Would you support Trump if he ignored an SC decision?

[QvQ]

Although Jackson is widely quoted as saying, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it,”
His actual words to Brigadier General John Coffee were: “The decision of the supreme court has fell still born, and they find that it cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.
citation:
Garrison, Tim. "Worcester v. Georgia." New Georgia Encyclopedia, last modified Feb 20, 2018. Worcester v. Georgia - New Georgia Encyclopedia

Now, the decision should have freed Worchester. Georgia did not release him even after the Court ruled.
Worchester finally accepted a pardon in 1833.

So Jackson did not enforce that ruling. It was more than just "ignoring" as it may refer to releasing Worchester.
That is the Presidents job.

 

[Bradskii]

My statement doesn't contradict #4.

Of course it did.

4) If the Democrats didn't want to impeach Biden for ignoring the Supreme Court, then the Republicans shouldn't impeach Trump if he ignores the Supreme Court. Equal treatment.

So you literally said that if Biden ignored the SC, which you say he did, then if Trump ignores the SC he shouldn't be impeached. That's plain enough.

In theory, I would agree with you that if a President-any President-ignores the Supreme Court, then they should be impeached.

And now you are saying that if Trump ignores the SC he should be impeached. And that's plain enough.

Those two statements say exactly the opposite of each other.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, it is
The FBI enforce the Orders of the Executive or the Laws of the legislature.

But the FBI is under the command of the Courts.
The FBI has to obtain a warrant,
Remand any detainees to the custody of the Court
And must appear before the Judge to give evidence.

The FBI has no authority to make laws. (Legislative)
The FBI merely enforces the law (enacted by elected Executive or Legislature)
As Officers of the Court
The Power of Law Enforcement is Judicial (Courts)

All law enforcment are Officers of the Court, under the Jurisdication thereof.
The Magna Carta, Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Note: Customs, Border Patrol are under the Jurisdiction of the Military (Executive)

I was incorrect earlier when I said, "It's not that simple." Actually, it's not that convoluted.

The police are a department of the Executive Branch which executes the laws passed by the Legislature. That means the police work directly for the president, mayor, or city manager. Pursuant to that activity, they may detain persons suspected of crimes and deliver them to the criminal justice system. The police have many more activities in maintaining public order other than apprehending criminals. Notice that the police do not require a court order or a warrant or anything from the court system for such activity. All of that is by direction of the Executive.

In certain specific circumstances, police activities necessarily infringe upon the 4th Amendment. Those specific cases require, in effect, "Two-step Authorization"-- a warrant from the court to carry out that infringement. The police need nothing from the Court to carry out their duties except where infringement of the 4th Amendment is in question.

When the Court does have need of an armed force to carry out court orders (notice: court orders may be pursuant to legislation but are not legislation), they have at their disposal the US Marshals at the federal level and county sheriffs at local levels.

Cases: The Supreme Court rules that racial segregation is illegal in the particular case of a little girl and a local school. A particular municipality refuses to recognize the ruling. The Court orders US Marshals to accompany the little girl into the school. A district court orders the eviction of a tenant from a rented residence. A deputy sheriff is dispatched to implement the eviction. The Court orders a convicted suspect remanded to prison; the prisoner escapes. Sheriffs and US Marshals have the primary duty to re-apprehend the convict.

This is not to say there is never coordination and mutual support between police and sheriffs, however. In the last case above, police may apprehend the convict but then turn him over to sheriffs or US Marshals.

Customs and Border Patrol are definitely not under the jurisdiction of the military, they are separate from the military although also under control of the President.

 

[QvQ]

The police are a department of the Executive Branch which executes the laws passed by the Legislature. That means the police work directly for the president, mayor, or city manager.

Police are Officers of the Court.
The term most frequently refers to judges , clerks , court personnel, and police officers.

officer of the court

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[durangodawood]

Police are Officers of the Court.
The term most frequently refers to judges , clerks , court personnel, and police officers.

officer of the court

www.law.cornell.edu

Thats just a police officers responsibility when in the court setting.

Their position generally is within the executive branch of local / state / federal govt, as RD has pointed out. The courts dont run police depts. The city executives do.

FBI is an exec branch function federally, not judicial branch.

 

[QvQ]

Their position generally is within the executive branch of local / state / federal govt, as RD has pointed out. The courts dont run police depts. The city executives do.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 defined Federal Marshals as Officers of the Court

The only instance I can remember of an Executive "running the police department" was George Wallace.

The legislative and Executive branch funds the police as a department same as Legislatures fund the Courts.
Basically, your argument would define the Judiciary as an agency , subordinate to the Executive, not an independant Branch.

 

[durangodawood]

The Judiciary Act of 1789 defined Federal Marshals as Officers of the Court

I was talking about police and FBI. I think federal marshals are a different thing.

The only instance I can remember of an elected official "running the police department" was George Wallace.

The FBI is basically run by the exec branch. The pres chooses its leadership and the bureau reports ultimately to the pres. I don't see how you could contest this.

The legislative and Executive branch funds, organizes and pays the police as a department same as those branches fund do the Courts.
Basically, that argument would include the Judicial as a Branch of the Executive, not an independant branch.

Sure all 3 branches are somewhat interconnected. They have to be - they are parts of the same government after all. Legislative decides funding level. Exec holds the money and writes the checks. That doesnt mean we cant recognize the important ways they were intended to be independent and co-equal.

 

[QvQ]

The FBI is basically run by the exec branch. The pres chooses its leadership and the bureau reports ultimately to the pres. I don't see how you could contest this.

