Will Trump stop the Musk rampage if court ordered? Should he? Is this a potential constitutional crisis? Should executive employees b jailed contempt?

[DrPepper12]

A federal judge temporarily restricted access by DOGE to the Treasury payment and data systems, saying there was a risk of “irreparable harm.”

The Trump administration’s new policy of allowing political appointees and “special government employees” access to highly sensitive information such as bank details, heightens the risk of leaks and of the systems becoming more vulnerable.

Judge Engelmayer ordered any such official who had been granted access to the systems since Jan. 20 to “destroy any and all copies of material downloaded from the Treasury Department’s records and systems.” He also restricted the Trump administration from granting access to those categories of officials.

The defendants — President Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and the Treasury Department — must appear on Feb. 14 before Judge Jeannette A. Vargas.

If Trump 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 respond with dawdling or grudging compliance. Outright disobedience is exceedingly rare. There has been no clear example of “open presidential defiance of court orders since 1865,”.

AG Letitia James of NY with 18 other Democratic state attorneys general, charging that when Trump had given Musk the run of government computer systems, he had breached protections enshrined in the Constitution and “failed to faithfully execute the laws enacted by Congress". They said POTUS had given “virtually unfettered access” to the most sensitive information to college kids who worked for Mr. Musk under DOGE.

Musk has publicly stated his intention to “recklessly freeze streams of federal funding without warning,”.

If federal officials fail to comply with the order limiting DOGE, he may hold them in contempt for fines & imprisonment.

Trump can, will & should defy the courts.

Trump CANNOT defy the courts but will TRY

Trump CANNOT defy the courts & will OBEY

Trump will DELAY OBEYING til it's meaningless

Something else...

[Anonymous]

A legitimate cout's power extends no further than the power to declare someone brought by the executive before it to be innocent.

They cannot commandeer the executive or legislative athoirty to command any action whatsoever.

That means not 1 penny can be spent nor one person arrested at the order of a judge without the concurrence of the executive. That is the nature of the 3 ranch system of goverment. Any 1 party can create inaction but all 3 must agree something is constitutional to act.

So it is not merely the option of the executive to refuse such orders but their obligation under a Constitutions to enforce its limits against the court in that way.

[goaded]

You really wish it was 1777 again, don't you?

[beefcakebradybatson]

@goaded Slavery and all !!!

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded 1789 would be the first time the Federal constitution i spoke of took effect. 1777 is before even the articles of Confederation, there was simply a association of 13 independent states.

[goaded]

"all 3 must agree something is constitutional to act."
Court orders blocking executive actions are exactly that: one branch disagreeing.

Which makes "So it is not merely the option of the executive to refuse such orders" completely the opposite of the truth.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Except of course Trump's executive order was to NOT act deeming the actions previously taking place to be unconstitutional.

A goverment action is something the goverment actually does to other people.

Marbury in Marbuy vs Madison (1803) was never became federal judge because the executive declined to act to give him the writs to become one.

Likewise USAID isn't serving as Democrat's political slush fund because Trump is declining to act to spend the money.

[goaded]

Trump's actions not to spend congressional approved money is illegal. Breaking the law in unconstitutional.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Congress can only authorize the spending of money, they do not have the executive power to mandate it, nor did they even try in this case.

[goaded]

There's a 1970's law that says the president can't choose not to spend it.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded There is a 1787 constitution that says congress can only tell a president and the judicatory what they can do and only 2/3rd can tell him or the judiciary what they must do.

That is what division of power is all about.

It doesn't work at all if any branch can tell the others what they must do such as is the case with the very unusual 2/3rd majority.

[goaded]

The president has to follow the law. At least they did until the corrupt Trump SCOTUS decided otherwise. The law says the president must spend the money Congress allocated.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The law in a congressional system is not whatever congress write (as it is in your parliamentary system) but what little the 3 branches agree to do under the Constitution.

