3 ms·

And I fully expect this "well you are using a made up version of the constitution" to appear in the comment threads for the next evil. And the next. And the nex

And I fully expect this "well you are using a made up version of the constitution" to appear in the comment threads for the next evil. And the next. And the next. All the way down to the one that puts a bullet in my skull.

rayiner 1y ago
That makes it sound like anything I'm saying is new, which it is not. I'm just expressing how people understood the constitution to operate for the first 130 years of its history. For example: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/#tab-opinion-1931571 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/#tab-opin... ("Montesquieu's view that the maintenance of independence as between the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches was a security for the people had their full approval. Accordingly, the Constitution was so framed as to vest in the Congress all legislative powers therein granted, to vest in the President the executive power, and to vest in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish the judicial power. *** The debates in the Constitutional Convention indicated an intention to create a strong Executive, and, after a controversial discussion, the executive power of the Government was vested in one person and many of his important functions were specified so as to avoid the humiliating weakness of the Congress during the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation. *** The vesting of the executive power in the President was essentially a grant of the power to execute the laws. But the President, alone and unaided, could not execute the laws. He must execute them by the assistance of subordinates. This view has since been repeatedly affirmed by this Court. As he is charged specifically to take care that they be faithfully executed, the reasonable implication, even in the absence of express words, was that, as part of his executive power, he should select those who were to act for him under his direction in the execution of the laws."). The mid-20th century precedent was an erroneous deviation, driven in large part not by legal analysis, but FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court unless it ruled the way he wanted.

rayiner 1y ago

That makes it sound like anything I'm saying is new, which it is not. I'm just expressing how people understood the constitution to operate for the first 130 years of its history. For example: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/#tab-opinion-1931571 https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/272/52/#tab-opin... ("Montesquieu's view that the maintenance of independence as between the legislative, the executive, and the judicial branches was a security for the people had their full approval. Accordingly, the Constitution was so framed as to vest in the Congress all legislative powers therein granted, to vest in the President the executive power, and to vest in one Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress might establish the judicial power. *** The debates in the Constitutional Convention indicated an intention to create a strong Executive, and, after a controversial discussion, the executive power of the Government was vested in one person and many of his important functions were specified so as to avoid the humiliating weakness of the Congress during the Revolution and under the Articles of Confederation. *** The vesting of the executive power in the President was essentially a grant of the power to execute the laws. But the President, alone and unaided, could not execute the laws. He must execute them by the assistance of subordinates. This view has since been repeatedly affirmed by this Court. As he is charged specifically to take care that they be faithfully executed, the reasonable implication, even in the absence of express words, was that, as part of his executive power, he should select those who were to act for him under his direction in the execution of the laws."). The mid-20th century precedent was an erroneous deviation, driven in large part not by legal analysis, but FDR's threat to pack the Supreme Court unless it ruled the way he wanted.