Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It won't happen. While those not allowed to re-enter do not get the rights of a citizen I do not believe that a single court is going to deny them due process in our courts.
Those excluded will be able to sue in court and will regularly win their right to return. While Trump can argue this is what he wanted in the first place the people are going to say, what is the point if all these people are proving to not be a threat to the country.
An interesting question, but I'll ask the OP a better one.
Consider this: once the Dumpster is done packing the Supreme Court with right-wing boot-lickers, we'll be left with a Court that is lopsided towards regressive policies. Inevitably, these new judges will get around to rolling back various civil rights, probably using illogical (and technically illegal) mixes of religion and bigotry to justify their positions.
So, to the OP: will you be taking a stand against the Supreme Court then?
If they try to roll back civil rights, will you demand accountability from these "un-elected judges?"
Will you take a stand for what is right vs. what the regressive republican party wants?
Or, will you wallow in hypocrisy, as republicans are so fond of doing these days?
How many terrorist attacks occur here in the US? I mean, the actual ones, not the ones that Trump pretends aren't being reported.
Okay... so, how many other types of crimes that are dangerous to life and liberty occur here all the time? What percentage of crimes are terror-related?
Why are we focused on something that really doesn't happen very often? Come on... is someone getting killed by a crazy, white guy in South Carolina somehow not as bad as someone being killed by a crazy, brown guy from the Middle East in San Bernardino? Nope.
So, that said...
Who cares?!? The person/persons who got killed are dead no matter who kills them.
Even my liberal self could get behind a travel ban if these countries had terrorists flowing out of them like cheap wine and people in the US were constantly having to duck and cover to avoid being killed by people from the Middle East.
But, this is NOT the case.
Don't scare the Republicans with facts - aka "fake news" as they like calling it these days.
Oh, and remember that when a white "Christian" kills a room full of people with a patriotic murder weapon, he's a "lone wolf," but when a brown "Muslim" does something similar, he's a "terrorist" and we need to bomb his whole country into ruins... and then stupidly wonder years later why the survivors hate us and want to kill us.
Imagine if we handled white, domestic terrorism the same way we handle overseas, brown-people terrorism? Imagine if drones just randomly blew up buildings in American because a "suspected white terrorist" may or may not have been there? Imagine how quickly this would turn out very bad...
Look, people keep talking about an "independent Judiciary". But they don't seem to understand that the judiciary violates the independence of the other branches of government.
Basically, the Congress can challenge the president. The president can challenge the Congress. But neither have power over the other.
In fact, the Congress cannot force the president or any member of his staff to do absolutely anything.
But, the Supreme Court can order the president to testify, or to turn over documents. It can also prevent executive functions, such as telling the Department of Homeland Security that it cannot enforce the law, or to ignore the orders of the president.
That isn't how the Judiciary was supposed to function.
It is certainly true that the Supreme Court could always interpret law, as it relates to the cases brought before it. But the Constitution does not give the Supreme Court the power to violate the independence of the other branches of government.
In one famous case, Andrew Jackson said, "Chief Justice John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it".
What this refers to is the fact that, the Supreme Court does not have an Army, it does not have a police force, it cannot enforce anything. Only the president has the power to enforce laws, per the Constitution.
And, per the Constitution, the executive branch is independent of the Supreme Court, and is not answerable to the Supreme Court, it is only answerable to the people, and their representatives. It can, at its discretion, completely ignore any order from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court is not supposed to have direct power over the other branches of government.
Congress and the president both have the power to veto each other and override vetoes. They can and do have power over the other. The legislative branch is the one that represents the people, hence the elected representatives. The president is not even directly elected by the people, unlike the representatives and Senators.
The function and powers of each branch is literally laid out in the Constitution, Articles I-III.
Article III - "The Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution." Meaning anything the president or Congress does that can be challenged under the Constitution/deciding whether or not their actions were within their vested powers. The president is indeed answerable to the Court. If he weren't, he would have way too much power and could do unconstitutional things with potentially no one to stop him. The president's allowed duties are laid out in Article II; theoretically without the Court the president could work outside his duties - thus becoming too powerful. If we were to have a president and majority in Congress of the same party (which we frequently do), that majority party could become too powerful and anything the other side doesn't like or could deem unconstitutional wouldn't get vetoed, and thus would go through. It would be a dangerous situation if no one could challenge their actions to the Court to decide the constitutionality, which is exactly what the court's primary function is.
