3 ms·

That sounds pretty obviously unconstitutional. I don't see how a reasonable person could disagree actually. The whole point of the checks and balances is to pre

That sounds pretty obviously unconstitutional. I don't see how a reasonable person could disagree actually. The whole point of the checks and balances is to prevent this.

UncleOxidant 2y ago
Ok, so how would those checks and balances work if the president refuses to obey the courts? Who's going to enforce those court orders? I suppose you could say that the congress could impeach - but what if the majority of the House sides with the president? And if the House does manage to pass impeachment, it still takes 2/3 of Senators to convict - as we've seen that's a very high bar and very unlikely to happen. But let's continue the thought experiment and say that the Senate votes to convict - who's going to enforce the conviction and kick the President out of office?
- procaryote 2y ago
  I never said the checks and balances are working well... but the constitutional checks and balances not working well is a lesser problem than the executive branch just deciding that the president is also able to do the judiciary's job It should be the trigger for country wide protests until the president is overthrown. It won't be of course. But it should.
  - UncleOxidant 2y ago
    Lots of things should have happened long before we got to this point. After Jan 6th he should never have been a contender for the nomination, but then he was and won it. And then the electorate at large should have chosen his opponent, but they didn't. And here we are. I'm not sure what would trigger nation wide protests that are large enough to have an effect - I suspect that in our spread-out country you'd need something like at least 20% of the population which would be about 65 million people. Most people are too apathetic to be bothered and by the time some final straw makes them care it'll likely be too late.
    - dekhn 2y ago
      Remember, Trump wants protests. He knows that even in a peaceful protest some fraction of "fuck-shit-up-contingent" will go around attacking people, destroying property, etc. And that gives him a justification to invoke advanced measures (Kelly, his DHS leader, specifically said that Trump had to be told multiple times he couldn't use the military on US citizens while Trump insisted that he did). I think it's an open question at this point whether the military leadership would deny Trump's request.
      - dh2022 2y ago
        Well, this EO just cleared up the confusion. The military will have to obey Trump (because his interpretation of the laws is the only interpretation that matters) and then the military will have to take on US citizens.
    - ungreased0675 2y ago
      Have you considered that your model of how things should work is missing something?
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      I didn't read too much into it, but apparently 11m people is the critical mass needed for a national protest that can't be ignored. So, it's more around 2-3%. Maybe more is needed, but at that point you will get a network effect of others joining in for the sake of joining in. We're spread, but IIRC the 10 most populous metro contains half the population. It'd more be a matter in making sure each major hub has around 500k-1m people gathered. As a matter of scale, the Montgomery march was 256k. >Most people are too apathetic to be bothered and by the time some final straw makes them care it'll likely be too late. I suppose we'll see soon enough at this current rate.
    - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
      He said he would be a dictator and implied that elections would not be needed going forward. Y'all voted him in on that basis. It sucks that the constitution died this way. RIP USA.
    - 2y ago
- doctor_radium 2y ago
  If it comes to it, the military.
  - sjs382 2y ago
    Which? The State national guards? The "well-regulated militia?" The President is Commander in Chief of the US armed forces.
    - treyd 2y ago
      The president can take over command of state national guards from governors, however they are bound to defend the constitution just like the others and ought to obey unconstitutional attempts to give them orders.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      Yes, if it keeps escalating. We're going to make bloody monday look like a kid scraped his knee. Depending on the escalation, we may even make the first Civil War look tame in comparison. That's pretty much the fate of all dictators: a coup.
  - UncleOxidant 2y ago
    Which is why they're hinting that generals are going to be fired next week. Likely so they can replace them with loyalists.
- trothamel 2y ago
  > what if the majority of the House sides with the president? In that case, congress is serving as a check on the court's power.
  - notTooFarGone 2y ago
    it's basically a 51% attack. Only that the job security of the 51% are directly correlated with their participation.
adamsb6 2y ago
The employees of the executive branch are not intended to be a check on the executive branch's powers. They are the agents of the executive. The legislative and judicial branches are the checks to executive power.
- timoth3y 2y ago
  > The employees of the executive branch are not intended to be a check on the executive branch's powers. That's not entirely correct. All civil servants and military swear an oath the Constitution and are required to disobey illegal orders. This EO attempts to largely eliminate the concept of illegal orders.

