"Checks and balances"

[rambot]

So who is supposed to keep a president in check?

 

[Fantine]

Because he says so? Uh-uh.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Oh! OK. Checks and balances go in quotation marks now with Trump supporters.

That seems on brand. Why should Trump be checked right?

I'd argue that judges are not rules by Trump but by the constitution. Do I not understand that?

All 3 branches are independently ruled by the constitution. The constitution provides the real checks and balances by assigning power to each branch. The current debate is about which branch has what power, and the Supreme Court will settle that argument if necessary (the constitution gives them that power). But I put "checks and balances" in quotes because much of the current debate is not about the constitution's provision for checks and balances, but is a ruse to claim that the president does not have the power to do what he is doing. Like I said, if necessary, the Supreme Court will decide where the lines should be drawn.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

No, they work FOR the American people at the DIRECTION of the president. the civil service is designed to be apolitical and should not be spoils awarded to loyalists.

I was a civil servant for many years and there was never any question that civil servants report to the executive.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

The Justices have been found to be accepting bribes. Unfortunately, Congress isn't willing to do anything about it.

The Senate has the power of impeachment, which provides a check to the Supreme Court's power. But a large majority of Senators is required to impeach a Supreme Court Justice. That provides a check to the power of the Senate. The real checks and balances are working.

 

[durangodawood]

....The current debate is about which branch has what power, and the Supreme Court will settle that argument if necessary (the constitution gives them that power).....

Will the president abide by a scotus decision it doesnt like?

We used to assume yes. But I get the sense that theres now a lot of support in the country for the exec branch to go its own way if the court rules "wrong".

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Will the president abide by a scotus decision it doesnt like?

We used to assume yes. But I get the sense that theres now a lot of support in the country for the exec branch to go its own way if the court rules "wrong".

As far as I know, the only president in my lifetime to buck a ruling of the Supreme Court is Joe Biden when he refused to stop cancelling student loan debt. But the House and Senate could have impeached Him they didn't like it.

 

[durangodawood]

The only president in my lifetime to buck a ruling of the Supreme Court is Joe Biden when he refused to stop cancelling student loan debt.

He didnt do that. Thats been sorted out elsewhere here.

 

[rambot]

All 3 branches are independently ruled by the constitution. The constitution provides the real checks and balances by assigning power to each branch. The current debate is about which branch has what power, and the Supreme Court will settle that argument if necessary (the constitution gives them that power). But I put "checks and balances" in quotes because much of the current debate is not about the constitution's provision for checks and balances, but is a ruse to claim that the president does not have the power to do what he is doing. Like I said, if necessary, the Supreme Court will decide where the lines should be drawn.

The supreme court gets to decide how much of a tyrant the president gets to be?was that the spirit of the constitution?



Seems that for a couple centuries worth of president's you guys had it figured out. And now you have a president that wants to control more.

No good reason to break from decades of tradition. But like all fragile men, Trump cannot not have his way.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

The supreme court gets to decide how much of a tyrant the president gets to be?was that the spirit of the constitution?

Seems that for a couple centuries worth of president's you guys had it figured out. And now you have a president that wants to control more.

No good reason to break from decades of tradition. But like all fragile men, Trump cannot not have his way.

That's funny. I think the argument is about who controls the executive branch of government. Trump is claiming that it is the president. The minority party in both houses of congress is opposing that claim in court. And the courts will decide who is right. That's the way this works.

US Constitution​

Article II​

Section 1​

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

 

[rambot]

That's funny. I think the argument is about who controls the executive branch of government. Trump is claiming that it is the president. The minority party in both houses of congress is opposing that claim in court. And the courts will decide who is right.

What do mean by the word "control"? And how are Democrats arguing against that?

Given how easy it is to quote that line of the constitution I am 100% positive that, again, a right winger is misrepresenting something.

 

[SimplyMe]

Will the president abide by a scotus decision it doesnt like?

We used to assume yes. But I get the sense that theres now a lot of support in the country for the exec branch to go its own way if the court rules "wrong".

And, of course, the Supreme Court has given the President the perfect "out" to go against a Supreme Court ruling, by saying that the President can't be prosecuted for any acts he takes in his job as President. And the President can protect those he tells to ignore the Supreme Court ruling, by pardoning them if someone dares to try and charge them with crimes -- something that Pres. Trump has shown a willingness to do in his first administration.

