The coming constitutional crisis (1 Viewer)

[Nuber]

There is much debate concerning whether trump would ignore a Supreme Court ruling he dislikes.
Donald wants to be and frankly thinks himself king.
I I think there is little doubt this test of our system is coming,
Trump is like that rotten kid who will continue to do terrible things until someone stops him.

What happens when our criminal in chief decides to defy the judicial branch?

“Alexander Hamilton saw it coming. In the Federalist Papers, he described the judiciary as a feeble branch of government, easily “overpowered, awed or influenced” by Congress and the president. Lacking the means to enforce their rulings, judges, he wrote, would need an “uncommon portion of fortitude.”

Opinion | John Roberts Is on a Collision Course With Trump

Besieged on all sides, the chief justice faces his greatest test yet.

www.nytimes.com

"It has long however been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from it’s expression, (altho’ I do not chuse to put it into a newspaper, nor, like a Priam in armour, offer myself it’s champion) that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day & a little tomorrow, and advancing it’s noiseless step, like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states, & the government of all be consolidated into one. to this I am opposed; because whenev[er] all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

Thomas Jefferson said this in a letter to Charles Hammond in 1821 about the ability of the judiciary to greatly influence not only the sphere of government that is rightfully theirs (the judiciary), but also their ability to influence the legislative sphere over time.

The Judiciary is not the end all, be all, definitive answer as to what is valid policy. Jefferson warned us of the long term ramifications of this kind of thinking: that the judiciary is the final statement on law. Trump is pushing back on that concept, and the act of pushing back is not unconstitutional. It a dance commonly referred to as the balance of power.

Lincoln famously ignored the courts - so such things are not unprecedented.

 

[Craig234]

I raised this here:

Perhaps the last guardrail for democracy for trump to kill

trump has near total power, and he is ignoring the law when he likes. He has the presidency, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court, and is in the process of destroying the government and replacing it with lackeys, as well as his stable of the country's wealthiest people covering the private...

debatepolitics.com

 

[bongsaway]

And..
Another totally useless post by Margo.
And another totally useless post by Margo.
And another totally useless post by Margo.

Number 9
Number 9
Number 9
(Obscure Beatles reference)

Revolution #9, it's not that obscure.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Revolution #9, it's not that obscure.

Not at my age

 

[bongsaway]

"It has long however been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from it’s expression, (altho’ I do not chuse to put it into a newspaper, nor, like a Priam in armour, offer myself it’s champion) that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day & a little tomorrow, and advancing it’s noiseless step, like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states, & the government of all be consolidated into one. to this I am opposed; because whenev[er] all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

Thomas Jefferson said this in a letter to Charles Hammond in 1821 about the ability of the judiciary to greatly influence not only the sphere of government that is rightfully theirs (the judiciary), but also their ability to influence the legislative sphere over time.

The Judiciary is not the end all, be all, definitive answer as to what is valid policy. Jefferson warned us of the long term ramifications of this kind of thinking: that the judiciary is the final statement on law. Trump is pushing back on that concept, and the act of pushing back is not unconstitutional. It a dance commonly referred to as the balance of power.

Lincoln famously ignored the courts - so such things are not unprecedented.

Yeah, the supreme court in their infinite wisdom thought slavery wasn't illegal.

 

[bongsaway]

Not at my age

Lol, it is mine. I was around when the Beatles became famous, it change my music choices forever.

 

[Spock]

Suddenly, our friends on the left are concerned about what the Constitution actually says.

Even brain-dead conservatives should be concerned with the Trump-Musk presidency.

 

[Spock]

"It has long however been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from it’s expression, (altho’ I do not chuse to put it into a newspaper, nor, like a Priam in armour, offer myself it’s champion) that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body, (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little to-day & a little tomorrow, and advancing it’s noiseless step, like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states, & the government of all be consolidated into one. to this I am opposed; because whenev[er] all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."

Thomas Jefferson said this in a letter to Charles Hammond in 1821 about the ability of the judiciary to greatly influence not only the sphere of government that is rightfully theirs (the judiciary), but also their ability to influence the legislative sphere over time.

The Judiciary is not the end all, be all, definitive answer as to what is valid policy. Jefferson warned us of the long term ramifications of this kind of thinking: that the judiciary is the final statement on law. Trump is pushing back on that concept, and the act of pushing back is not unconstitutional. It a dance commonly referred to as the balance of power.

Lincoln famously ignored the courts - so such things are not unprecedented.

Do you equate a time of civil war with the current national condition?

 

[Helix]

Um, it's already here.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Lol, it is mine. I was around when the Beatles became famous, it change my music choices forever.

What i meant was, as old as iam, it's not obscure.

 

[Crakhobarbie]

Even brain-dead conservatives should be concerned with the Trump-Musk presidency.

I'm fairly certain that donald could be sodomizing their Grandma uninvited, they'd still be vying for a selfie with him.

 

[phoenix2020]

I am a Trump voter and I do not have sex with my child.

