3 ms·

Executive Orders do not overrule the Constitution. That would mean there is no law. No law at all. It would make every president a dictator; whose word is law.

Executive Orders do not overrule the Constitution. That would mean there is no law. No law at all. It would make every president a dictator; whose word is law. Something which is unthinkable and incompatible with democracy.

sundaeofshock 1y ago
And yet here we are. This court has decided that Trump is a king and that’s pretty much it.
- readthenotes1 1y ago
  No, they decided that any particular federal judge is not King and that if there's going to be broad spread relief, there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in.
  - HaZeust 1y ago
    Let me preface this by first saying your reply is "No" to a comment that stated the courts just ruled the President as a King. You followed that by saying they just decided no federal judge is King (not what OP said), and you supported both of your statements by saying that, "if there's going to be broad spread relief [to an executive action], there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in". And tell me, what branch of government is the loss of the steadfast check-and-balance known as "universal injunctions" in favor of – and will now require for ANY AND ALL parties to ONLY be recognized for their loss and damages from actions of the Executive ONLY IF they have the means to sue for it and prevail – in a 1:1 cardinality? Could it be the Executive, who OP said this supported Kingsmanship for? If a executive action is so unjust, so grotesque, and you need to round up parties damaged by it – outside of the absurdly long time most courts take to make things whole – can't that also be a way to round up people being directly targeted by 1 of 3 branches? Example: EO-1 quietly builds a “voluntary” federal digital ID, so no one is harmed and nobody has standing for their own injunctions. Then, EO-2 later makes that ID mandatory to file taxes, get Social Security, renew a passport, etc. Real injury finally appears, but each citizen must sue alone and any victory helps only that plaintiff while everyone else stays locked out. The first order sinks the foundations; the second flips the switch. That’s the executive tilt OP warned about.
  - myvoiceismypass 1y ago
    I don't think the person you are replying to is necessarily referencing this recent particular case as you assume. In 2024 SCOTUS injected new very very very very broad immunity from prosecution to all past, present and future presidents. Leading a violent insurrection apparently qualifies as a "presidential act"? They are indeed Kings now.
    - sundaeofshock 1y ago
      I absolutely was referencing the court’s ruling on Friday. The court has explicitly stated that injunctive relief is no longer available. The president can now strip away the rights of any citizen, and only those with the ability to fight in courts can challenge this action.
Ancapistani 1y ago
This EO is not even attempting to overrule the Constitution. The 14th Amendment includes the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Is a child born to a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Historically, we’ve said “yes”. This EO instructs the executive branch to adopt the position of “no”. This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BATFE changing the way it interprets an longstanding statute in a new way — which, by the way, they do very frequently.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- biimugan 1y ago
  This is decidedly not equivalent to those things, even roughly. Interpreting a statute (which by the way this Supreme Court has expressly limited, which is ironic given your comment) is quite different from interpreting an amendment to the Constitution. What you're describing is like saying a president can re-interpret the meaning of 'militia' in the 2nd amendment and start confiscating everyone's firearms because they're not members of a militia. Even despite rulings like Heller. This is exactly the argument that the dissent in this case makes.
  - Ancapistani 1y ago
    > which is ironic given your comment With all due respect, what about my comment makes that ironic? I’m generally quite careful not to post if the only thing I have to offer is an opinion, and try to keep opinion out of it entirely. > What you're describing is like saying a president can re-interpret the meaning of 'militia' in the 2nd amendment and start confiscating everyone's firearms because they're not members of a militia. Even despite rulings like Heller. That’s basically what was done prior to Heller. Not for “everyone”, but functionally for several minority groups. Since Heller those efforts have primarily been at the state level (which is somewhat different, even with incorporation). > This is exactly the argument that the dissent in this case makes. Prior to today, I wasn’t super familiar with the case law here. It does look like SCOTUS has ruled in the past: US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). It’s after 4am here, and Wong Kim Ark is a long ruling. I simply don’t have the attention remaining to read the whole thing right now, but I skimmed it and ran it through my a couple of LLMs. In skimming it, it appears to be applicable here both broadly and specifically. All the LLMs I’ve tried agree with that statement, including when phrased in the negative. In short: I was wrong, I believe you’re correct, and this EO should be overturned citing this precedent. —— As we’ve spoken of opinion, I’ll break with my normal course and state plainly: I believe birthright citizenship should be ended. However, given what I know now, the only acceptable way to do so would be a Constitutional amendment. I’m opposed to anything that oversteps governmental authority, regardless of whether or not it happens to serve my own political interests at the time.