That is how a Constitutions is enforced not with 1 all powerful group but 3 cooperating groups thus allowing any one of them to veto any undesirable Act of goverment.

This works fine for our federal goverment because there is nothing that the federal goverment strictly speaking MUST do at any given time. Our independently operating state goverment are all capable of independently handling any problem in the short term at least.

[goaded]

The current problem is Trump and his master.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I know that is your opinion which most Americans disagree with, but what point are you trying to make with it?

Yes Trump is a problem for your Germany, but that is a good thing for Americans as Germany like Europe as a whole is net liability to America at this point has been for 80 years. Arguably 180 years.

We would be better off offending infantile Europe into growing up than not offending Europe.

[goaded]

No, "most Americans" don't disagree. Is Europe old or infantile? Make your mind up.

Do you think the president is free to ignore laws?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Both, Europe is geriatric in its demographic age and low birth rate and infantile. As defined: "Displaying or suggesting a lack of maturity;"

Theses are not even remotely mutual exclusive concepts unfortunately.

The president is not obligated to enforce laws he judges are not constitutional. In fact he is obligated to iqnore them.

Once again short of a 2/3rd majority Congress only makes to the extent the other 2 branches agree they are constitutional. Thus the other 2 branches are of no obligation to agree as long as 1/3rd of the senate agrees with them.

That is how a Constitution is enforced, the fact that it is rarely done is a reflection of the shared self-interest of the people motivated to take theses offices.

[goaded]

Really? An American lecturing Europe about being immature? You just elected a felonious con man to destroy the country based on obvious lies and sent his TV anchor secretary of defence to lie to our faces. Trump's attacking his allies and defending a country that illegally invaded a sovereign nation.

A president isn't allowed to decide that the courts were wrong when they decided the Impoundment Control Act was constitutional.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded With respect being convicted in new York doesn't mean anything anymore than the fact that the state's corrupt political elite don't like you. The same political elite driving the same state into the ground.

We have been over how a constitutional republic works. You don't have a constitution when only one group of men get to deice what it requires you have a dictatorship/oligarchy.

[goaded]

With all due respect, that's bollocks. It's not a corrupt legal system.

All you're saying is that Trump should be the one who decides, above the courts and without (actually with the craven inaction of Republicans in) Congress. That's a dictatorship.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Trump was elected president by the states, HE is the executive power of the federal goverment and therefore the one who decide what that goverment choose to try to do on a day to day basis.

Trump can only do what congress has previously authorized and his actions as it effects actual Citizens accused of crimes NOT goverment employees can be vetoed by the courts.

That is how the 3 branch system works.

[goaded]

That second paragraph is unclear.

He shouldn't get to break the law. Laws written by Congress and confirmed by the judicial branch. One of those laws is that they have to spend the money provided by congress on what it was meant for, with some allowance for limited delays.

Courts can stop presidents from unconstitutional acts, one of which is breaking the law.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Again in a 3 branch system congress doesn't get to simply spend money, but authorized the spending of or the taking of actions under the constitutions.

The President gets to actually spend the money or carry out the action. While the judiciary gets to verify his actions in letting the people he arrest go.

Only 2/3rds of congress can actually force something.

[goaded]

Oh, I get it, you're simply wishing SCOTUS was the same as in the 18th century again.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded What SCOTUS does is not relevent, what the president and congress do is what matters here. We don't need to arrest anyone or do anything.
SCOTUS didn't do much in the 11 years of the 18th centery that is relevant all of them appointed by members of the same party.
The 19th centery is when they started demonstrating what they can and can't do starting with the landmark Marbuy vs Madison 1803.

[goaded]

Of course it's relevant. They don't just "declare someone brought by the executive before it to be innocent", they determine the constitutionality of laws and the president's actions. The president isn't arrested every time he's accused of performing unconstitutional actions or breaking the law. Although that would be fun!

