6 ms·

Article II says the president must faithfully execute the laws, which means implementing Congress' will, not his own.

mothballed 1y ago
Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully executed because they largely violate the tenth amendment, appropriating functions of the federal government outside the scope authorized by the constitution and reserved to the people and states. This is exactly what DOGE was helping to keep in check. At the times when the federal government was mostly within the constraints of the 10th amendment, federal spending was under 5% of GDP in non war-time.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully.. If a law violates the 10th amendment then it should be challenged in court. The president doesn't decide what is constitutional the courts do.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    The courts don't decide what the constitution is, the people that wrote and amended it did. The courts can only interpret it, often wrongly, as evidenced by the fact they routinely contradict themselves. The president has a duty to ignore any unconstitutional court ruling, as his oath requires.
    - habinero 1y ago
      That's not how anything works. The Constitution literally says so. If you want a king, just say so.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        The constitution says POTUS can violate the constitution if SCOTUS says so?
        ModernMech 1y ago
        No, but it says it’s his job to execute the law, not to use his discretion to pick and choose which laws to execute. The entire purpose of the constitution is to balance powers, not to ensure it’s never at any time violated. Any violation of the constitution is supposed to be corrected by the balancing force of other branches. You might think giving one branch all the power to make sure the constitution is not violated might lead to a situation where it’s never violated, but what actually happens is the powers become unbalanced and the executive is free to violate the constitution at will.
        mothballed 1y ago
        Each branch can consider if law is unconstitutional. It takes all three in agreement to execute it. The legislature is bound not to create unconstitutional laws. If the law does pass, the executive is bound not to execute it. If the law is executed, the court is bound to strike it (you can argue the court is also bound to strike it even if it's not executed, but Knife Rights v Garland for example found there is at least in that case no standing to challenge a non-executed law). It's not that one branch has all the power so much as each branch has veto power to stop the unconstitutional law from actually coming into effect. The power to actually do something takes all 3 branches but the power to stop something only takes one. Even the founders understood this -- Jefferson helped block the Sedition Act and actively encouraged states to nullify and avert its enforcement. Obama and later presidents stopped the enforcement of many prohibitions on recreational intrastate commerce of marijuana, a blatantly unconstitutional federal law, which nonetheless still stands (enforcement of medical marijuana is defunded but not recreational). These increased our compliance with the constitution, without creating dictators.
        ModernMech 1y ago
        > Each branch can consider if law is unconstitutional. It takes all three in agreement to execute it. The legislature is bound not to create unconstitutional laws. If the law does pass, the executive is bound not to execute it. I agree the legislature is bound to not create unconstitutional laws, but the sole power the executive has under the Constitution as to the constitutionality of laws is his veto power, which was intentionally limited by the Framers: “But it is to be remembered that this qualified negative is in no respect a violation of the rule which declares that the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress. It is not a transfer of the power of legislation to the Executive, because it does not enable him to do any thing more than to suspend the passage of a law, and is a mere check upon the legislative body, by subjecting their resolutions to revision and consideration. The power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and this alone would furnish a complete answer to the objection, if any could be supposed to exist. But the principal answer is, that the veto is not absolute, and that it may be overcome by two-thirds of both Houses.” - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 73 You're saying that the President actually has an absolute veto; if he vetoes a bill, and Congress overrides the veto, you're saying the President gets the ultimate veto in that he can just claim the law is unconstitutional and refuse to implement it. So now you have to answer why the Framers would have limited the veto power if they had intended POTUS to have an ultimate veto through selective execution of laws. > Even the founders understood this -- Jefferson helped block the Sedition Act and actively encouraged states to nullify and avert its enforcement. The Sedition Act expired as soon as he entered office, so I'm not sure how you figure he "blocked" it in any sense. Whatever Jefferson had to say about the sedition act was his right, but he didn't use any unconstitutional powers to work against it. > Obama and later presidents stopped the enforcement of many prohibitions on recreational intrastate commerce of marijuana, a blatantly unconstitutional federal law, which nonetheless still stands (enforcement of medical marijuana is defunded but not recreational). The scope of POTUS' power over the DOJ is circumscribed by Congress; Article II gives the President general executive power, but the specific scope of prosecutorial discretion is grounded in statutory law -- whatever discretion he has over prosecutions is granted by Congress. You concede that POTUS have not stopped enforcement of the law entirely, which would be unconstitutional; but they have used persecutorial discretion to focus resources, which is constitutional.