That sounds pretty obviously unconstitutional. I don't see how a reasonable person could disagree actually. The whole point of the checks and balances is to prevent this.

UncleOxidant 2y ago

Ok, so how would those checks and balances work if the president refuses to obey the courts? Who's going to enforce those court orders? I suppose you could say that the congress could impeach - but what if the majority of the House sides with the president? And if the House does manage to pass impeachment, it still takes 2/3 of Senators to convict - as we've seen that's a very high bar and very unlikely to happen. But let's continue the thought experiment and say that the Senate votes to convict - who's going to enforce the conviction and kick the President out of office?

procaryote 2y ago
I never said the checks and balances are working well... but the constitutional checks and balances not working well is a lesser problem than the executive branch just deciding that the president is also able to do the judiciary's job It should be the trigger for country wide protests until the president is overthrown. It won't be of course. But it should.
- UncleOxidant 2y ago
  Lots of things should have happened long before we got to this point. After Jan 6th he should never have been a contender for the nomination, but then he was and won it. And then the electorate at large should have chosen his opponent, but they didn't. And here we are. I'm not sure what would trigger nation wide protests that are large enough to have an effect - I suspect that in our spread-out country you'd need something like at least 20% of the population which would be about 65 million people. Most people are too apathetic to be bothered and by the time some final straw makes them care it'll likely be too late.
  - dekhn 2y ago
    Remember, Trump wants protests. He knows that even in a peaceful protest some fraction of "fuck-shit-up-contingent" will go around attacking people, destroying property, etc. And that gives him a justification to invoke advanced measures (Kelly, his DHS leader, specifically said that Trump had to be told multiple times he couldn't use the military on US citizens while Trump insisted that he did). I think it's an open question at this point whether the military leadership would deny Trump's request.
    - dh2022 2y ago
      Well, this EO just cleared up the confusion. The military will have to obey Trump (because his interpretation of the laws is the only interpretation that matters) and then the military will have to take on US citizens.
  - ungreased0675 2y ago
    Have you considered that your model of how things should work is missing something?
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    I didn't read too much into it, but apparently 11m people is the critical mass needed for a national protest that can't be ignored. So, it's more around 2-3%. Maybe more is needed, but at that point you will get a network effect of others joining in for the sake of joining in. We're spread, but IIRC the 10 most populous metro contains half the population. It'd more be a matter in making sure each major hub has around 500k-1m people gathered. As a matter of scale, the Montgomery march was 256k. >Most people are too apathetic to be bothered and by the time some final straw makes them care it'll likely be too late. I suppose we'll see soon enough at this current rate.
  - pbhjpbhj 2y ago
    He said he would be a dictator and implied that elections would not be needed going forward. Y'all voted him in on that basis. It sucks that the constitution died this way. RIP USA.
  - 2y ago
doctor_radium 2y ago
If it comes to it, the military.
- sjs382 2y ago
  Which? The State national guards? The "well-regulated militia?" The President is Commander in Chief of the US armed forces.
  - treyd 2y ago
    The president can take over command of state national guards from governors, however they are bound to defend the constitution just like the others and ought to obey unconstitutional attempts to give them orders.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    Yes, if it keeps escalating. We're going to make bloody monday look like a kid scraped his knee. Depending on the escalation, we may even make the first Civil War look tame in comparison. That's pretty much the fate of all dictators: a coup.
- UncleOxidant 2y ago
  Which is why they're hinting that generals are going to be fired next week. Likely so they can replace them with loyalists.
trothamel 2y ago
> what if the majority of the House sides with the president? In that case, congress is serving as a check on the court's power.
- notTooFarGone 2y ago
  it's basically a 51% attack. Only that the job security of the 51% are directly correlated with their participation.

adamsb6 2y ago

The employees of the executive branch are not intended to be a check on the executive branch's powers. They are the agents of the executive. The legislative and judicial branches are the checks to executive power.

timoth3y 2y ago
> The employees of the executive branch are not intended to be a check on the executive branch's powers. That's not entirely correct. All civil servants and military swear an oath the Constitution and are required to disobey illegal orders. This EO attempts to largely eliminate the concept of illegal orders.