Of course, Trump is appealing to SCOTUS to be allowed to break the law and fire an independent agency head and their defence is that "Until now, as far as we are aware, no court in American history has wielded an injunction to force the president to retain an agency head," ignoring the obvious fact that that simply means no president had tried to break that law before.

What do you expect if you elect a felon?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded No constitutions is worth the paper it is written on if it were to give any man or group of men the unilateral power to decide its meaning. Our constitution of 1787 did not do that, instead it granted that power not just to the court but everyone who took the oath in their respective capacities so that they may enforce the limits of that constitution on everyone else.

This is the nature of the congressional system.

You don't logically have a constitution any other way. Because to let any one party define the supreme law of the land unilaterally is to make that party dictators or rather oligarchs using that constitution as a cover to rule everyone.

[goaded]

You're circling the drain over and over. Let's make it simple:

Basically congress sets the laws, the executive (should) implement them, and the judicial system says if that's acceptable. No?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Yes that is what each branch does for Constitutional acts.

The key point is what they don't do for acts they regard as unconstitutional.

[goaded]

The key point is that the judicial branch ***acts*** to stop unconstitutional acts by the other branches. That's an action, and it has nothing to do with merely determining someone's innocence.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Actually the juridical branch refuses to convict someone to stop unconstitutional acts.

Their demands of the other 2 branches to act are merely their opinion the other 2 branches can and on occasion as congress has regularly and the president on occasion ignored.

As nearly every politician has some kind of agenda to create or modify some kind of wealth redistribution program. The vast majority of which have no support what so ever in the Federal constitution of "Few and defined" powers of "a forign nature". There is consistently little support and regular panic anytime there is any budget cuts.

They even call simply running on revenue a dramatic "goverment shutdown" acting like nothing is working when in fact only a President selected minority of the federal goverment is not being funded.

So they tend never to cut funding or end programs already created, and thus only the less politically concerned judicial branch ever really does.

This is also why they like to push the idea that only said branch can do it. When in fact that is Not at all what the Constitution says nor is it what happened historically. Some of that history that even acknowledge as a way of pushing their point in Cherry picking the one insolent where President Jackson told the court to enforce their own edict.

Contemning Jackson's actions on the ground of the 'moral implications' of that particular case, while regularly leaving out the details. Which paint a somewhat different story.

[Amy10223]

@goaded and mornoprise: There is that law that says the president must give money that was allocated to countries, without fail. Yes, and Trump tried to defy this when he tried to bribe the Ukrainian president to bring up dirt on Hunter Biden, by telling him he would deny him his country's money that was due them the following year, in order to secure the presidency. This was one of the laws he broke; bribing and threatening to withhold money from Ukraine.

[Amy10223]

The President gets to actually spend the money or carry out the action. While the judiciary gets to verify his actions in letting the people he arrest go.
This is false. The U. S. Constitution gives Congress the power to control government expenditures. This is known as the "power of the purse".

[Opinion Owner]

@Amy10223 Again Congress can only authorize an expenditure or arrest they cannot command the president to actually spend the money nor actually arrest anyone.

If congress had the power to do as you suggested and simply spend money without executive oversight they would not be subject to the constitution.

Such executive power also doesn't make sense for the legislator who clearly cannot adapt to changing situation on the ground which would make spending the money unnecessary.

The propose of the legislative branch is to layout what is allowed setting circumstances if they like. The only option to force the executive to do anything is the 2/3rds impeachment and overwrite option.

Short of that level of support for the action Congress must respect the judgement of the other 2 branches.

This is not a parliamentary system where the legislators themselfs effectively run the executive branch.

[goaded]

"Congress can only authorize an expenditure or arrest" Oh, come on, you're just making crap up now.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Nope as indicated in a congressional system each branch as their role. The division of power makes enforcing a constitution plausible.

[goaded]

I know that, you're just making up their roles as it suits you. Courts are not limited to "the power to declare someone brought by the executive before it to be innocent", nor can Congress "only authorize an expenditure or arrest".

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded
If the court could order any action there would be little they could not do.
If the legislator could mandate any action there would likewise be little they could not do.

[goaded]

You're doing again. Pretending the courts are doing something they're not. They're ordering a delay in a possibly unconstitutional or otherwise illegal action by the president, not ordering some action they dreamt up.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded When it comes to handing out money you won't get back there is no 'delay'. The proper procedure for the court if they really had such power would be to allow the money to be frozen, hold the trial and if the court thinks it still should go out then hand it out later.

That said given the whole point of having 3 branches it to let anyone of them veto any unauthorized act. The court doesn't have the power to tell the other branches it 'must' do anything.

Congress cannot simply order the executive to do anything short of 2/3rd vote.

[goaded]

No, the payment of the money, allocated by congress and, by law, protected from being overly delayed or stopped by the executive branch, was legal; stopping it was not. The court was telling the executive to stop breaking the law, that's its job.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Congress cannot force the executive to spend money, if they could, there would be no executive or court for that matter.

[goaded]

Yes, they can. They pass laws. The courts determine if they're constitutional. If they're to do with spending money, it's up to congress.

[goaded]

It's not 1800.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded You seem to believe the meaning of a law changes on a case by case basis since it was written in implying that because its not 1800 the constitution no longer says what it says.

The money will only be paid if The president decides to pay it.

[goaded]

Which law are you talking about? The US constitution is not the constitution of 1800, it has been democratically amended many times, by design. You just don't like many of them.

The president is bound by law and oath of office to pay what the congress appropriated.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded which of the 16 amendment passed since then gave the legislator or judiciary the power to commandeer either of the other 2 branches?

[goaded]

Yeah, you keep lying about the powers of the courts, too.

"Like both legislative statutes and the regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution."

"Article III of the Constitution addresses this practice directly. Federal courts have the power to interpret the Constitution, and can declare an executive order illegal or unconstitutional."

Trump's executive orders to stop payments are likely illegal, so the courts have the power to insist they resume.

They don't get to tell the president to do something, just to stop the president from doing something illegal.

[goaded]

files.mastodon.online/.../abb149e56f5ba7e3.png

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Article 3 of the U. S. constitution doesn't say that at all, go ahead and read it its not all that long:
constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text

The court claimed that power for itself famously in Marbury v. Madison 1803 which is why i keep sighting that case. The same case in which the court implicitly recognized they were NOT the only authority on the subject. hence why Marbury never got his writ.

You are confusing what the court can do with the idea that it is the only power that can do so, when in fact this is not written.

Not only is it no where written the very idea collapses with the simple thought experiment I keep repeating to you.

[goaded]

Again, you wish it was 1800 again.

"You are confusing what the court can do with the idea that it is the only power that can do so, when in fact this is not written. "
No, I'm saying, actually quoting people who I trust more than you: "Federal courts have the power to interpret the Constitution, and can declare an executive order illegal or unconstitutional."

Trump's executive orders to stop payments are likely illegal, so the courts have the power to insist they resume.

They don't get to tell the president to do something, just to stop the president from doing something illegal.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The Federal court can declare whatever they want unconstitutional,. that doesn't mean anyone else agrees with them.

The court can no more demand trump issue payments than they could Marbury get his writ to be a judge despite in both cases they believed under the law the party in question was entitled.

Constitutionally It is entirely up to Trump if he wants to change his mind and follow the court after it issues it's opinion. Again we already been here in 1803 and there is nothing the court can do to spend money against the will of the executive. Only 2/3rd of congress could do that.

[goaded]

It's their job. It has been for centuries. They can demand that Trump not illegally stop something legal. It's the stopping that's illegal, not the payments.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I know that's what politicians and even a few power hungry judges thing but that is clearly not the case as demonstrated in the text of the constitution or its history.