Uh… congratulations I guess?

 

[Athanasius68]

There is much debate concerning whether trump would ignore a Supreme Court ruling he dislikes.
Donald wants to be and frankly thinks himself king.
I I think there is little doubt this test of our system is coming,
Trump is like that rotten kid who will continue to do terrible things until someone stops him.

What happens when our criminal in chief decides to defy the judicial branch?

“Alexander Hamilton saw it coming. In the Federalist Papers, he described the judiciary as a feeble branch of government, easily “overpowered, awed or influenced” by Congress and the president. Lacking the means to enforce their rulings, judges, he wrote, would need an “uncommon portion of fortitude.”

Opinion | John Roberts Is on a Collision Course With Trump

Besieged on all sides, the chief justice faces his greatest test yet.

www.nytimes.com

Well, President Trump has yelled and moaned a bit about rulings that have- initially-- not gone in his favor.
But he has obeyed them.

The better speculation would seem to be whether the Judiciary, by its overreach, will cause a constitutional crisis.
Thus far, that facts suggest that is a more valid concern.

Judge Engelmeyer wrote his TRO to keep DOGE from examining the payment system run by the Treasury Dept. The problem was that it was written in such a way as to prohibit the Sec of Treasury from examining those systems. The Trump admin appealed, and the appeals court recognized the unlawful intrusion into the constitutional powers of the Executive and had the TRO revised.

Remember-- its a balance of power, separation of power, checks and balances. None of the branches-- including the Judiciary-- is all powerful.

 

[BabaVoss]

Well, President Trump has yelled and moaned a bit about rulings that have- initially-- not gone in his favor.
But he has obeyed them.

So far. What if he doesn't?

The better speculation would seem to be whether the Judiciary, by its overreach, will cause a constitutional crisis.
Thus far, that facts suggest that is a more valid concern.

Who decides if a court has "overreached"?

 

[Athanasius68]

So far. What if he doesn't?


Who decides if a court has "overreached"?

A president is the executive and executive power is vested in him.
So a court which blocks a president from exercising his lawful authority does present a constitutional problem. The judiciary isn't all powerful, nor are they always correct.

 

[BabaVoss]

A president is the executive and executive power is vested in him.

Yes. But not judicial power. The theory of unitary executive authority has never been ruled on by the courts.

So a court which blocks a president from exercising his lawful authority does present a constitutional problem. The judiciary isn't all powerful, nor are they always correct.

True of all three co-equal branches

 

[Nuber]

Yeah, the supreme court in their infinite wisdom thought slavery wasn't illegal.

So, you entirely missed my point. Check out this for the second time.

"The Judiciary is not the end all, be all, definitive answer as to what is valid policy."

 

[Nuber]

Do you equate a time of civil war with the current national condition?

Equate - no. Attempt to learn from the past to avoid mistakes in future - yes. Please see posts 42.

You might be missing my main point - the judiciary is not the final and only decider of public policy. We have co-equal branches of government. The judiciary can and should be corrected by the other branches of government.

 

[bongsaway]

So, you entirely missed my point. Check out this for the second time.

"The Judiciary is not the end all, be all, definitive answer as to what is valid policy."

No shit, scotus changes its mind like the weather when controlled by the GOP.

 

[Spock]

Equate - no. Attempt to learn from the past to avoid mistakes in future - yes. Please see posts 42.

You might be missing my main point - the judiciary is not the final and only decider of public policy. We have co-equal branches of government. The judiciary can and should be corrected by the other branches of government.

How does that "correction" work, exactly?

 

[BitterPill]

Suddenly, our friends on the left are concerned about what the Constitution actually says.

That's the beauty.

We in the MAGAsphere couldn't care less about the obsolete Constitution, but lib-progs, RINOs and wayward Libertarians sure do.

Our enemies are weak.

MAGA.

 

[Rexedgar]

Are we there yet?

 

[Nuber]

No shit, scotus changes its mind like the weather when controlled by the GOP.

Regardless of how much fecal matter you throw at the issue, it is not a single party problem.

 

[Nuber]

How does that "correction" work, exactly?

It often doesn't. So when some people see it, they question it.

There is also the issue of perspective. If one likes the ruling of SCOTUS, and POTUS issues contrary directives - a "constitutional crisis" emerges. I suggest no such thing exists as each branch of government is constantly trying to exert their authority on the issues of the day.

I am getting the sense that you are looking for a more detailed response, so here are some things to search for in your favorite search engine -

• co-equal branches of government
• judicial activism
• constitutional powers of
  • judiciary
  • congress
  • executive
• founding fathers
  • Hamilton
  • Jefferson
  • Franklin

I just don't have the time to go into a massive diatribe to cover "exactly".

 

[Jack2aTee]

Trump is like that rotten kid who will continue to do terrible things until someone stops him.

Like the schoolyard bully who keeps terrorizing other kids until someone bigger knocks him on his fat ass.