Trump could just ignore court’s order halting travel ban

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Congress wouldn't have much problem impeaching an unpopular fool like trump if he was dumb enough to earn a contempt charge. But that's just my opinion.

Really?  Like the impeachment of Eric Holder after a contempt charge?

Oh, wait, did that actually happen?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

So when did we decide to do away with "co-equal" branches of government?

Why do you assume they are "co-equal"?

I never heard that in civics class.

What I was taught was there were checks and balances on the three branches.

Are you just making this up or is this a joke?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

If a municipal officer was found in contempt of federal court you think he wouldn't go to prison?


Wow indeed.

Why do you assume a contempt of a federal court is more important than the disregard of a federal law?

Are you trying to say that a court has more power than the Congress?

That is a big big WOW if you really believe that/.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Why do you assume a contempt of a federal court is more important than the disregard of a federal law?

Are you trying to say that a court has more power than the Congress?

That is a big big WOW if you really believe that.

I'm saying a contempt charge is an actual concrete jailable offense.


I believe that sanctuary cities use prosecutorial discretion (aka "we decline to prosecute") and such to weasel their way out of following the law without outright breaking the law. Which is why Trump and Co has to deny funds, rather than throw people in prison. IANAL, admittedly.


I have no problem with denying funds to sanctuary cities.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Impeachment or resignation. Happened twice in the last 50 years.

I see you corrupted my post.

Having said that, No way that will happen in this case. 

Trump is within his powers and no federal court can over-ride his clear prerogative in the defense of this country.

And besides, did you notice that Congress happens to be Republican? Do you really believe in your heart that they will both impeach and remove a sitting President for exercising his authority?

Don't know what the 50 years signify, but there is no President in the history of this country that has been impeached and removed from office.

Exactly what were you alluding to anyway?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Really?  Like the impeachment of Eric Holder after a contempt charge?

Oh, wait, did that actually happen?

I'm not sure why Holder wasn't impeached. But I think the prospect of an executive completely disregarding judges orders would alarm enough people to take much stronger action. Congress had no problem impeaching Clinton (even though he avoided conviction).

[Chosen Daughter]

Expand to Egypt?  I hope not.

  Put these guys on a plane from France to America.  Trump says welcome!

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I'm saying a contempt charge is an actual concrete jailable offense.


I believe that sanctuary cities use prosecutorial discretion (aka "we decline to prosecute") and such to weasel their way out of following the law without outright breaking the law. Which is why Trump and Co has to deny funds, rather than throw people in prison. IANAL, admittedly.


I have no problem with denying funds to sanctuary cities.

There is no prosecutorial discretion when there is a federal law against harboring and abetting illegals.  Clear violation of federal law. https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses

I believe you are trying to elevate a court's ruling above a federal law enacted by Congress.

That in my opinion does not fly.  The Constitution clearly prefers the duly-executed laws of Congress as the foundation of this country's legal basis.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

There is no prosecutorial discretion when there is a federal law against harboring and abetting illegals.  Clear violation of federal law. https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-1907-title-8-usc-1324a-offenses

I believe you are trying to elevate a court's ruling above a federal law enacted by Congress.

That in my opinion does not fly.  The Constitution clearly prefers the duly-executed laws of Congress as the foundation of this country's legal basis.

 


Tell Trump to start prosecuting mayors and such then. I'm a cog in a wheel posting on a website. I can't do a damn thing. I'd have no problem prosecuting those that break the law, elected officials and others.


But contempt of court is a no-win situation for Trump, who can be replaced by people a lot less hawkish on immigration.

[txradioguy]

Why do you assume they are "co-equal"?

I never heard that in civics class.

What I was taught was there were checks and balances on the three branches.

Are you just making this up or is this a joke?

Apparently you were sleeping in Government class as well as Civics.

The Constitution first three articles created three co-equal branches of government: the legislative (Congress), executive (headed by the President), and judicial (Supreme Court and lower federal courts). Much of what is today taken for granted as a natural separation of powers was actually left for future generations to sort out. The Constitution merely established the three branches; it did not set forth how powers would be divided beyond basic descriptions of each branch's duties. For example, the notion that the U.S. Supreme Court's role would be to pass constitutional judgment on laws passed by Congress is nowhere found in the Constitution. The practice instead arose primarily through the efforts of John Marshall, the fourth chief justice of the Supreme Court.

http://www.leadinglawyers.com/helpdesk/us_constitution.htm

I learned that in 4th grade. 

[Emjay]

I thought this article a good summation of the real status of the courts. We so often read, "The courts have decreed...," that it becomes easy to accept a court decreeing anything.

As Ted Cruz has always said,  Judges should not be making law.

[kevindavis007]

So when did we decide to do away with "co-equal" branches of government?

Cause our guy is ignoring the checks and balances

[kevindavis007]

Apparently you were sleeping in Government class as well as Civics.

http://www.leadinglawyers.com/helpdesk/us_constitution.htm

I learned that in 4th grade.

