies is what kinds of measures a court can award if it finds what the President does illegal.

Judges Keep Calling Trump’s Actions Illegal, but Undoing Them Is Hard

Courts are serving as a rare check on President Trump, but judicial orders to unwind his actions can be easier said than done.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Athanasius68]

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?

Jurisdiction. A federal district judge in New York does not have jurisdiction over activities occurring Idaho.

 

[Mika-El]

Where have I heard this before? "TAKE IT UP ON APPEAL!" If lack of jurisdiction is a legit issue, then that will be addressed by a higher court.

The fact is, a federal district court ruling IS THE APPLICABLE RULING NATIONWIDE until it is reversed by a higher court. And many times, the higher courts will even refuse to grant an appeal because the appeal fails to raise a constitutional question overlooked by the lower court.

Appelate courts are not triars of facts. They rule on constitutional issues only. "We don't like the court's decision" is not a constitutional issue.

Absolutely correct and I tried to further clarify what you said. Your cricual clarification thank you which I forgot to say is that higher coyrts do NOT consider facts, they consider how to apply rules of law or how to apply constitutional wording or statutory wording. Thank you,

 

[ttwtt78640]

Article 2, section 2:


View attachment 67571411

That says nothing about education being a federal government power.

 

[Mika-El]

Jurisdiction. A federal district judge in New York does not have jurisdiction over activities occurring Idaho.

As a general rule no but under certain exceptions and under certain laws yes. A federal Distruct Judge has jurisdiction over actions that transpired in both Idaho and New York that are inter-related and are not part of a state specific law. It is not as clear cut as you state. There can be overlap allowing the above.

 

[Athanasius68]

Explain how your rationalize EOs that have federal reach in every district but want district courts to only apply to a single jurisdiction.

Federal law and EOs = apply everywhere.

Rulings regarding those apply everywhere.

An EO is nothing more than a directive from the president to his subordinates in the Executive branch how that branch will interpret and carry forth existing. That's why they tend to include a phrase such as 'within existing law.'

 

[BirdinHand]

Jurisdiction. A federal district judge in New York does not have jurisdiction over activities occurring Idaho.

Have Trump’s EOs been multi district/federal or have they only applied to DC?

 

[Athanasius68]

As a general rule no but under certain exceptions and under certain laws yes. A federal Distruct Judge has jurisdiction over actions that transpired in both Idaho and New York that are inter-related and are not part of a state specific law. It is not as clear cut as you state. There can be overlap allowing the above.

Until a decision is rendered as to which district controls- NY or Idaho.

 

[BirdinHand]

That says nothing about education being a federal government power.

The federal government doesn’t control education and neither does the federal department of education.

Never has.

 

[Athanasius68]

Have Trump’s EOs been multi district/federal or have they only applied to DC?

Federal of course.

 

[Mika-El]

That says nothing about education being a federal government power.

Stop please and go do your research. Educational issues can be both federal and state law jurisdiction or exclusive state level law or federal level law. The statute itself will state it and in the event of ambuguity decisions of said whichever level will pay for something can determine jurisdiction

If you actually read both the applicable federal and state laws you think you understand there is no overlap or issue as to the fact the federal Department of Education exists and the federal elected chambers can pass specific education laws.

 

[ttwtt78640]

In other words, who is this Ed kid, and what makes him so special?

Seriously, you're lamenting trying to help out kids with learning disabilities?

I bet the ADA law, which mandated that crosswalks be made wheelchair accessible and vision-impaired friendly must have pissed you off big time.

Does the federal government fund those ADA compliant construction projects?

 

[BirdinHand]

An EO is nothing more than a directive from the president to his subordinates in the Executive branch how that branch will interpret and carry forth existing. That's why they tend to include a phrase such as 'within existing law.'

What laws?

Federal.

Do federal laws apply across the entire US?

 

[Mika-El]

The federal government doesn’t control education and neither does the federal department of education.

Never has.

They might indirectly by threatening to cut off funding but to be clear, its at the state level, currioculum content is defined which I do believe is your point, correct me if I am wrong thanks.

 

[Mika-El]

Until a decision is rendered as to which district controls- NY or Idaho.

Yes that too!