We often have constitutional power-contests between the branches of government

Politruk

Literotica Guru
Joined
Oct 13, 2024
Posts
12,759
I hope we can all agree that, no matter which party controls which branch at the moment, it is always a bad thing when the president wins such contests at the expense of Congress or the courts. That's how we get an "imperial presidency."
 
Last edited:
This is an especially urgent question at the moment, when the executive is denying the legitimacy of court orders.
 
Remember, whatever position you take on this, it has to be one that will remain the same no matter which party controls which branch at the moment.
 
In our constitutional system, the courts should always have the final word and it should always be binding on the other two branches. Otherwise, we don't have a rule-of-law system.
 
Every government agency has its own mission statement, and a recognized sphere of political independence from the White House.

Anything that encroaches on that will only make the imperial-presidency problem worse. There is no concept more pernicious than the "unitary executive."
 
I hope we can all agree that, no matter which party controls which branch at the moment, it is always a bad thing when the president wins such contests at the expense of Congress or the courts. That's how we get an "imperial presidency."
There are two types of people here truk. Those that know this, and those that cheer on the "Imperial presidency"
 
I saw #4 and I agree, but unfortunately MAGA's don't agree and are happily moving in the other direction. Don't think for a second you can change the "brain damaged MAGA members".
Did they cheer for Emperor Barack or Emperor Joe?
 
In our constitutional system, the courts should always have the final word and it should always be binding on the other two branches. Otherwise, we don't have a rule-of-law system.
This is essential to keep in mind.
 
14 states file a lawsuit arguing Elon Musk's authority at DOGE is unconstitutional

A group of 14 states sued Elon Musk and President Donald Trump on Thursday, arguing that the authority the White House granted the tech billionaire and his advisory Department of Government Efficiency is unconstitutional.

The suit, filed by Democratic attorneys general from states like Arizona, Michigan and Rhode Island, takes aim at the magnitude and scale of Musk’s power, noting that DOGE has led the Trump administration’s efforts to dramatically reduce the size of the federal workforce, dismantle entire agencies and access sensitive data.

“The founders of this country would be outraged that, 250 years after our nation overthrew a king, the people of this country—many of whom have fought and died to protect our freedoms—are now subject to the whims of a single unelected billionaire,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a statement.

The attorneys general argue that Trump violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by creating DOGE — an unofficial government agency — without congressional approval and by granting Musk “sweeping powers” without seeking the advice and consent of the Senate through a confirmation hearing.

“President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities,” the lawsuit reads. “As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers.”

The states are seeking a court order blocking Musk from making changes to government funding, canceling contracts, making personnel decisions and more.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the lawsuit a "continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump."
 
14 states file a lawsuit arguing Elon Musk's authority at DOGE is unconstitutional

A group of 14 states sued Elon Musk and President Donald Trump on Thursday, arguing that the authority the White House granted the tech billionaire and his advisory Department of Government Efficiency is unconstitutional.

The suit, filed by Democratic attorneys general from states like Arizona, Michigan and Rhode Island, takes aim at the magnitude and scale of Musk’s power, noting that DOGE has led the Trump administration’s efforts to dramatically reduce the size of the federal workforce, dismantle entire agencies and access sensitive data.

“The founders of this country would be outraged that, 250 years after our nation overthrew a king, the people of this country—many of whom have fought and died to protect our freedoms—are now subject to the whims of a single unelected billionaire,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a statement.

The attorneys general argue that Trump violated the Appointments Clause of the Constitution by creating DOGE — an unofficial government agency — without congressional approval and by granting Musk “sweeping powers” without seeking the advice and consent of the Senate through a confirmation hearing.

“President Trump has delegated virtually unchecked authority to Mr. Musk without proper legal authorization from Congress and without meaningful supervision of his activities,” the lawsuit reads. “As a result, he has transformed a minor position that was formerly responsible for managing government websites into a designated agent of chaos without limitation and in violation of the separation of powers.”

The states are seeking a court order blocking Musk from making changes to government funding, canceling contracts, making personnel decisions and more.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called the lawsuit a "continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump."
Judge Denies Request From 14 States to Temporarily Block DOGE Actions. The states could not show "irreparable harm."

On to the SCOTUS, I guess.
 
Ultimately, the judiciary has to win these contests, or else we do not have a rule-of-law system.
 
Back
Top