4 ms·

Not so fast. > Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about the scope of presidential

by n144q 2y ago

Not so fast. > Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about the scope of presidential power.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago
If he can face legal challenges he is no where close to a dictator.
- rbanffy 2y ago
  SCOTUS already said he's immune from any official act he does as president.
  - FollowingTheDao 2y ago
    That is not at all close to what the ruling said. "immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate" Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.
    - rbanffy 2y ago
      This covers a lot of what he's doing.
  - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
    He's immune from prosecution. He can still lose court cases that say that he doesn't have the constitutional authority to do X, though, for many values of X.
    - jhp123 2y ago
      At that point he can order his subordinates to ignore the ruling. If his subordinates claim that the court ruling overrides his orders then he can fire them. Court orders are purely advisory after the Trump v. United States decision.
      - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
        Well, if he goes that route, there are still three things that could stop him: 1. Federal employees could refuse, even at the price of being fired, in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all. 2. Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling. 3. The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war; if not, then the country just collapses into the states. (Keep in mind that the military's oath is to the constitution, not to the president. If the president is giving them orders contrary to the constitution - and contrary to a court order stating that the orders are against the constitution - it is far from clear that the military will obey them.) But if none of those happens, then sure, the president can order whatever he wants.
        ModernMech 2y ago
        > in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all. Sounds like it would be small enough to drown in the bathtub at that point. Mission accomplished. > Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling. Only if Democrats have a 60 vote majority in the Senate. Not happening. In the last impeachment, Trump argued he was allowed to extort a bribe from a foreign ally by holding up congressionally appropriated funds to benefit his reelection campaign, and as long as he did so with the benefit of the USA in mind, it cannot be grounds for removal via impeachment. The Senate agreed with him and acquitted him of all charges. Why in the world do you think that would go any differently a second time? And who is going to bring those articles? Republicans? > The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war And herein lies the problem. This appears to be the only path forward if Trump keeps going in this direction and Republicans don't relent. Note he has already argued he has the right to use the military against US citizens.
  - ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
    Only immune for core constitutional powers
- ks1723 2y ago
  Big “if”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024...
- nkassis 2y ago
  That's argument is easily contradicted by plenty of worldwide examples of opposition trying to use the courts to combat dictators. Dictators often ignore court decision they dislike because they have the ultimate power of enforcement.

by n144q 2y ago

Not so fast. > Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about the scope of presidential power.

FollowingTheDao 2y ago

If he can face legal challenges he is no where close to a dictator.

rbanffy 2y ago
SCOTUS already said he's immune from any official act he does as president.
- FollowingTheDao 2y ago
  That is not at all close to what the ruling said. "immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate" Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.
  - rbanffy 2y ago
    This covers a lot of what he's doing.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  He's immune from prosecution. He can still lose court cases that say that he doesn't have the constitutional authority to do X, though, for many values of X.
  - jhp123 2y ago
    At that point he can order his subordinates to ignore the ruling. If his subordinates claim that the court ruling overrides his orders then he can fire them. Court orders are purely advisory after the Trump v. United States decision.
    - AnimalMuppet 2y ago
      Well, if he goes that route, there are still three things that could stop him: 1. Federal employees could refuse, even at the price of being fired, in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all. 2. Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling. 3. The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war; if not, then the country just collapses into the states. (Keep in mind that the military's oath is to the constitution, not to the president. If the president is giving them orders contrary to the constitution - and contrary to a court order stating that the orders are against the constitution - it is far from clear that the military will obey them.) But if none of those happens, then sure, the president can order whatever he wants.
      - ModernMech 2y ago
        > in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all. Sounds like it would be small enough to drown in the bathtub at that point. Mission accomplished. > Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling. Only if Democrats have a 60 vote majority in the Senate. Not happening. In the last impeachment, Trump argued he was allowed to extort a bribe from a foreign ally by holding up congressionally appropriated funds to benefit his reelection campaign, and as long as he did so with the benefit of the USA in mind, it cannot be grounds for removal via impeachment. The Senate agreed with him and acquitted him of all charges. Why in the world do you think that would go any differently a second time? And who is going to bring those articles? Republicans? > The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war And herein lies the problem. This appears to be the only path forward if Trump keeps going in this direction and Republicans don't relent. Note he has already argued he has the right to use the military against US citizens.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 2y ago
  Only immune for core constitutional powers
ks1723 2y ago
Big “if”: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States_(2024...
nkassis 2y ago
That's argument is easily contradicted by plenty of worldwide examples of opposition trying to use the courts to combat dictators. Dictators often ignore court decision they dislike because they have the ultimate power of enforcement.