sundaeofshock 1y ago

And yet here we are. This court has decided that Trump is a king and that’s pretty much it.

readthenotes1 1y ago
No, they decided that any particular federal judge is not King and that if there's going to be broad spread relief, there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in.
- HaZeust 1y ago
  Let me preface this by first saying your reply is "No" to a comment that stated the courts just ruled the President as a King. You followed that by saying they just decided no federal judge is King (not what OP said), and you supported both of your statements by saying that, "if there's going to be broad spread relief [to an executive action], there needs to be a class action suit brought, or that the supreme Court needs to step in". And tell me, what branch of government is the loss of the steadfast check-and-balance known as "universal injunctions" in favor of – and will now require for ANY AND ALL parties to ONLY be recognized for their loss and damages from actions of the Executive ONLY IF they have the means to sue for it and prevail – in a 1:1 cardinality? Could it be the Executive, who OP said this supported Kingsmanship for? If a executive action is so unjust, so grotesque, and you need to round up parties damaged by it – outside of the absurdly long time most courts take to make things whole – can't that also be a way to round up people being directly targeted by 1 of 3 branches? Example: EO-1 quietly builds a “voluntary” federal digital ID, so no one is harmed and nobody has standing for their own injunctions. Then, EO-2 later makes that ID mandatory to file taxes, get Social Security, renew a passport, etc. Real injury finally appears, but each citizen must sue alone and any victory helps only that plaintiff while everyone else stays locked out. The first order sinks the foundations; the second flips the switch. That’s the executive tilt OP warned about.
- myvoiceismypass 1y ago
  I don't think the person you are replying to is necessarily referencing this recent particular case as you assume. In 2024 SCOTUS injected new very very very very broad immunity from prosecution to all past, present and future presidents. Leading a violent insurrection apparently qualifies as a "presidential act"? They are indeed Kings now.
  - sundaeofshock 1y ago
    I absolutely was referencing the court’s ruling on Friday. The court has explicitly stated that injunctive relief is no longer available. The president can now strip away the rights of any citizen, and only those with the ability to fight in courts can challenge this action.

Ancapistani 1y ago

This EO is not even attempting to overrule the Constitution. The 14th Amendment includes the language “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”. Is a child born to a foreign national who is present in the US without legal authorization subject to the jurisdiction of the US? Historically, we’ve said “yes”. This EO instructs the executive branch to adopt the position of “no”. This is roughly equivalent to the EPA or BATFE changing the way it interprets an longstanding statute in a new way — which, by the way, they do very frequently.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
biimugan 1y ago
This is decidedly not equivalent to those things, even roughly. Interpreting a statute (which by the way this Supreme Court has expressly limited, which is ironic given your comment) is quite different from interpreting an amendment to the Constitution. What you're describing is like saying a president can re-interpret the meaning of 'militia' in the 2nd amendment and start confiscating everyone's firearms because they're not members of a militia. Even despite rulings like Heller. This is exactly the argument that the dissent in this case makes.
- Ancapistani 1y ago
  > which is ironic given your comment With all due respect, what about my comment makes that ironic? I’m generally quite careful not to post if the only thing I have to offer is an opinion, and try to keep opinion out of it entirely. > What you're describing is like saying a president can re-interpret the meaning of 'militia' in the 2nd amendment and start confiscating everyone's firearms because they're not members of a militia. Even despite rulings like Heller. That’s basically what was done prior to Heller. Not for “everyone”, but functionally for several minority groups. Since Heller those efforts have primarily been at the state level (which is somewhat different, even with incorporation). > This is exactly the argument that the dissent in this case makes. Prior to today, I wasn’t super familiar with the case law here. It does look like SCOTUS has ruled in the past: US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). It’s after 4am here, and Wong Kim Ark is a long ruling. I simply don’t have the attention remaining to read the whole thing right now, but I skimmed it and ran it through my a couple of LLMs. In skimming it, it appears to be applicable here both broadly and specifically. All the LLMs I’ve tried agree with that statement, including when phrased in the negative. In short: I was wrong, I believe you’re correct, and this EO should be overturned citing this precedent. —— As we’ve spoken of opinion, I’ll break with my normal course and state plainly: I believe birthright citizenship should be ended. However, given what I know now, the only acceptable way to do so would be a Constitutional amendment. I’m opposed to anything that oversteps governmental authority, regardless of whether or not it happens to serve my own political interests at the time.