Comment by procaryote
1 year ago
That sounds pretty obviously unconstitutional. I don't see how a reasonable person could disagree actually. The whole point of the checks and balances is to prevent this.
1 year ago
That sounds pretty obviously unconstitutional. I don't see how a reasonable person could disagree actually. The whole point of the checks and balances is to prevent this.
Ok, so how would those checks and balances work if the president refuses to obey the courts? Who's going to enforce those court orders? I suppose you could say that the congress could impeach - but what if the majority of the House sides with the president? And if the House does manage to pass impeachment, it still takes 2/3 of Senators to convict - as we've seen that's a very high bar and very unlikely to happen. But let's continue the thought experiment and say that the Senate votes to convict - who's going to enforce the conviction and kick the President out of office?
If it comes to it, the military.
Which is why they're hinting that generals are going to be fired next week. Likely so they can replace them with loyalists.
Which? The State national guards? The "well-regulated militia?"
The President is Commander in Chief of the US armed forces.
2 replies →
> what if the majority of the House sides with the president?
In that case, congress is serving as a check on the court's power.
it's basically a 51% attack. Only that the job security of the 51% are directly correlated with their participation.
I never said the checks and balances are working well... but the constitutional checks and balances not working well is a lesser problem than the executive branch just deciding that the president is also able to do the judiciary's job
It should be the trigger for country wide protests until the president is overthrown. It won't be of course. But it should.
Lots of things should have happened long before we got to this point. After Jan 6th he should never have been a contender for the nomination, but then he was and won it. And then the electorate at large should have chosen his opponent, but they didn't. And here we are. I'm not sure what would trigger nation wide protests that are large enough to have an effect - I suspect that in our spread-out country you'd need something like at least 20% of the population which would be about 65 million people. Most people are too apathetic to be bothered and by the time some final straw makes them care it'll likely be too late.
6 replies →
The employees of the executive branch are not intended to be a check on the executive branch's powers. They are the agents of the executive.
The legislative and judicial branches are the checks to executive power.
> The employees of the executive branch are not intended to be a check on the executive branch's powers.
That's not entirely correct. All civil servants and military swear an oath the Constitution and are required to disobey illegal orders. This EO attempts to largely eliminate the concept of illegal orders.