Basic civics 101

[kevindavis007]

I'm not sure why Holder wasn't impeached. But I think the prospect of an executive completely disregarding judges orders would alarm enough people to take much stronger action. Congress had no problem impeaching Clinton (even though he avoided conviction).

My guess there wasn't the votes to convict him and remove him.

[don-o]

Thats why civics is so important.

Congress has exactly ZERO enforcement ability. Enforcement lies solely with the executive. You would wait an eternity for a constitutional means enabling congress to enforce a contempt charge against the executive. They could cajol Sessions, but he could say 'no'.

If they want to impeach, they then face the electorate that polls show support Trump on this and really don't like them much. If they do impeach, and reinstate Obama immigration openly post trump (because Pence isn't likely to reverse) then you have the enforcement issue again. And round and round we go.

However if each branch governs constitutionally as Trump has thus far, then each branch stays in it's constitutional box. Lest we forget, it was congress that abandoned their duty in controlling the court's behaviors through constitutional means and the courts for governing like kings, legislating from the bench.

Trump merely exerxized his constitutional authority as President and CIC.

What does anyone think of proposed Constitutional amendments to:

1. Set term limits for SCOtUS?
2. Allow Congress or state legislatures to override SCOtUS with super majorities?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What does anyone think of proposed Constitutional amendments to:

1. Set term limits for SCOtUS?
2. Allow Congress or state legislatures to override SCOtUS with super majorities?

Meh.



Both things that could work against constitutionalism. We just need to appoint better judges.


USSC overruled obama a record number of times over the last 8 years. It's a good check on power.

[don-o]

Meh.



Both things that could work against constitutionalism. 
 

What is that? The FF themselves knew they had not produced Holy Writ.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

What is that? The FF themselves knew the had not produced Holy Writ.

What if gun grabbers get elected for a while and public opinion swings against it, and the Congress overrides the USSC to take away everyone's guns?


You'd be glad the USSC have lifetime appointment then.

[Cripplecreek]

What if gun grabbers get elected for a while and public opinion swings against it, and the Congress overrides the USSC to take away everyone's guns?


You'd be glad the USSC have lifetime appointment then.

Nothing defines progressivism better than the belief in a "living" constitution and an ends justify the means attitude of getting it.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Apparently you were sleeping in Government class as well as Civics.

http://www.leadinglawyers.com/helpdesk/us_constitution.htm

I learned that in 4th grade.

May say on that site as equal, but is that in the Constitution itself?

I don't think so, as they are quite a bit different.
Most of the duties spelled out by the Constitution are for Congress and Executive.  Judicial power is unexplained for the most part, which means it is interpretative.

John Marshall, for instance, came out with the concept of the SC deciding whether laws passed by Congress are Constitutional or not. 

Assuming a power is tenuous, as the basis can be snatched away as easily as it was assumed.

Another example is the fact that Congress can change the numbers of SC justices, or to eliminate entirely all courts below the SC.

While Congress and Executive have rock-solid responsibilities, the fact that the SC can only act when others abide makes them the inferior of the branches.

Believe me, the nuns that taught me in 4th grade would have drilled it into me if I was not paying attention.
@kevindavis @txradioguy

[txradioguy]

What does anyone think of proposed Constitutional amendments to:

1. Set term limits for SCOtUS?
2. Allow Congress or state legislatures to override SCOtUS with super majorities?

I think they way that stuff was written in Levin's "Liberty Amendments" book works perfectly.

[txradioguy]

May say on that site as equal, but is that in the Constitution itself?

I don't think so, as they are quite a bit different.
Most of the duties spelled out by the Constitution are for Congress and Executive.  Judicial power is unexplained for the most part, which means it is interpretative.


@kevindavis @txradioguy

Now you're just flailing.  The separation of powers sets up coequal branches so that one branch doesn't have more power than the other.  Hence the reason the President has to consult Congress on certain things...Congress has the power of the purse and the courts are there the ensure the constitutionality of what Congress and the President does...so unlike your claim...the rold of the Judiciary is very clearly defined.  You're just looking for a gray area to help you get out of the hole you dug when you claimed I made up coequal branches of Government.

Just admit you were wrong and move on.


This is simple basic Government 101. Again...stuff I learned in grade school.

[Bigun]

Cause our guy is ignoring the checks and balances

He is doing NO such thing! In fact, you have it exactly A$$ backwards!  It is the judiciary which is running amok here! NOT the president!

[Cripplecreek]

I think they way that stuff was written in Levin's "Liberty Amendments" book works perfectly.

I like the idea of the state legislatures picking supreme court justices and those judges facing review every 10 years or so. The hurdles standing in the way of removing a supreme court or other federal judge must be very high but the threat of removal might be enough to discourage the court from stepping on the authority of the states like they did with gay marriage. (which BTW was a case where Trump stated that "Whether you like the decision or not, and it was a 5-4 decision, and whether you like the decision or not, you have to go along with the supreme court, that's the way it is"