There are many examples both famous and ignored where the President refused to enact the court's illegal executive orders. Many more where the executive refused to follow congress's illegal orders. Still others where the congress has refused to enact the court's legislative orders.

Some are well known from President Jefferson to Jackson, Others are not so well known like congresses repeated failure to finance things the Federal court has ruled they should.

A constitution only exist when there is no one man or group of men who gets to the only word on its meaning, that instead the utilization of its powers require the consent of all parties.

That is why the power of each branch to enforce the constitution is the power to refuse to do anything at all.

[goaded]

It's been 200 years. If it wasn't an accepted fact it would have been changed by now. It's a little something called progress.

Courts don't make "executive orders".

Congress really does have the constitution on their side when it comes to funding something or not, the president does not.

Congress and the president are supposed to accept the findings of the courts. Even the stupid and corrupt ones like the overturn of Roe.

[Amy10223]

@goaded Thank you goaded. You actually make sense. I don't understand monorprise's statements here: "Because to let any one party define the supreme law of the land unilaterally is to make that party dictators or rather oligarchs using that constitution as a cover to rule everyone."
That's a given. However it seems that today, that is EXACTLY what is happening, when you create a department like DOGE and it's being ruled by the richest man in the world, who doesn't give a crap about anyone here, who WASN'T elected by people, to do what he wants with the Treasury Dept, fire people, demanding what they did over the weekend, and was not even born in this country. The Oligarchs are now controlling the people. The only difference is that Musk doesn't side with the Constitution and may even try to change it if he can, with Trump's approval.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Just because you and your friends all the decided something is accepted in true does not mean anyone else agrees least of all that we will follow such an understanding.

I have repeatedly pointed out the text, history, and reasons showing why not only is this NOT true. It if were true it would reduce America to an unelected oligarchy.

Very clearly dispute the lies you hear such unaccountable power of the court is NOT accepted, nor is it consistently respected.

So whether or not you think this is how things should be done, we have no intention of following such a despotic order.

[Opinion Owner]

@Amy10223 Now your making no sense at all.

DOGE has no power whatsoever. They are simply investigating what the goverment is doing under the authority of the president.

It is the president who is reviewing the reports to see what his employees are doing and firing the ones that he finds are not in compliance with his agenda under the law.

That is the role of an executive... Not just in the federal system but in basically every system.

If an executive could not do that, he wouldn't be able to function as an executive at all as he would command nothing rubber stamping whatever those not answering to him do.

legislative and Judicial are entirely separate areas that come before this is possible and after the executive's agents have done the work respectively. They have nothing directly to do with how or technically if the president carries out the actions.

A federal goverment doing anything at all regardless of the opinion of any 2 branches is not a given under the federal constitution, quite the opposite in fact.

[goaded]

@monorprise All you've done is keep making unfounded assertions that are contradicted by the way the courts actually work. Courts block executive actions all the time, and have done for hundreds of years. In this case, the illegal executive action is to stop the duly mandated payments.

"It if were true it would reduce America to an unelected oligarchy."
Rubbish. The courts enforce the laws. If they exceed their authority, Congress is entitled to impeach judges. If they don't like the laws, Congress can write new ones (which the president is free to veto).

What's happening at the moment is the president is claiming the authority to ignore the law, which really would reduce America to a dictatorship.

[DrPepper12]

Your understanding of the Constitution is absolutely twisted.

Yes, POTUS MUST spend as Congress legislates. The impoundment act of 1974 is quite clear. Until the constitutionality of that law is adjudicated what Trump is doing is illegal and may be unconstitutional.

[Amy10223]

@Monorise: You seem a little too idealistic and blind to what's happening. You said: "They are simply investigating what the goverment is doing under the authority of the president."

It is the president who is reviewing the reports to see what his employees are doing and firing the ones that he finds are not in compliance with his agenda under the law.
No, it's not... it is Elon Musk who was given permission to control the Treasury Dept, and given that direction by Trump. In turn he is attempting to get information about Americans and their personal data. Musk is NOT an elected official and was given this opportunity for his own plans.
If his DOGE was created in order to look at government spending, then why has he put hundreds of federal officials on leave, gained access to sensitive federal payment systems and led the charge to shutter federal agencies?

