6 ms·

>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 deci

by 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
      What violates the constitution is a matter of opinion. The courts makes those opinions. If a court says a law is constitutional then it's considered constitutional when deciding whether to enforce the law. It doesn't matter if you or the president disagrees. The courts opinion is what matters Courts can be overruled by a higher court or Years later the Supreme Court can change their mind and issue a new ruling. What matter is the current opinion of highest court to offer one about a particular law.
      - mothballed 1y ago
        POTUS has no power to defy the constitution if the opinions requires unconstitutional activity. I.e. if congress passes a laws that says "no guns" and SCOTUS says "yes that's what the 2A says" the president has to ignore it because the 10th amendment blocks him from having the power to enforce it. Nowhere in the constitution would it give him the ability to ignore the constitution if the other 2 branches violate it. You are inventing new dictatorial rights for POTUS.
        Braxton1980 1y ago
        >.e. if congress passes a laws that says "no guns" and SCOTUS says "yes that's what the 2A says" the president has to ignore it because the 10th amendment blocks him from having the power to enforce it. No. Because the law would be constitutional since the Supreme Court said it is You keep trying to argue that the president determines what is constitutional but the courts do. It doesn't matter what the president thinks is constitutional
        mothballed 1y ago
        Federal courts have argued they there isn't even standing to consider the constitutionality of an unenforced law (Knife Rights v Garland). If the president was bound to enforce the law, how could the court possibly argue the constitutionality can't be considered because no one is in jeopardy? The court basically decided you can't even challenge the Switchblade Act on 2A constitutional grounds because it's already been nullified by the executive as it's not been enforced in 10 years[]. Nullification of execution/enforcement was something even the founders (Thomas Jefferson) considers legitimate application of the constitution in regards to the unconstitutional Sedition Act. [] https://kniferights.org/legislative-update/court-opines-feds-wont-enforce-the-fsa-and-dismisses-knife-rights-case/ https://kniferights.org/legislative-update/court-opines-feds...
- 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

>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
    What violates the constitution is a matter of opinion. The courts makes those opinions. If a court says a law is constitutional then it's considered constitutional when deciding whether to enforce the law. It doesn't matter if you or the president disagrees. The courts opinion is what matters Courts can be overruled by a higher court or Years later the Supreme Court can change their mind and issue a new ruling. What matter is the current opinion of highest court to offer one about a particular law.
    - mothballed 1y ago
      POTUS has no power to defy the constitution if the opinions requires unconstitutional activity. I.e. if congress passes a laws that says "no guns" and SCOTUS says "yes that's what the 2A says" the president has to ignore it because the 10th amendment blocks him from having the power to enforce it. Nowhere in the constitution would it give him the ability to ignore the constitution if the other 2 branches violate it. You are inventing new dictatorial rights for POTUS.
      - Braxton1980 1y ago
        >.e. if congress passes a laws that says "no guns" and SCOTUS says "yes that's what the 2A says" the president has to ignore it because the 10th amendment blocks him from having the power to enforce it. No. Because the law would be constitutional since the Supreme Court said it is You keep trying to argue that the president determines what is constitutional but the courts do. It doesn't matter what the president thinks is constitutional
        mothballed 1y ago
        Federal courts have argued they there isn't even standing to consider the constitutionality of an unenforced law (Knife Rights v Garland). If the president was bound to enforce the law, how could the court possibly argue the constitutionality can't be considered because no one is in jeopardy? The court basically decided you can't even challenge the Switchblade Act on 2A constitutional grounds because it's already been nullified by the executive as it's not been enforced in 10 years[]. Nullification of execution/enforcement was something even the founders (Thomas Jefferson) considers legitimate application of the constitution in regards to the unconstitutional Sedition Act. [] https://kniferights.org/legislative-update/court-opines-feds-wont-enforce-the-fsa-and-dismisses-knife-rights-case/ https://kniferights.org/legislative-update/court-opines-feds...
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