6 ms·

[flagged]

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• skaushik92 2y ago
  The issue is that the executive branch still has prosecutorial power with impeachment as one of the only remaining checks against that (if I’m understanding correctly).
  • defrost 2y ago
    > with impeachment as one of the only remaining checks against that impeachment appears to be a wet noodle of a check that carries all the weight of nanny saying "you've been a very naughty boy". Two impeachments and a felony conviction didn't check squat, if I'm not mistaken.
    • thefreeman 2y ago
      he was impeached by the house, but the not the senate. if the senate had also voted to impeach he would have been removed from office.
• pixl97 2y ago
  Lol, that is just a piece of paper that doesn't mean shit unless someone is willing to enforce the words on it. There has been a shortage of enforcers recently.
  • goatlover 2y ago
    If one party doesn't want to abide by that piece of paper, then there's no reason to consider them legitimate.
    • pixl97 2y ago
      The papers, ya, that one party doesn't consider them legitimate and is in power at the same time.
      • goatlover 2y ago
        The party could be considered illegitimate by the rest of us if they were to continue down the path of ignoring the Constitution.
• jfengel 2y ago
  What part of the Constitution says that? The article about the judiciary is pretty brief. It says that they get to decide things, but it doesn't actually clarify that everyone has to abide by their decisions. Just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's legally valid.
  • drawkward 2y ago
    You would have to ask John Marshall, who authored the opinion in Marbury v Madison
• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]