The pushback against DOGE, as it is called, has been swift, as legislators and the public ask whether Musk can downsize, restructure or eliminate agencies authorised and funded by Congress.--

[Amy10223]

That last paragraph is from what the news media outlets have said about what he is doing. If Musk is doing what he should be, then why are agencies pushing back?

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded I am not arguing the president can choose to adopt the view of the court as most have. I am simply pointing out it is NOT required.
The president runs the executive branch not the court, and past presidents going back to Jefferson in the beginning have demonstrated, they No the court decide what the executive branch actually does.

The fact that many presidents have chosen to go along with the court on the occasions where the court told them how to use executive powers is not evidence that they had to. President regularly go along with things they don't have to go along with that is the nature of the office and politics.

Right now Trump is claiming the power under the written law not to execute it int he same way as Joe Biden did. He isn't even going so far as he could, congress has acknowledged the presidents power to do what trump is doing. So don't be lying about what is happening here.

I think trump should go much further than that and actually abolish agencies on the grounds of unconstitutional. Tell the court if they want an FBI or ATF they can lawlessly do it themselfs.

Congress Will not impeach trump for such actions because more than 1/3rd of them agree with him.

[Opinion Owner]

@drpepper12
The impoundment act of 1974 is blatenly unconstitutional power grab, the president has every right to completely iqnore it.

impoundment is a basic and fundamental presidential power exercised by every president upto that point.

[Opinion Owner]

@Amy10223 Delegated authority is still presidential authority in this case the fact that trump is reviewing and approving means it's not even delegated.

With respect The only elected official in the executive or judicial branch for that matter is the president himself. Everyone else is appointed or hired by someone who was appointed.

If you want elected officials in charge of such information directly you need to take that power out of the federal goverment and leave it to the states where it belongs.

Otherwise I agree with you, the federal goverment has NO business collecting much less retaining information on individual Americans. Dealing whit indiviual Americans is the almost exclusive state sphere of responsibility under the Constitutions with almost no exceptions.

Leftist have entrusted the federal goverment and its vast largely unaccountable bureaucrats with this compromising ramification, the same goverment which regularly sells, leaks, and abuses the same with little to no accountability.

If you were really upset or concerned about it, you would demand your congressman abolish theses federal agencies. Let the state's take charge of all law enforcement and tax collection.

Then when the states abuse that power we can at least get justice under account not appointed by the same people abusing such power.

Until you support abolishing these agencies don't tell me one word about that information being exploited and abused! You have no right. Not after all those same agencies have lawlessly done to us!

[Opinion Owner]

@Amy10223 Democrats can file any bill they want to protect their goverment slush fund and abuse. Congress will not pass it nor will the president sign it.

Democrats have abused the federal goverment and theses agencies they have filled with their own people to forcefully bankroll their political party over republicans and push their nutty ideology around the world regardless of who won the elections.

This was never legal much-less fair. This was criminal abuse of the U. S. Tax payer and they have the Gaul to cry about someone exposing and trying to shut it down because they know you will believe only what they tell you.

[goaded]

"it is NOT required". Yes, it is. The courts are the arbiters of what is lawful, not the president, not Congress. That's what it means to have three co-equal branches of government. If one can simply ignore another, they're not equal.

"impoundment is a basic and fundamental presidential power exercised by every president upto that point."
So, up until the point when it became illegal. Then it wasn't legal any more, so presidents stopped doing it. Until Trump decided to break the law.

[goaded]

"Democrats can file any bill they want..."
The impoundment act of 1974 was "agreed to by the House on June 18, 1974 (401-6) and by the Senate on June 21, 1974 (75-0)".

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded
Once again you are confusing what the court can do with the idea that it is the only power that can do so, when in fact this is not written.

