When do constitutional violations become more than just a difference of opinion

ChapelHillSooner

ChapelHillSooner

Esteemed Member
Messages
674
Every congress has passed laws that are ruled unconstitutional. Every president has had decisions (executive orders) that are ruled unconstitutional.

Usually these are just considered part of the way checks and balances work. The other branches may push the issue some or may have a very different interpretation of the constitution. This is not considered abnormal.

I am assuming that there is a line where an action would be considered such a threat to the constitution that it can't just be swept away as normal and must be treated as an attack on the constitution itself.

Where/how is that line drawn? Is it up to the individual to distinguish one from the other, and ultimately up to senators who would be in charge of conviction upon impeachment?

In extreme cases it would be up to the military and/or citizens to revolt. (I say this as more of a hypothetical and not trying to bring this back to the current situation.)
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
Every congress has passed laws that are ruled unconstitutional. Every president has had decisions (executive orders) that are ruled unconstitutional.

Usually these are just considered part of the way checks and balances work. The other branches may push the issue some or may have a very different interpretation of the constitution. This is not considered abnormal.

I am assuming that there is a line where an action would be considered such a threat to the constitution that it can't just be swept away as normal and must be treated as an attack on the constitution itself.

Where/how is that line drawn? Is it up to the individual to distinguish one from the other, and ultimately up to senators who would be in charge of conviction upon impeachment?

In extreme cases it would be up to the military and/or citizens to revolt. (I say this as more of a hypothetical and not trying to bring this back to the current situation.)
Click to expand...
I think it really becomes a massive problem if the president decides to ignore a court ruling and there are enough people in the executive branch that go along with it.

I don't think we're really there. Trump is definitely pushing the bounds of what is constitutional but he is not ignoring judges' orders and didn't the first term either.
 
I would add that a similar question is when a military order is so obviously illegal that a soldier has an obligation to refuse to carry it out.

Soldiers can't simply just make up their own mind about every questionable order that is given clearance by legal. That would be chaos. There has to be a fairly high bar before you are expected to go against your commanders and the advice of legal. But of course a soldier who is told to commit crimes against humanity can't simply hide behind commanders and legal either.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I think it really becomes a massive problem if the president decides to ignore a court ruling and there are enough people in the executive branch that go along with it.

I don't think we're really there. Trump is definitely pushing the bounds of what is constitutional but he is not ignoring judges' orders and didn't the first term either.
Click to expand...
I agree that that would be a red line. But even then we can all come up with scenarios where a president would be expected to defy the courts.

Using an absurd example simply to make a point, let's say a court ruled that all immigrants in ICE custody must be executed.

I would also say that defying a court via inaction is an easier sell that doing so via an action. To use this logic I would have to consider something like defying a court order to release a prison is logically an action vs an inaction even though technically it is an inaction.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
I agree that that would be a red line. But even then we can all come up with scenarios where a president would be expected to defy the courts.

Using an absurd example simply to make a point, let's say a court ruled that all immigrants in ICE custody must be executed.

I would also say that defying a court via inaction is an easier sell that doing so via an action. To use this logic I would have to consider something like defying a court order to release a prison is logically an action vs an inaction even though technically it is an inaction.
Click to expand...
Honestly not sure. If the court ordered an extreme specific action and the executive branch declined to carry it out, I assume it still would be a constitutional crisis but really don't know.
 
gtyellowjacket said:
I think it really becomes a massive problem if the president decides to ignore a court ruling and there are enough people in the executive branch that go along with it.

I don't think we're really there. Trump is definitely pushing the bounds of what is constitutional but he is not ignoring judges' orders and didn't the first term either.
Click to expand...


Fred Armisen Snl GIF by Saturday Night Live
 

White House Criticizes Judge for Blocking Musk Team’s Access to Treasury Data​


www.nytimes.com

White House Criticizes Judge for Blocking Musk Team’s Access to Treasury Data: Live Updates

www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com

“… The situation could pose a fundamental test of America’s rule of law. If the administration fails to comply with the emergency order, it is unclear how it might be enforced. The Constitution says that a president “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” but courts have rarely been tested by a chief executive who has ignored their orders.

Federal officials have sometimes responded to adverse decisions with dawdling or grudging compliance. Outright disobedience is exceedingly rare. There has been no clear example of “open presidential defiance of court orders in the years since 1865,” according to a Harvard Law Review article published in 2018.

…
In a statement on Saturday, Harrison Fields, a White House spokesman, called the lawsuits “frivolous” and said they were “akin to children throwing pasta at the wall to see if it will stick.”

“Grandstanding government efficiency speaks volumes about those who’d rather delay much-needed change with legal shenanigans then work with the Trump administration of ridding the government of waste, fraud and abuse,” he said. “This activist judge has resorted to locking the Senate-confirmed secretary of Treasury out of his role.”

Although the court order mandates an immediate halt to the Musk employees’ access to the Treasury Department’s payment system, it was not immediately clear when or if they would fully comply. Nor was it clear how the attorneys general would monitor the administration’s actions. …”
 
Super Bowl Sunday would be a strategic time for trump to defy the courts and declare war against the US Constitution. Many will be distracted.
 
I guess it's now OK to think about radical solutions. Guess I jumped the gun by a week or two. I've always been ahead of the curve.

My take is that people who attempt to subvert the constitution cannot be allowed to take refuge behind it. When and if this monstrosity of the administration is deposed, every single person involved should be held in Gitmo indefinitely. FAFO. And that includes Supreme Court justices.
 
ChapelHillSooner said:
If the executive branch can just ignore court ruling we no longer have three branches of government. We only have the executive.
Click to expand...
These mooks forgot about the purpose of the separation of powers. It wasn't just for fun. It was for checks and balances.

One would think that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court would understand the constitution better than my ten year old, but this is the world we live in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top