• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Trump announces intent to end Birthright Citizenship

BobTheCoward said:
If Congress thinks the court is wrong, they have a duty to ignore it.
Click to expand...

That was the point, Bob. If Trump wants to ignore a Supreme Court decision and continue with actions, then the ball is in Congress' court. "Judicial supremacy" is mainly a theory which conservatives attribute to "elitist liberals," and it's a pointless issue.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If Congress thinks the court is wrong, they have a duty to ignore it.
Click to expand...

If they can just ignore the courts then they can do anything they want.
Why would they even bother with elections?
Just ignore them and stay in power.
 
WilliamSeger said:
That was the point, Bob. If Trump wants to ignore a Supreme Court decision and continue with actions, then the ball is in Congress' court. "Judicial supremacy" is mainly a theory which conservatives attribute to "elitist liberals," and it's a pointless issue.
Click to expand...

To clarify, the ball is in Congress hands and they have a constitutional duty to respect the Constitution, and nothing in the Constitution actually says they have to defer to a supreme Court ruling if they think it is wrong.

When people say judicial supremacy, they think the Constitution actually requires them to accept the ruling as final and correct.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
If they can just ignore the courts then they can do anything they want.
Why would they even bother with elections?
Just ignore them and stay in power.
Click to expand...

Anyone can do anything if they simply ignore the rules.that isn't the question being discussed.

The point is ignoring the court is not ignoring the rules. That scenario still assume Congress is following the rules.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
If they can just ignore the courts then they can do anything they want.
Why would they even bother with elections?
Just ignore them and stay in power.
Click to expand...

And the thing that's supposed to stop that is a President who would arrest them all. Interpreting and upholding the Constitution is a shared responsibility among the three branches, and it can only work properly if they all conscientiously uphold their separate duties.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Anyone can do anything if they simply ignore the rules.that isn't the question being discussed.

The point is ignoring the court is not ignoring the rules. That scenario still assume Congress is following the rules.
Click to expand...
Anyone can ignore the President and Congress and not follow the order. What recourse does the President and Congress have to compel anyone? Law enforcement agencies, executive branches, and anyone else is free to ignore a law struck by the courts. The President can't make his own executive actors do anything if it is deemed illegal.
 
WilliamSeger said:
And the thing that's supposed to stop that is a President who would arrest them all. Interpreting and upholding the Constitution is a shared responsibility among the three branches, and it can only work properly if they all conscientiously uphold their separate duties.
Click to expand...

Law enforcement does not have to follow an order determined illegal by the courts. The President can then only compel law enforcement to arrest by threatening law enforcement with people loyal to the President, and rule of law then no longer exists.
 
LSSBB said:
Law enforcement does not have to follow an order determined illegal by the courts. The President can then only compel law enforcement to arrest by threatening law enforcement with people loyal to the President, and rule of law then no longer exists.
Click to expand...

You are confusing not having a recourse with not having a rule. You are making a case about recourse. I'm making a case about the Constitution as written.
 
BobTheCoward said:
You are confusing not having a recourse with not having a rule. You are making a case about recourse. I'm making a case about the Constitution as written.
Click to expand...

You are making a distinction without a difference. If the supreme court invalidates an order, it no longer has the force of law. I don't see the need to progress into fantasyland.
 
LSSBB said:
You are making a distinction without a difference. If the supreme court invalidates an order, it no longer has the force of law. I don't see the need to progress into fantasyland.
Click to expand...

I am making a huge distinction on subject with a decent amount of legal righting on it.
 
LSSBB said:
You are making a distinction without a difference. If the supreme court invalidates an order, it no longer has the force of law. I don't see the need to progress into fantasyland.
Click to expand...

The president still possesses the lawful Constitutional authority to direct the arrest of people under that law.
 
BobTheCoward said:
The president still possesses the lawful Constitutional authority to direct the arrest of people under that law.
Click to expand...
Only if they are deemed to be in violation of an actual law. If the Supreme Court has ruled an order invalid, there is nothing real with which to charge someone who doesn't enforce it. There is no law for them to be arrested for.
 
LSSBB said:
Only if they are deemed to be in violation of an actual law. If the Supreme Court has ruled an order invalid, there is nothing real with which to charge someone who doesn't enforce it. There is no law for them to be arrested for.
Click to expand...

There is. The law is still there on the books. A judge won't recognize it, but the executive can still make them go through it.
 
LSSBB said:
No, because if the Supreme Court strikes it down it is no longer a law. What is written in the books is now an ex-law.
Click to expand...

Only in Federal courts. None of the Court's power reaches beyond that. The law is still there and the president can enforce it if he thinks it is Constitutional.
 
LSSBB said:
No, if the Supreme Court strikes down an executive order, it is no longer lawful. That's exactly what Marbury combined with Youngstown demonstrates.
Click to expand...

No, the court is stating it is unlawful and not the law in courts. As an equal branch of government with an equal oath to the Constitution, the executive branch gets to ask that same question and can reach a different answer. It would be against the oath to do otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom