The Supreme Court is going to have to rule soon on if there can be an actual President elected by the people or if this whole voting thing is just a fake veneer covering a permanent government. https://t.co/mFe4LF12Ir
— Jeffrey A Tucker (@jeffreyatucker) February 10, 2025
Constitutional Crisis
4,436 Views |
97 Replies |
Last: 1 day ago by historian
Doc Holliday said:The Supreme Court is going to have to rule soon on if there can be an actual President elected by the people or if this whole voting thing is just a fake veneer covering a permanent government. https://t.co/mFe4LF12Ir
— Jeffrey A Tucker (@jeffreyatucker) February 10, 2025
Can the scotus pick this up whenever they feel like it or does it have to work its way thru appeals?
Exhibit A for why dimcrats should never be allowed to appoint judges.
A judge just ruled what that the executive branch does not contro6 the content on its web pages.
It truly is a crisis where activist judges can say whatever they want regardless of law and overrule the executive branch.
It truly is a crisis where activist judges can say whatever they want regardless of law and overrule the executive branch.
Thee tinfoil hat couch-potato prognosticator, not a bible school preacher.
Why didn't a judge order Oatmeal brains to quit forgiving student debt when SCOTUS ruled against him?
Amazing how the Dems conveniently forgot about it. The swamp is alive and kicking.
Amazing how the Dems conveniently forgot about it. The swamp is alive and kicking.
We are 100% in a Constitutional Crisis.
1. The Judicial Branch has completely overstepped its bounds by trying to run the Executive Branch.
2. The overreach by federal district judges making national rulings arguably is not constitutional. District Court rulings should never be national in scope.
1. The Judicial Branch has completely overstepped its bounds by trying to run the Executive Branch.
2. The overreach by federal district judges making national rulings arguably is not constitutional. District Court rulings should never be national in scope.
I'm not sure which of you guys are intentionally obtuse and which are just dumb.
The spending at issue was approved by Congress (both houses) and the previous President. A subsequent President cannot simply ignore that. He can get the current Congress to change the law (and then sign on), but barring that, he's required to follow the law as it is. This ... is not new.
Given that current federal spending is based on a continuing resolution, I suppose TRUMP can refuse payments once the current resolution expires ... next month, I think.
To the extent we're nearing a Constitutional crisis, it's TRUMP and Friends who are provoking it.
The spending at issue was approved by Congress (both houses) and the previous President. A subsequent President cannot simply ignore that. He can get the current Congress to change the law (and then sign on), but barring that, he's required to follow the law as it is. This ... is not new.
Given that current federal spending is based on a continuing resolution, I suppose TRUMP can refuse payments once the current resolution expires ... next month, I think.
To the extent we're nearing a Constitutional crisis, it's TRUMP and Friends who are provoking it.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
Yeah Congress and bureaucracy is a giant kleptocracy…so I guess we can just hope they'll change their ways, which they won't, and we'll just watch it all collapse under the weight of it's corruption. At least you can say you were "constitutional" and "democratic" despite carrying out the opposite of the public's mandate.fubar said:
I'm not sure which of you guys are intentionally obtuse and which are just dumb.
The spending at issue was approved by Congress (both houses) and the previous President. A subsequent President cannot simply ignore that. He can get the current Congress to change the law (and then sign on), but barring that, he's required to follow the law as it is. This ... is not new.
Given that current federal spending is based on a continuing resolution, I suppose TRUMP can refuse payments once the current resolution expires ... next month, I think.
To the extent we're nearing a Constitutional crisis, it's TRUMP and Friends who are provoking it.
If you want the legislative branch to have the power to create a bureaucracy more powerful than the executive branch and become accountable to no one then just be honest about it and say you support it.
Well at least you're on the record. Constitution is cool for things like the Second Amendment, but if it gets in the way of what you want, **** it.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
Trump is going to win his injunctions against these ******* judges.fubar said:
Well at least you're on the record. Constitution is cool for things like the Second Amendment, but if it gets in the way of what you want, **** it.
I would ask you to share the bill signed by China Joe that funded a drag show in Slovenia and condemns in Gaze, but we know you fascists don't do facts, specifics, or details.fubar said:
I'm not sure which of you guys are intentionally obtuse and which are just dumb.
The spending at issue was approved by Congress (both houses) and the previous President. A subsequent President cannot simply ignore that. He can get the current Congress to change the law (and then sign on), but barring that, he's required to follow the law as it is. This ... is not new.
Given that current federal spending is based on a continuing resolution, I suppose TRUMP can refuse payments once the current resolution expires ... next month, I think.
To the extent we're nearing a Constitutional crisis, it's TRUMP and Friends who are provoking it.
fubar said:
Well at least you're on the record. Constitution is cool for things like the Second Amendment, but if it gets in the way of what you want, **** it.
Maybe we should all just wait what the Supreme Court rules on this and several other Trump's actions.
I'm not sure what those have to do with anything, but you feel free to present them and explain.
Otherwise, the Constitution is pretty clear on the subject that was being discussed. Like Fourth Grade-level clear.
Otherwise, the Constitution is pretty clear on the subject that was being discussed. Like Fourth Grade-level clear.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
Don't get drunk on power like the Democrats. It leads to bad places.
It's very interesting, the libs and TDSers don't care one bit about the corruption. The press is completely amplifying the anti Trump message AND next to zero on the corruption. Libs are corrupt.
Thee tinfoil hat couch-potato prognosticator, not a bible school preacher.
fubar said:
I'm not sure what those have to do with anything, but you feel free to present them and explain.
Otherwise, the Constitution is pretty clear on the subject that was being discussed. Like Fourth Grade-level clear.
Then let us discuss it at that level. In the simplest terms available, please explain your assertion that Trump is causing a constitutional crisis by using his Article II powers over his Article II agencies?
Next, please explain how an Article III judge can tell the Article II executive how to manage the money authorized by Article I for the Article II executive.
Here ya go, Champ:GrowlTowel said:fubar said:
I'm not sure what those have to do with anything, but you feel free to present them and explain.
Otherwise, the Constitution is pretty clear on the subject that was being discussed. Like Fourth Grade-level clear.
Then let us discuss it at that level. In the simplest terms available, please explain your assertion that Trump is causing a constitutional crisis by using his Article II powers over his Article II agencies?
Next, please explain how an Article III judge can tell the Article II executive how to manage the money authorized by Article I for the Article II executive.
state-of-new-york-et-al-v-trump-tro-2025.pdf
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
Perhaps you missed this one?GrowlTowel said:fubar said:
I'm not sure what those have to do with anything, but you feel free to present them and explain.
Otherwise, the Constitution is pretty clear on the subject that was being discussed. Like Fourth Grade-level clear.
Then let us discuss it at that level. In the simplest terms available, please explain your assertion that Trump is causing a constitutional crisis by using his Article II powers over his Article II agencies?
Next, please explain how an Article III judge can tell the Article II executive how to manage the money authorized by Article I for the Article II executive.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
Yep.ATL Bear said:
Don't get drunk on power like the Democrats. It leads to bad places.
Gunter gleiben glauchen globen
Trump and friends are advancing a radical version of the unitary executive theory, which I suppose they have the right to attempt. What's bizarre is the idea that any opposition by the courts is illegitimate, or even somehow radical in itself.fubar said:
I'm not sure which of you guys are intentionally obtuse and which are just dumb.
The spending at issue was approved by Congress (both houses) and the previous President. A subsequent President cannot simply ignore that. He can get the current Congress to change the law (and then sign on), but barring that, he's required to follow the law as it is. This ... is not new.
Given that current federal spending is based on a continuing resolution, I suppose TRUMP can refuse payments once the current resolution expires ... next month, I think.
To the extent we're nearing a Constitutional crisis, it's TRUMP and Friends who are provoking it.
He's playing on his supporters' emotions and working them into an authoritarian frenzy without their knowledge…as demagogues always do.
There you go.KaiBear said:fubar said:
Well at least you're on the record. Constitution is cool for things like the Second Amendment, but if it gets in the way of what you want, **** it.
Maybe we should all just wait what the Supreme Court rules on this and several other Trump's actions.
Yep.ATL Bear said:
Don't get drunk on power like the Democrats. It leads to bad places.
The executive branch does not have to follow some activist judges order that overrides the executive branches defined responsibilities. That's a fact under the constitution according to this good read:
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/02/no_trump_does_em_not_em_have_to_abide_by_a_mythical_judicial_supremacy.html
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2025/02/no_trump_does_em_not_em_have_to_abide_by_a_mythical_judicial_supremacy.html
Thee tinfoil hat couch-potato prognosticator, not a bible school preacher.
So we allow democrats to wield abusive power, like you're saying Trump is trying to do?Sam Lowry said:Yep.ATL Bear said:
Don't get drunk on power like the Democrats. It leads to bad places.
When it comes to Democrats, judges aren't challenging them. Can you tell me why that's the case?
Cut and paste a link? Do you have any thoughts or opinions? I can read talking points. Care to actually defend your ridiculous opinion?fubar said:Here ya go, Champ:GrowlTowel said:fubar said:
I'm not sure what those have to do with anything, but you feel free to present them and explain.
Otherwise, the Constitution is pretty clear on the subject that was being discussed. Like Fourth Grade-level clear.
Then let us discuss it at that level. In the simplest terms available, please explain your assertion that Trump is causing a constitutional crisis by using his Article II powers over his Article II agencies?
Next, please explain how an Article III judge can tell the Article II executive how to manage the money authorized by Article I for the Article II executive.
state-of-new-york-et-al-v-trump-tro-2025.pdf
Okay. How does that opinion apply to my questions?fubar said:Perhaps you missed this one?GrowlTowel said:fubar said:
I'm not sure what those have to do with anything, but you feel free to present them and explain.
Otherwise, the Constitution is pretty clear on the subject that was being discussed. Like Fourth Grade-level clear.
Then let us discuss it at that level. In the simplest terms available, please explain your assertion that Trump is causing a constitutional crisis by using his Article II powers over his Article II agencies?
Next, please explain how an Article III judge can tell the Article II executive how to manage the money authorized by Article I for the Article II executive.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
[Hint - it doesn't]
Doc Holliday said:So we allow democrats to wield abusive power, like you're saying Trump is trying to do?Sam Lowry said:Yep.ATL Bear said:
Don't get drunk on power like the Democrats. It leads to bad places.
When it comes to Democrats, judges aren't challenging them. Can you tell me why that's the case?
Its the tried and true method of the left... break the rules and scream bloody murder when the right doesnt 100% follow the rules to fight it back.
Communist left: the law says you have to get in the gas chamber
Sam: you need to do what the government says
The right: hell, no, i'm not getting in that gas chamber.
Sam: anarchist! Governments have laws for reason!
fubar said:
I'm not sure what those have to do with anything, but you feel free to present them and explain.
Otherwise, the Constitution is pretty clear on the subject that was being discussed. Like Fourth Grade-level clear.
I would ask you to share the bill signed by China Joe that funded a drag show in Slovenia and condemns in Gaze, but we know you fascists don't do facts, specifics, or details.
We do need to seriously end the Constitutional crises of district judges issuing nationwide executive orders.
Sweeping authority of auditing how OUR tax dollars are being spent? https://t.co/b4jVh8M7q7
— Reaganette (@Ezinger44) February 14, 2025
No, not at all. Democrats lost on disqualification, student loans, and the vaccine mandate, just to name a few. The Mar-a-Lago raid wasn't challenged because it was clearly and obviously justified. I know y'all don't like hearing that, but there it is. The Bragg prosecution in NY was bogus, but that wasn't even a federal case.Doc Holliday said:So we allow democrats to wield abusive power, like you're saying Trump is trying to do?Sam Lowry said:Yep.ATL Bear said:
Don't get drunk on power like the Democrats. It leads to bad places.
When it comes to Democrats, judges aren't challenging them. Can you tell me why that's the case?
Regressives continue to resort to lawfare to threaten democracy.Redbrickbear said:Sweeping authority of auditing how OUR tax dollars are being spent? https://t.co/b4jVh8M7q7
— Reaganette (@Ezinger44) February 14, 2025
Redbrickbear said:Sweeping authority of auditing how OUR tax dollars are being spent? https://t.co/b4jVh8M7q7
— Reaganette (@Ezinger44) February 14, 2025
All taxpayers have a right to know how our government is using our money. What Trump & Musk are doing is good government plain & simple.
This is what as known as transparency. Real transparency instead of the fake variety from the Left. The fascists have poisoned that term by promising it while doing the opposite. Their abuse of language is Orwellian Newspeak on steroids.
There is a reason the biggest hysteria has been triggered by the transparency and efforts to end the grift.historian said:Redbrickbear said:Sweeping authority of auditing how OUR tax dollars are being spent? https://t.co/b4jVh8M7q7
— Reaganette (@Ezinger44) February 14, 2025
All taxpayers have a right to know how our government is using our money. What Trump & Musk are doing is good government plain & simple.
This is what as known as transparency. Real transparency instead of the fake variety from the Left. The fascists have poisoned that term by promising it while doing the opposite. Their abuse of language is Orwellian Newspeak on steroids.
Democrats are going to lose on this too because they're taking the position that how our tax dollars are spent shouldn't be transparent.Sam Lowry said:No, not at all. Democrats lost on disqualification, student loans, and the vaccine mandate, just to name a few. The Mar-a-Lago raid wasn't challenged because it was clearly and obviously justified. I know y'all don't like hearing that, but there it is. The Bragg prosecution in NY was bogus, but that wasn't even a federal case.Doc Holliday said:So we allow democrats to wield abusive power, like you're saying Trump is trying to do?Sam Lowry said:Yep.ATL Bear said:
Don't get drunk on power like the Democrats. It leads to bad places.
When it comes to Democrats, judges aren't challenging them. Can you tell me why that's the case?
If you want to argue on abuse of power, that's fine…but let's get one thing straight: Democrats support things they can grift from.
You're over hear worried about Trump being a fascist yet you never say a damn thing about the position and logic that democrats operate on.
Can you answer why these judges want to prevent DOGE from auditing? To take that position is ridiculous.