The FBI is a dual agency
Enforcing US law requires an agent to have cause (warrant) remand detainees to custody of Court and appear in Court, so it is as an Officer of the Court

The agency is also an intelligence agency, in conjuction with the CIA. That is the Executive (commander in chief of militaray)

The reason the Border Patrol, Customs, CIA, some FBI functions are Executive is because all foriegn relations are subject to US military enforcement, ultimately. The borders are controlled by the military, except the US has created an agency that performs the same functons. If it walks like a duck...

 

[RDKirk]

I was talking about police and FBI. I think federal marshals are a different thing.

The federal courts run the US Marshals. Even if you go back to the Old West, the county sheriffs worked for the county judges, the US Marshals worked for the federal judges. Where they had police departments (generally larger cities), they worked for the mayors.

 

[RDKirk]

The FBI is a dual agency
Enforcing US law requires an agent to have cause (warrant) remand detainees to custody of Court and appear in Court, so it is as an Officer of the Court

Only where the FBI must intentionally infringe on a person's 4th Amendment rights. It's always an infringement while a person is still only a suspect, and a police agency requires prior judicial approval to make that infringement. It takes two branches of government to legally infringe the 4th Amendment...effectively, "Two-step Authorization." If a person is already in the judicial system, then the judicial system alone can handle it...thus sheriffs and marshals.

 

[QvQ]

Only where the FBI must intentionally infringe on a person's 4th Amendment rights

Where are the FBI's authorities located? | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI has a range of legal authorities that enable it to investigate federal crimes and threats to national security, as well as to gather intelligence and assist other law enforcement agencies.

www.fbi.gov

"as well as" indicates dual.
FBI are Officers of the Courts
as well as
National Security Agents for the Executive.

 

[durangodawood]

The FBI are Officers of the Federal Courts so investigate Federal and Interstate Crimes. They are not Officers of the State Courts.
They are Officers of The Federal Courts

(quote) Federal law gives the FBI authority to investigate all federal crime not assigned exclusively to another federal agency (28, Section 533 of the U.S. Code). Title 28, U.S. Code, Section 533, authorizes the attorney general to appoint officials to detect and prosecute crimes against the United States. Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 3052, specifically authorizes special agents and officials of the FBI to make arrests, carry firearms, and serve warrants. Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 3107, empowers special agents and officials to make seizures under warrant for violation of federal statutes. The FBI’s authority to investigate specific criminal violations is conferred by numerous other congressional statutes—such as the Congressional Assassination, Kidnapping, and Assault Act (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 351). The FBI has special investigative jurisdiction to investigate violations of state law in limited circumstances, specifically felony killings of state law enforcement officers (28 U.S.C. § 540), violent crimes against interstate travelers (28 U.S.C. § 540A0), and serial killers (28 U.S.C. §540B). A request by an appropriate state official is required before the FBI has authority to investigate these matters. (end quote)

(quote) In Addition the FBI can investigate National Security. This does not infringe on thhe 4th Amendment
The FBI has authority to investigate threats to national security pursuant to presidential executive orders, attorney general authorities, and various statutory sources. Title II of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Public Law 108-458, 118 Stat. 3638, outlines FBI intelligence authorities, as does Executive Order 12333; 50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.; 50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

This combination of authorities gives the FBI the unique ability to address national security and criminal threats that are increasingly intertwined and to shift between the use of intelligence tools such as surveillance or recruiting sources AND law enforcement tools of arrest and prosecution. (end quote)

The FBI shifts between National Security and Criminal (4th Amendment)

Where are the FBI's authorities located? | Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI has a range of legal authorities that enable it to investigate federal crimes and threats to national security, as well as to gather intelligence and assist other law enforcement agencies.

www.fbi.gov

Who does The FBI director answer to? Donald Trump or John Roberts? Which one of them can fire the FBI director?

Thats tells you where the FBI fits in the giant org chart of US govt.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

The title says it all.

Apparently...he could. Two questions then arise:

1. Would he? And I'm afraid that I personally think the answer to that is yes.
2. Would you support him in doing so?

From what I have read, the only recourse is impeachment. So c'mon, guys. This is where the rubber hits the road. How far do you follow this guy?

Without respect for the rule of law we are barbarians. And we have already crossed that Rubicon.

 

[Postvieww]

The title says it all.

Apparently...he could. Two questions then arise:

1. Would he? And I'm afraid that I personally think the answer to that is yes.
2. Would you support him in doing so?

From what I have read, the only recourse is impeachment. So c'mon, guys. This is where the rubber hits the road. How far do you follow this guy?

Biden actually did that and who called for his impeachment?

 

[durangodawood]

Biden actually did that and who called for his impeachment?

You can go back and review the Biden era threads on that.

Now we're in the Trump era and the question is about him.

 

[Postvieww]

You can go back and review the Biden era threads on that.

Now we're in the Trump era and the question is about him.

Well now the president has been set. If it was alright for Joe so be it.

 

[durangodawood]

Well now the president has been set. If it was alright for Joe so be it.

If thats true, then you get your sense of right and wrong by what other people can get away with.

I reject that derivation of ethics.

 

[Postvieww]

If thats true, then you get your sense of right and wrong by what other people can get away with.

I reject that derivation of ethics.

Did you for the last administration! Are you consistent with that?

 

[Bradskii]

Biden actually did that and who called for his impeachment?

If he did or not is utterly irrelevant as to whether you think presidents should be impeached if they do.

 

[durangodawood]

Did you for the last administration! Are you consistent with that?

Substitute Biden for Trump in the question and my answer would be NO.

There are many open threads from that era where you can read about my opinions on specific issues and respond.

Regardless, it seems weird that your answer re Trump would depend on my answer re Biden. Why would your ethics depend on mine?