And, don't forget, there are Trump supporters on this forum who argue that Trump should not have to obey the rulings of the courts; or at least of lower courts. It is also worth noting, with how long it typically takes to get a Supreme Court ruling, actions only reversed by the Supreme Court have essentially already taken effect -- such as money spent (or not spent) from the budget passed by Congress, the effect of that money being allocated elsewhere or not spent is mostly moot 2 or 3 years later.

After all, if we are talking about people fired, they have other employment in a few years, not to mention their loss of a few years of wages and being unemployed for months (unless you are going to pay them back wages, but many would object since many did have a job and don't need double wages for those years). Projects that get "mothballed" (though many would be outright cancelled) can be difficult to restart due to contractors and other workers now having other projects, the changes in the years since work stopped, etc. Not to mention the groups (such as farmers, non-profits, and other businesses) that have gone bankrupt having spent money on a project they were doing for the government and then not getting the payments that had been promised, in a timely manner, from the government.

 

[rambot]

It's built into our systems and we are watching the system work in real life. The actions between the Executive Branch - The Legislative Branch and the Judicial are the way the government work.

What we are witnessing, and what is causing all this consternation is that every President for the last 30 years has spoken about eliminating waste and over spending - and this one is not just talking about it, but acting on it.

The bureaucracy, run by unelected people have had a blank check so long and are so immersed in a system that in many ways has grown out of control - are fighting tooth and nail against change. There are politicians whose power base is directly connected to the flow of funds to these entities.

The moment money and power is diminished, people stress out over the actions. Lawsuits - accusations - etc. are the natural response. Where it gets 'muddy' is the over dramatic reactions.

A president acting what in what could/should be beyond his scope is actually what should be stressed over. The issue is that too many q¹republicans agree that everyone should just get out of trumps way.

That's is antithetical to US government..at least as I always thought it.

 

[Valletta]

All 3 branches are independently ruled by the constitution. The constitution provides the real checks and balances by assigning power to each branch. The current debate is about which branch has what power, and the Supreme Court will settle that argument if necessary (the constitution gives them that power). But I put "checks and balances" in quotes because much of the current debate is not about the constitution's provision for checks and balances, but is a ruse to claim that the president does not have the power to do what he is doing. Like I said, if necessary, the Supreme Court will decide where the lines should be drawn.

Exactly. Clearly the courts do not have the authority to micro-manage the president and decide who he can appoint to look at or what Executive Branch records are examined.

 

[Valletta]

A president acting what in what could/should be beyond his scope is actually what should be stressed over. The issue is that too many q¹republicans agree that everyone should just get out of trumps way.

That's is antithetical to US government..at least as I always thought it.

Conservatives continue to point out that the Constitution gives the President of the United States, and not some lower level left-wing federal judge, the authority to manage the Executive Branch. The President is in charge.

 

[DaisyDay]

The bureaucrats in the Executive Branch of the federal government work for the President of the United States. When resolved at the Supreme Court (if necessary), the current "checks and balances" battles between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches will give us more clarity on the President's power over his own employees, the work they do, and how they spend our tax dollars.

No, bureaucrats work for the United States government, not the president. He didn't hire them, he doesn't supervise them and he doesn't pay them. We have a merit system of civil service, for the moment.

 

[DaisyDay]

Exactly. Clearly the courts do not have the authority to micro-manage the president and decide who he can appoint to look at or what Executive Branch records are examined.

Just as clearly, the courts do have the authority to determine that actual, existing laws are followed in accordance with the Constitution.

 

[rambot]

Conservatives continue to point out that the Constitution gives the President of the United States, and not some lower level left-wing federal judge, the authority to manage the Executive Branch. The President is in charge.

No. The constitution is in charge. Any judge can stop anyone...even the president, if he is not acting within his appropriate scope.

So believes people who don't want a left OR right wing dictatorship

 

[Always in His Presence]

A president acting what in what could/should be beyond his scope is actually what should be stressed over. The issue is that too many q¹republicans agree that everyone should just get out of trumps way.

That's is antithetical to US government..at least as I always thought it.

Could be. Should be

If ands and butts, were cookies and nuts everyday would be a holiday.

 

[Fantine]

That's funny. I think the argument is about who controls the executive branch of government. Trump is claiming that it is the president. The minority party in both houses of congress is opposing that claim in court. And the courts will decide who is right. That's the way this works.

US Constitution​

Article II​

Section 1​

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.

And the attorneys general of 20 states filed suit.

I bet that the Supreme Court is sorry for their ill-conceived immunity ruling now.
The latest criminal offense: extortion. Dismissing Eric Adams' case without prejudice to force him to cooperate with mass deportations.