    - Braxton1980 1y ago
      >The courts don't decide what the constitution is I said what laws are constitutional not "what is the constitution". I was very specific and my argument was not long so can you explain what I said, by quoting me, that implied the courts decide the contents of the Constitution? >The president has a duty to ignore any unconstitutional court ruling, as his oath requires. The Constitution states “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties…” The president's oath is to uphold the Constitution. Therefore by ignoring court rulings he's not upholding the constitution
      - mothballed 1y ago
        Ignoring constitutional court rulings violates the constitution. Ignoring court rulings requiring him to violate the constitution, is something he's required to do, under his oath which constrains his authority to a narrowly defined scope.
        Braxton1980 1y ago
        >Ignoring court rulings requiring him to violate the constitution, is something he's required to do, Where does it say this?
        mothballed 1y ago
        10th amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people POTUS has no power to execute an unconstitutional law
- ModernMech 1y ago
  > Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully executed because they largely violate the tenth amendment This is plainly untrue, as the constitutionality of these appropriations can only be established by a court. Bills signed into law are presumed constitutional and valid until an Article III officer decides otherwise. The system is: Congress writes the law, funds the law. President signs the law, executes the law. Court interprets the law, invalidates the law. You can't have the POTUS sign, execute, interpret, and invalidate laws. Separation of powers is what made the government work. Right now the Article II branch is the one who usurped power, the Congress and SCOTUS abdicated power, and it's causing the government to fail at all levels. If you give the executive the power you want it to have, the entire thesis of the Constitution crumbles (as we are witnessing), so quoting it at this point is futile and meaningless until balance of power is restored. Right now, what would happen if what you said is true, is every time a new executive comes in, he can invalidate not just the executive orders but all laws passed by the previous administration, on a whim; without review, evidence, or argument he can shut down agencies and choose not to enforce any laws that are politically expedient. That's not how to run a constitutional republic. It's certainly descriptive of another form of government, but here you were quoting the Constitution. > At the times when the federal government was mostly within the constraints of the 10th amendment, federal spending was under 5% of GDP in non war-time. You'd have to go back to 1929 to see that kind of spending level. Since then, we went through a great depression and got a New Deal for America, which means the Federal Government has a larger role. We can surely revisit that role, and that's kind of what's happening right now. But it's wrong to say that the spending levels circa 1930s are somehow ideal of more constitutional without presenting more evidence.
  - mothballed 1y ago
    >Court interprets the law, invalidates the law. You can't have the POTUS sign, execute, interpret, and invalidate laws. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45388993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45388993 as to why it takes all three branches agreeing on the constitutionality of a law for it actually to be put in effect and why that doesn't create the kind of dictatorship you're envisioning. >is every time a new executive comes in, he can invalidate not just the executive orders but all laws passed by the previous administration, on a whim; without review, evidence, or argument he can shut down agencies and choose not to enforce any laws that are politically expedient. POTUS is bound by constitution, even if SCOTUS thinks following the constitution is unconstitutional. This doesn't create an unchecked executive -- the legislature can also check the executive by impeaching him if he violates the constitution. >You'd have to go back to 1929 to see that kind of spending level. Since then, we went through a great depression and got a New Deal for America, which means the Federal Government has a larger role. We can surely revisit that role, and that's kind of what's happening right now. But it's wrong to say that the spending levels circa 1930s are somehow ideal of more constitutional without presenting more evidence. Yes exactly, it was circa the 30s when the apparatus of the state really cranked up to exceed the constitutional constraints of the federal government. The courts would create a more lasting correction to the problem, but that doesn't mean POTUS isn't also bound to stop executing all the unconstitutional laws. A lot of this stems from fraudulent portrayal of intrastate commerce as interstate commerce, which means a great deal of the actions of DEA, ATF, FDA, EPA, etc cannot legally be funded nor most of the wildly unconstitutional provisions of the cherished tyrannical civil rights act.

Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully executed because they largely violate the tenth amendment, appropriating functions of the federal government outside the scope authorized by the constitution and reserved to the people and states. This is exactly what DOGE was helping to keep in check. At the times when the federal government was mostly within the constraints of the 10th amendment, federal spending was under 5% of GDP in non war-time.

Braxton1980 1y ago
>Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully.. If a law violates the 10th amendment then it should be challenged in court. The president doesn't decide what is constitutional the courts do.
- mothballed 1y ago
  The courts don't decide what the constitution is, the people that wrote and amended it did. The courts can only interpret it, often wrongly, as evidenced by the fact they routinely contradict themselves. The president has a duty to ignore any unconstitutional court ruling, as his oath requires.
  - habinero 1y ago
    That's not how anything works. The Constitution literally says so. If you want a king, just say so.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      The constitution says POTUS can violate the constitution if SCOTUS says so?
      - ModernMech 1y ago
        No, but it says it’s his job to execute the law, not to use his discretion to pick and choose which laws to execute. The entire purpose of the constitution is to balance powers, not to ensure it’s never at any time violated. Any violation of the constitution is supposed to be corrected by the balancing force of other branches. You might think giving one branch all the power to make sure the constitution is not violated might lead to a situation where it’s never violated, but what actually happens is the powers become unbalanced and the executive is free to violate the constitution at will.
        mothballed 1y ago
        Each branch can consider if law is unconstitutional. It takes all three in agreement to execute it. The legislature is bound not to create unconstitutional laws. If the law does pass, the executive is bound not to execute it. If the law is executed, the court is bound to strike it (you can argue the court is also bound to strike it even if it's not executed, but Knife Rights v Garland for example found there is at least in that case no standing to challenge a non-executed law). It's not that one branch has all the power so much as each branch has veto power to stop the unconstitutional law from actually coming into effect. The power to actually do something takes all 3 branches but the power to stop something only takes one. Even the founders understood this -- Jefferson helped block the Sedition Act and actively encouraged states to nullify and avert its enforcement. Obama and later presidents stopped the enforcement of many prohibitions on recreational intrastate commerce of marijuana, a blatantly unconstitutional federal law, which nonetheless still stands (enforcement of medical marijuana is defunded but not recreational). These increased our compliance with the constitution, without creating dictators.
        ModernMech 1y ago
        > Each branch can consider if law is unconstitutional. It takes all three in agreement to execute it. The legislature is bound not to create unconstitutional laws. If the law does pass, the executive is bound not to execute it. I agree the legislature is bound to not create unconstitutional laws, but the sole power the executive has under the Constitution as to the constitutionality of laws is his veto power, which was intentionally limited by the Framers: “But it is to be remembered that this qualified negative is in no respect a violation of the rule which declares that the legislative power shall be vested in the Congress. It is not a transfer of the power of legislation to the Executive, because it does not enable him to do any thing more than to suspend the passage of a law, and is a mere check upon the legislative body, by subjecting their resolutions to revision and consideration. The power of preventing bad laws includes that of preventing good ones; and this alone would furnish a complete answer to the objection, if any could be supposed to exist. But the principal answer is, that the veto is not absolute, and that it may be overcome by two-thirds of both Houses.” - Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 73 You're saying that the President actually has an absolute veto; if he vetoes a bill, and Congress overrides the veto, you're saying the President gets the ultimate veto in that he can just claim the law is unconstitutional and refuse to implement it. So now you have to answer why the Framers would have limited the veto power if they had intended POTUS to have an ultimate veto through selective execution of laws. > Even the founders understood this -- Jefferson helped block the Sedition Act and actively encouraged states to nullify and avert its enforcement. The Sedition Act expired as soon as he entered office, so I'm not sure how you figure he "blocked" it in any sense. Whatever Jefferson had to say about the sedition act was his right, but he didn't use any unconstitutional powers to work against it. > Obama and later presidents stopped the enforcement of many prohibitions on recreational intrastate commerce of marijuana, a blatantly unconstitutional federal law, which nonetheless still stands (enforcement of medical marijuana is defunded but not recreational). The scope of POTUS' power over the DOJ is circumscribed by Congress; Article II gives the President general executive power, but the specific scope of prosecutorial discretion is grounded in statutory law -- whatever discretion he has over prosecutions is granted by Congress. You concede that POTUS have not stopped enforcement of the law entirely, which would be unconstitutional; but they have used persecutorial discretion to focus resources, which is constitutional.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    >The courts don't decide what the constitution is I said what laws are constitutional not "what is the constitution". I was very specific and my argument was not long so can you explain what I said, by quoting me, that implied the courts decide the contents of the Constitution? >The president has a duty to ignore any unconstitutional court ruling, as his oath requires. The Constitution states “The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties…” The president's oath is to uphold the Constitution. Therefore by ignoring court rulings he's not upholding the constitution
    - mothballed 1y ago
      Ignoring constitutional court rulings violates the constitution. Ignoring court rulings requiring him to violate the constitution, is something he's required to do, under his oath which constrains his authority to a narrowly defined scope.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        >Ignoring court rulings requiring him to violate the constitution, is something he's required to do, Where does it say this?
