3 ms·

Who is supposed to decide on which of these is unconstitutional or not, if not the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court decides that what stopped the Republic

by DasIch 10y ago

Who is supposed to decide on which of these is unconstitutional or not, if not the Supreme Court and if the Supreme Court decides that what stopped the Republicans from going to court earlier? Surely they would have, if the thought they'd get anywhere. He says it because it sounds better on the surface than just throwing out all executive orders, which doesn't make sense anyway. He'll just throw out what he doesn't like and claim that those are unconstitutional. This is a weak appeal to moderates and nothing more.

waterphone 10y ago
I agree that seems likely, and I agree it's not the President's place to determine constitutionality, I've just been noticing a lot of people stating that Trump is planning to throw out all of Obama's executive orders, and that isn't necessarily what he specifically said.
- nickff 10y ago
  It is the duty of every branch of the US Government to follow the constitution, so they are all required to determine constitutionality. Most, if not all US Presidents have made statements on the constitutionality of bills brought before them to be signed, and they have often refused to enforce laws they believe are unconstitutional.
  - DasIch 10y ago
    You're right of course. Nevertheless I think actions speak louder than works. The Republican party is not known for being hesitant or compromising. If they'd actually believe Obama's executive orders to be unconstitutional, they would've done more than complain. They're not doing more though, so I can only conclude that they're not at all convinced that they're unconstitutional. To be fair though I have no idea what Trump is thinking, I don't think anybody really does. He might actually believe what he's saying in this instance.
    - gwright 10y ago
      s/The Republican party/both parties/g They don't want to be to aggressive so that when their team is in control they can utilize that power. This is an affliction of both parties and to take a more philosophical view, "power corrupts". One of the meta-arguments for smaller, less powerful government, is to minimize abuse of power or shift it more locally (state, muni) where the abuse can be more visible if not contained. Good rule of thumb: Don't advocate for a power or control that you wouldn't be comfortable with in the hands of your political opponent. Unfortunately I think that the Democrats and the Republicans are more comfortable with passing many powers back and forth between them rather then eliminating them.

by DasIch 10y ago

waterphone 10y ago

I agree that seems likely, and I agree it's not the President's place to determine constitutionality, I've just been noticing a lot of people stating that Trump is planning to throw out all of Obama's executive orders, and that isn't necessarily what he specifically said.

nickff 10y ago
It is the duty of every branch of the US Government to follow the constitution, so they are all required to determine constitutionality. Most, if not all US Presidents have made statements on the constitutionality of bills brought before them to be signed, and they have often refused to enforce laws they believe are unconstitutional.
- DasIch 10y ago
  You're right of course. Nevertheless I think actions speak louder than works. The Republican party is not known for being hesitant or compromising. If they'd actually believe Obama's executive orders to be unconstitutional, they would've done more than complain. They're not doing more though, so I can only conclude that they're not at all convinced that they're unconstitutional. To be fair though I have no idea what Trump is thinking, I don't think anybody really does. He might actually believe what he's saying in this instance.
  - gwright 10y ago
    s/The Republican party/both parties/g They don't want to be to aggressive so that when their team is in control they can utilize that power. This is an affliction of both parties and to take a more philosophical view, "power corrupts". One of the meta-arguments for smaller, less powerful government, is to minimize abuse of power or shift it more locally (state, muni) where the abuse can be more visible if not contained. Good rule of thumb: Don't advocate for a power or control that you wouldn't be comfortable with in the hands of your political opponent. Unfortunately I think that the Democrats and the Republicans are more comfortable with passing many powers back and forth between them rather then eliminating them.