Read it: constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text

Not only is it no where written the very idea collapses with the simple thought experiment I keep repeating to you. If only one party can define a document it matters only whom they are not what the document says.

Which is why to whatever extent we agree to yield to such a believe there is NO constitution.

Once again this is NOT a parliamentary system... We have an actual constitution OVER that congress.
The point of which is defend liberty WITH the consent of the governed not a political policy.

This is also not a goverment designed to work in a vacuum, There are 50 state each operating completely independently that do the vast majority of the work. Most of their governments operate in a broad and comprehensive way. The federal Government was NEVER designed to be reliable.

[goaded]

No, I'm still not. All you keep doing is saying that the president can ignore Congress and the courts, and that's fine by you. That's not fine, it means that there aren't the co-equal branches of government.

I never said a thing about a parliamentary system, I said Congress makes laws, the president enacts them, and the courts decide whether the laws are constitutional and if the president's actions are legal.

[Opinion Owner]

No I am saying the federal goverment is only allowed to do anything if all 3 branches agree.
@goaded Any branch can iqnore the other 2 on any issue. That is what the court does every time the decide a law is unconstitutional. They iqnore congress's law and the president's prosecution.

The president can likewise refuse to prosecute a law he regards as unconstitutional. A mere majority of Congress only has the power to give him the means and permission to prosecute a case and the court the right to see it.

The Congressional system does not give any branch the right to do anything without the consent of the other 2.

That means the federal goverment pays no one to do anything unless everyone agrees.

[goaded]

The court is not "ignoring" anything, it's blocking illegal actions. The president is supposed to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", which includes following democratically passed constitutional laws.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The president is doing precisely that in refusing to enforce constitutional laws. That is the whole point of preserving, protecting, and defending the constitution of the united states rather than simply executing whatever 'law' congress legislates.

The constitution is not the product of any of those parties but that of the States. The states gave all of them that responsibility because no one of them could ever be trusted with it alone.

Lets define how the congressional system works in terms of writing a book.
Congress is the author but not the writer, The executive is the writer, and the court is the publisher.

The writer can't write anything not dictated by the Author, but neither can a Author compel the writer to write anything. Nothing that either of them agree on means much unless the publisher agrees to publish it.

Given congress has the creative power of the Author they are in theory in the best position of them all and could in theory fire but not replace the other 2. An act that would require a great deal of resolution by Congress. The writer by contrast can only write or not write what he is told, just as the publisher can only publish or not publish what he is given by the writer.

Where the practical power dynamic flipped on its head was when Congress the Author via 200 years of unexpired laws on everything have basically given the writer unlimited resources and told them everything.
Thus leaving the writers by default with all the power. Given the written has also likewise choose to write soo much on every subject, in practice they put the publisher in the same position.

Thus in reality the court has become the most powerful branch because both of the political branches have given everything to them.

[goaded]

"refusing to enforce constitutional laws" is the opposite of "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded Just because less than 2/3rd of Congress or the court think a law is constitutional doesn't mean it is.
Most of congress and the same politicians hand pick 'judges' have declared a lot of things that are not even remotely constitutional constitutional simply because they wanted the power. These are power mad politicians IE Con men, not saints they are not above lying to get what they want.

To try and help deal with the reality of the men who tend to most often run for office the Congressional system was created so that in theory competing powers would have to agree before violating the constitution.

Clearly the same power mad politicians eventually figured out how to organize themselfs into parties, and bypass key limitations so they can conspire to break it.

[goaded]

I love the way you pretend to be the arbiter of the law when that's clearly the court's job. If the president can ignore the other two branches, he's a king or dictator.

[Opinion Owner]

@goaded The whole point of the Constitution was there is no one 'arbiter' of the document. No one man or group of men who can dictate its meaning and thus control everyone else via such power.