The Court also has judicial power over "the laws of the United States, and treaties made." The Senate and president create treaties, Congress creates laws and the president contributes. The Court(s) can also convict a president of treason or other crimes, in which case the president is supposed to be removed from office as per Article II. The Court has appellate jurisdiction over these matters, meaning they will hear cases only appealed from the lower federal (or state if concerning constitutionality issues) courts, so cases potentially may not even reach the Supreme Court anyway.
All of the branches are independent of each other but are designed to keep each other in check to avoid one or more becoming too powerful. The Court NEEDS to "violate" the other branches of the government, IF they are found to be doing unconstitutional things. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a balance of power, we would have lawmakers and a president who are too powerful and doing whatever the hell they want. Like I said, you have a majority in Congress and the president as part of the same party, things can get very powerful with no one to stop them. The Court can correct itself, if need be, when new justices come onto the bench (a power the president has, to appoint new justices) with different ideological views and they have a chance to overturn or set new precedents.
The judiciary cannot be the judiciary without its current functions. It cannot effectively do its job if it didn't have the power to stop or at least slow the other branches if they are out of line and compel them to do things. The other branches (mainly Congress) can in turn adversely effect the Court by blocking new nominees or refusing to confirm them for appointment, while the president has the power to appoint someone who could potentially overthrow the whole balance of power/ideology within the Court itself, or maintain it even if the current social climate seems to want otherwise.
It would be a dangerous situation if no one could challenge their actions to the Court to decide the constitutionality, which is exactly what the court's primary function is.
You sound exactly like my 8th-grade Civics Teacher.
I am fully aware of what most people believe about the powers of the Supreme Court as it relates to other branches of government.
What I'm trying to explain to everyone in this thread, is that Judicial Review is not in the Constitution. And the idea that the Supreme Court could interfere with the other branches of government, when the Constitution was ratified, would have been considered absurd.
Furthermore, a great many of the founding fathers didn't even believe that the Supreme Court should have power over the states, let-alone the other branches of government.
Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic-Republicans, in many cases completely ignored the decisions of the Supreme Court. With the most-famous case being Andrew Jackson's famous statement, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it".
In that case, both the president, and the State of Georgia, ignored the Supreme Court ruling entirely. And there was absolutely nothing the court could do about it.
Why? Because the Supreme Court cannot compel the president to do absolutely anything. It cannot override the presidents power, within its sphere, because that would violate the independence of the Executive Branch.
What you believe about the Supreme Court came about mostly after the Civil War. When the Federal government began to realize that it needed to strengthen itself, and put an end to the concept of states' rights altogether, and used the Supreme Court as a tool to stave off challenges to its authority.
I advise you to read an actual history of the court. Instead of the myths peddled by your government public school.
You know what's going to happen now. When and if there is a terrorist attack done by radical, Islamic terrorists, Trump won't take the blame like Bush did, he's just going to point fingers towards the judges that didn't put up the temporary ban when he asked for it.
One branch of the government creates laws, one enforces them and one interprets the laws and rules what is legal and what is not.
This is only partially true. And is rather simplistic.
The Executive Branch's authority goes far beyond simply enforcing laws(he is responsible for all foreign policy). On top of this, he is the Commander-in-chief of the armed forces, and has almost-unlimited authority to deploy troops almost anywhere, and has significant latitude in terms of how and if he decides to enforce the law.
The Supreme Court's original purpose was not to decide the Constitutionality of laws. Its jurisdiction only extended to "Federal Crimes"(such as counterfeiting), disputes with foreign governments, and disputes between the states(IE where it has "original-jurisdiction").
The Supreme Court could make a judgement, but since it doesn't have an Army, its decisions are not actually binding, except insofar as the executive will agree to enforce them.