        mothballed 1y ago
        10th amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people POTUS has no power to execute an unconstitutional law
ModernMech 1y ago
> Most of congresses appropriations can't be faithfully executed because they largely violate the tenth amendment This is plainly untrue, as the constitutionality of these appropriations can only be established by a court. Bills signed into law are presumed constitutional and valid until an Article III officer decides otherwise. The system is: Congress writes the law, funds the law. President signs the law, executes the law. Court interprets the law, invalidates the law. You can't have the POTUS sign, execute, interpret, and invalidate laws. Separation of powers is what made the government work. Right now the Article II branch is the one who usurped power, the Congress and SCOTUS abdicated power, and it's causing the government to fail at all levels. If you give the executive the power you want it to have, the entire thesis of the Constitution crumbles (as we are witnessing), so quoting it at this point is futile and meaningless until balance of power is restored. Right now, what would happen if what you said is true, is every time a new executive comes in, he can invalidate not just the executive orders but all laws passed by the previous administration, on a whim; without review, evidence, or argument he can shut down agencies and choose not to enforce any laws that are politically expedient. That's not how to run a constitutional republic. It's certainly descriptive of another form of government, but here you were quoting the Constitution. > At the times when the federal government was mostly within the constraints of the 10th amendment, federal spending was under 5% of GDP in non war-time. You'd have to go back to 1929 to see that kind of spending level. Since then, we went through a great depression and got a New Deal for America, which means the Federal Government has a larger role. We can surely revisit that role, and that's kind of what's happening right now. But it's wrong to say that the spending levels circa 1930s are somehow ideal of more constitutional without presenting more evidence.
- mothballed 1y ago
  >Court interprets the law, invalidates the law. You can't have the POTUS sign, execute, interpret, and invalidate laws. see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45388993 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45388993 as to why it takes all three branches agreeing on the constitutionality of a law for it actually to be put in effect and why that doesn't create the kind of dictatorship you're envisioning. >is every time a new executive comes in, he can invalidate not just the executive orders but all laws passed by the previous administration, on a whim; without review, evidence, or argument he can shut down agencies and choose not to enforce any laws that are politically expedient. POTUS is bound by constitution, even if SCOTUS thinks following the constitution is unconstitutional. This doesn't create an unchecked executive -- the legislature can also check the executive by impeaching him if he violates the constitution. >You'd have to go back to 1929 to see that kind of spending level. Since then, we went through a great depression and got a New Deal for America, which means the Federal Government has a larger role. We can surely revisit that role, and that's kind of what's happening right now. But it's wrong to say that the spending levels circa 1930s are somehow ideal of more constitutional without presenting more evidence. Yes exactly, it was circa the 30s when the apparatus of the state really cranked up to exceed the constitutional constraints of the federal government. The courts would create a more lasting correction to the problem, but that doesn't mean POTUS isn't also bound to stop executing all the unconstitutional laws. A lot of this stems from fraudulent portrayal of intrastate commerce as interstate commerce, which means a great deal of the actions of DEA, ATF, FDA, EPA, etc cannot legally be funded nor most of the wildly unconstitutional provisions of the cherished tyrannical civil rights act.