The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns. - Page 118 - Politics and Economics

Two Plus Two Forums Other Topics Politics

The Presidency of Donald J. Trump: No smocking guns.

...

Page 118 of 5382

First

18 68 98 108 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 128 138 168 218 318 618 1118

Last

Page 118 of 5382

First

18 68 98 108 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 128 138 168 218 318 618 1118

Last

01-30-2017 , 01:24 AM

#2926

simplicitus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 10,841

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisV

I figure it's time for a serious post about the limits of what the executive branch is able to do. You're not going to like it. Note, IANAL and IAN even American, and this is just what is true to the extent of my knowledge.

Under the Posse Comitatus Act, the federal government may not usually use military personnel to enforce laws within the United States. However, under the Insurrection Act as amended 2006, the President is able to deploy the military domestically under some circumstances (my emphasis):

In other words, if the "President determines that" because of some incident, let's say a terrorist attack, people are "opposing or obstructing the execution of the laws of the United States", he can send in the full force of the US military. Against that, the judicial branch has the United States Marshals (edit: which as pointed out upthread, may not even be under their control if push came to shove).

If Trump decided to declare an "insurrection" and order troops to "restore order" in some city or other, the US would be relying on Congress to impeach him, or on a coup.

The judicial branch determines what the law is and when it has been violated. This is one of the strongest norms of US democracy. If Trump tries to go against it even the cowardly GOP Congress would impeach. I like your posts, but your 'legal' analysis here is wrong.

While the POTUS can take lawful extreme measures in extreme situations, unfavorable court decisions are not the sort of thing the law covers.

01-30-2017 , 01:26 AM

#2927

sportsjefe

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 13,693

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul D

Major thing is is it wasn't a ban. They just reviewed visas which slowed down the process.

And it only affected one country (Iraq) and only the refugees, not visa holders, and def. not permanent residents (green card holders).

"Obama ate this grape, so we're going to steamroll the whole vineyard. Stop us." (analogy by me)

01-30-2017 , 01:26 AM

#2928

JoltinJake

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 5,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisV

The amount of power vested in the Presidency is a flaw in the US system, imo.

Agree, and this is one of the few things I didn't like about Obama.

01-30-2017 , 01:30 AM

#2929

simplicitus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 10,841

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chippa58

Love the Administration logic that the reason they gave no notice of the travel ban was because they didn't want to encourage a bunch of terrorists to fly here at the last minute. But wouldn't that have been the perfect trap play? Seems like they could have outed a lot of would-be terrorists that way if that logic was really true.

Fly here with their visas/greencards? Pretty sure the US isn't issuing 24 hour visas from Somolia/Iran. I assume a few weeks at best. More than a year for refugees.

01-30-2017 , 01:32 AM

#2930

JoltinJake

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 5,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplicitus

The judicial branch determines what the law is and when it has been violated. This is one of the strongest norms of US democracy. If Trump tries to go against it even the cowardly GOP Congress would impeach. I like your posts, but your 'legal' analysis here is wrong.

Hope you are right about this but I am sincerely not sure anymore. The majority of congresspeople care way more about their own job than about the good of the country. If their constituents don't want them to impeach, I don't think they will. And, sadly, I can envision scenarios in which republican voters stick with Trump against a judiciary ruling.

01-30-2017 , 01:35 AM

#2931

ChrisV

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 40,336

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplicitus

I get that, but what would the timeframe be on the impeachment? It seems like POTUS could declare any adverse court decisions part of the "insurrection" which yes, would be blatantly unconstitutional and illegal, but might cause enough confusion that the military obeys. I guess I lack a sense for how strong the norms are against that sort of thing, as well as how long it would take for Congress to re-establish authority.

I don't actually expect any of this to happen of course, even though things are bad. It's more a thought experiment of how an attempted takeover by POTUS would unfold.

01-30-2017 , 01:37 AM

#2932

simplicitus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 10,841

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoltinJake

I don't think you understand how radical it would be in the US system, particularly in 2017 for the president to disregard the courts. Every lawyer and cop in the US would go nuts, as would 80% of GOP senators and 75-80% of the populace, and 90% of CEOs. He could get by with trivial/arguable stuff but nothing more.

Hell, some general would end it for him if he tried to use army to suppress the courts.

01-30-2017 , 01:38 AM

#2933

wheatrich

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 21,405

branch with no judges is no branch at all

01-30-2017 , 01:42 AM

#2934

simplicitus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 10,841

In extreme circumstances i bet impeachment could be done in 1-2 days, same with 25th amendment.

01-30-2017 , 01:43 AM

#2935

simplicitus

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 10,841

Quote:

Originally Posted by wheatrich

branch with no judges is no branch at all

Judges serve for life, except like the 3-5 that have been impeached in last 230 years. President cannot remove them.

01-30-2017 , 01:47 AM

#2936

Dominic

Tripod

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 74,656

They are in the process of marginalizing the Judicial Branch. The Legislative Branch is next.

The below is not hyperbole:

These two articles are the scariest things I have ever read. And I'm seriously considering making plans to leave the country in the next year.

What Things going Wrong Can Look Like

Trial Balloon for A Coup?

After reading those two articles, please, someone, talk me down off the ledge and tell me that this is conspiracy bull****.

01-30-2017 , 01:48 AM

#2937

wheatrich

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 21,405

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplicitus

Judges serve for life, except like the 3-5 that have been impeached in last 230 years. President cannot remove them.

he's gonna do it by force dude

01-30-2017 , 01:50 AM

#2938

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplicitus

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoltinJake

This is where I am. The immense outpouring of protests has me going from "extremely skeptical" to "somewhat skeptical" that the GOP congress will impeach Trump when he is in flagrant violation of judicial orders. But the only way he is stopped is due to a massive outpouring of protests that neither the judiciary nor the Congress can ignore culminating in Congressional impeachment. I give statements from GOP congresscritters exactly zero credit. McCain and Graham putting out a strongly worded condemnation is meaningless without votes.

01-30-2017 , 01:51 AM

#2939

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChrisV

We are already in uncharted territory. We don't know the answers here.

01-30-2017 , 01:51 AM

#2940

Lestat

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 10,998

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoltinJake

If their constituents don't want them to impeach, I don't think they will.

Forget impeachment. That can come later. In the meantime, can't the DOJ start indicting people who are at best in contempt and worst willfully breaking the law by defying court orders from field agents all the way up to POTUS?

I don't get it. The executive order itself violates the constitution "there shall be no religious test. Why can't the DOJ start indicting these brown nosers?

01-30-2017 , 01:53 AM

#2941

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat

Forget impeachment. That can come later. In the meantime, can't the DOJ start indicting people

Bahahahahahahhahahhahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahaha hhahahahahahaha

*whew*

Bahahahahhahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahah ahahahahhahah

01-30-2017 , 01:55 AM

#2942

MrWookie

Don't Call Me Meredith

Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 94,159

can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people
can't the DOJ start indicting people

01-30-2017 , 01:59 AM

#2943

Double Eagle

Health Care Thread Czar

Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 8,323

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic

I read both of those and came away thinking that these scenarios seem to require more competence than this crowd has, but that could be me wearing rose colored glasses while whistling by the graveyard.

01-30-2017 , 01:59 AM

#2944

JacktheDumb

old hand

Join Date: Apr 2013 Posts: 1,427

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic

So what actually happens if the Executive Branch just chooses to ignore the Judicial Branch? I mean, what can the Judicial Branch do about it?

C´mon it cant´t be that bad. The members of the Executive Branch are trained and sworn in to uphold the law.

01-30-2017 , 02:01 AM

#2945

Dominic

Tripod

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 74,656

Flow Chart of the State Department

blue means the position is not filled, red the position has been excised. Even those that are "filled" still need to be confirmed.

01-30-2017 , 02:03 AM

#2946

JoltinJake

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 5,236

Quote:

Originally Posted by simplicitus

Yeah, I know it would be radical. I live here and I know the political system well. I know the separation of powers are fundamental and there are strong norms around this. It gives me hope.

I just don't think it's an impossible scenario anymore. Maybe Trump and Bannon decide the judiciary branch is also the "opposition party". They politicize it and get their supporters on board. Then a terrorist attack happens and a judge halts an executive order cracking down on brown people that goes too far. Trump ignores it. You think he 100% gets impeached?

01-30-2017 , 02:13 AM

#2947

Paul D

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 14,689

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoltinJake

Trump tries to push around the JB he will be met with a huge revolt in govt.

01-30-2017 , 02:13 AM

#2948

Heroball

temp-banned

Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 9,402

There is a precedent for the Executive defying the Judiciary: Lincoln with Dred Scott and Ex Parte Merryman.

01-30-2017 , 02:14 AM

#2949

Melkerson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 11,214

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lestat

Forget impeachment. That can come later. In the meantime, can't the DOJ start indicting people who are at best in contempt and worst willfully breaking the law by defying court orders from field agents all the way up to POTUS?

I don't get it. The executive order itself violates the constitution "there shall be no religious test. Why can't the DOJ start indicting these brown nosers?

Not sure if serious, but I'll play along. Who do you think controls the DOJ?

01-30-2017 , 02:26 AM

#2950

skydiver8

grinder

Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 589

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dominic

If it really is Bannon running the show, then I think all of this is entirely possible. I, too, am hedging. I've sent in my papers already for my Canadian citizenship card (my mother was born in Canada...technically I'm a citizen, but want the proof in hand so I can obtain a passport).

With the pace things seem to be moving, I hope the 4-5 months turnaround time for those documents is short enough.

Page 118 of 5382

First

18 68 98 108 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 128 138 168 218 318 618 1118

Last

...

Page 118 of 5382

First

18 68 98 108 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 128 138 168 218 318 618 1118

Last