The Executive is not Constitutionally bound to enforce any court order, period. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber
I suppose Trump can tell the Congress and the courts to go "F" themselves, which would most likely lead to his impeachment.
Trump doesn't need to tell the Congress to F themselves, since the majority of Congress is Republican. And being that a majority is Republican, there is no way they would impeach him anyway.
Furthermore, the Constitution requires that to impeach him, he needs to have committed a crime.
Though, I suppose they can always claim that by defying the courts, he is committing treason.
You sound exactly like my 8th-grade Civics Teacher.
I am fully aware of what most people believe about the powers of the Supreme Court as it relates to other branches of government.
What I'm trying to explain to everyone in this thread, is that Judicial Review is not in the Constitution. And the idea that the Supreme Court could interfere with the other branches of government, when the Constitution was ratified, would have been considered absurd.
Furthermore, a great many of the founding fathers didn't even believe that the Supreme Court should have power over the states, let-alone the other branches of government.
Thomas Jefferson's party, the Democratic-Republicans, in many cases completely ignored the decisions of the Supreme Court. With the most-famous case being Andrew Jackson's famous statement, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it".
In that case, both the president, and the State of Georgia, ignored the Supreme Court ruling entirely. And there was absolutely nothing the court could do about it.
Why? Because the Supreme Court cannot compel the president to do absolutely anything. It cannot override the presidents power, within its sphere, because that would violate the independence of the Executive Branch.
What you believe about the Supreme Court came about mostly after the Civil War. When the Federal government began to realize that it needed to strengthen itself, and put an end to the concept of states' rights altogether, and used the Supreme Court as a tool to stave off challenges to its authority.
I advise you to read an actual history of the court. Instead of the myths peddled by your government public school.
Judicial review is not explicitly mentioned, no, and there are things that have been implied or interpreted that aren't specifically mentioned. The right to privacy, which gives us abortion, is one. Hamilton in Federalist 78 recognized the power of judicial review. John Marshall found the Court's power for judicial review and to strike down legislation within Article VI, which states that all judges are bound by the Constitution (and laws made must be in pursuance of the Constitution) - therefore, if they come across a statute they find unconstitutional, it would be unconstitutional itself for them to uphold it. I personally find this a convincing argument and also have my own theory relating to Article III (which I'm probably not the first to have).
The Court has the power to hear and decide on cases on the laws of the US, its treaties, and the Constitution. What else would the Court's purpose be when having jurisdiction in cases arising out of the federal laws other than to decide their constitutionality? Why even have the Court in the first place when we are giving it the ability to address something that was actually created by Congress (laws) if we don't want the justices to interpret it? Shouldn't Congress, then, have the power to hear cases on its own laws and treaties that it has created? Only Congress knows its intent yet the Constitution allows the Court to hear cases on federal laws that Congress created. What for, if not for judicial review? Why not defer to Congress and let Congress handle cases arising out of its own laws? Judicial review has been implied from the Constitution itself. Perhaps not everything is so explicitly written, nor does it have to be... Also, judicial review was discussed by the states when the Constitution was ratified, and there's no record of any delegates suggesting the courts could not declare a law unconstitutional. It had been discussed among the founders as well. It was not an absurd or unfamiliar thought, it was actually seen as a way to keep power in check.
The Supreme Court has power over the states regarding constitutional issues ("The judicial power shall extend to ALL cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution..."). The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the Court won't and can't interfere with the states unless there is a constitutional issue at play within the state, like it creates a law that is in direct violation of the Constitution or the state is challenging a federal statute it thinks is unconstitutional. It (the federal courts in general) also has power over cases between two or more states, a state and citizens of another state, or of citizens in different states, and states and foreign nations, all granted in the Constitution.
There was no "end to the concept of states' rights." There have been cases even recently that have checked the legislative branch's power and kept states' rights intact on issues. States' rights never went anywhere and won't be going anywhere. The idea of federalism is integral. States aren't supposed to be too powerful, anyway, it's why the founders scrapped the Articles of Confederation, as they gave states too much power and did not centralize the federal government enough.
I am in law school. I have been fed no myths.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