Every single American has a right to read the constitution for themselfs and vote their own understanding of that document, just as every oath taking goverment official state or federal has the responsibility to use their power to enforce it upon the others.

The constitution as mentioned and referenced to you:
constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/full-text

Does NOT give the court any such power. The court assigned themselfs that power and in doing so they acknowledge the other branches shared the power with their actions.

Hence why Trump can do a lot more than what he has said he plans on doing, he can shutdown any federal agency he wants as unconstitutional.

[goaded]

One more time: it's like rock paper scissors. Each branch has some control over the others. The courts can say when the others are breaking the law. Congress can define what the law is, what the president is allowed to spend, and controls the makeup of the courts. The president can challenge Congress with the veto power, and nominate judges, but is not allowed to simply ignore the other two branches.

That has been the fact for two hundred years. It works. The elected Congress could have changed things at any time, but they chose not to. It works.

[FunkyMonkee]

The only rampage is in your mind! All he's doing is an AUDIT!! And finding LOADS of bogus spending of our tax money!!!
No, he shouldn't!! The government is in DIRE NEED of a really good enema!!!
No, the Constitutional crisis has been going on since at least Christmas day, 1913. The only thing Trump's doing is trying to rectify it and get us back to the way the country SHOULD be run!!! What's the matter with that? What's wrong, you got something to hide?
Yes, IF they COMMITTED contempt!

[DrPepper12]

What's he found? .0000064 of the Pentagon budget that he disapproves of congressionally allocated funding?

[FunkyMonkee]

BILLIONS of wasted tax dollars going to REALLY STUPID frivolous shit!!

[beefcakebradybatson]

Trump's enormous, bloated a** needs an enema, FunkyMonkee !!!

[FunkyMonkee]

@beefcakebradybatson All the lefties need a mental enema!!

[beefcakebradybatson]

All righties are fugly and need an anal AND mental enema, FunkyMonkee !!!

[FunkyMonkee]

@beefcakebradybatson Oh, yeah? Well, my dad can beat up your dad!!

[DrPepper12]

What? What has he found? POLICY DIFFERENCES!!! Not waste fraud or abuse!!! JFC 🙄

[beefcakebradybatson]

Like the EIGHT HUNDRED FIFTY BILLION to the Pentagon, Funky Monkee !!!

[FunkyMonkee]

USAID is SUPPOSED to be used to help feed, clothe and house people in other countries who can't seem to be able to do it in their own countries! What it's being used for is shit like: putting on a gay play in Serbia, funding transexual fashion shows in S. America, finding out if mice can fuck better on Coke or Pepsi!!

[FunkyMonkee]

@beefcakebradybatson What's it being used for?

[beefcakebradybatson]

My father was a boxer and lumberjack, FunkyMonkee !!! Doubt it very much !!!(Besides, he'd be 111 were he still with us, so...)

[FunkyMonkee]

@beefcakebradybatson You completely missed the point!

[beefcakebradybatson]

No I didn't pardner !!!

[FunkyMonkee]

@beefcakebradybatson Yes, you sure did!!

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Jesus christ there are so many people willing to sign over their entire lives to an oligarch simply because their cheeto god ordains it to be so.

These comments should legit be terrifying to people on the small government party side but instead they want more interference and their information used improperly because they are either 1) too vindictive and hope to catch a Democrat doing something wrong or 2) too stupid to know what they are doing and should have never been allowed to vote to begin with.

We truly are at the worst and dumbest part of humanity at this point of the timeline

[Amy10223]

Agree 100%

[msc545]

I completely agree. I wish I didn't feel compelled to honestly and I wish things were better, but they have devolved to a point where I don't think we are ever going to recover. I think our democracy is essentially gone. There is no coming back from this. We've let this guy destroy our country.

[monorprise]

If you didn't want the government to have access to your information @Ez-Bri-Z_v2 you should never have given it to the goverment in the first place. Otherwise you have no place to complain. Everyone knows just how utterly incomplete the goverment is at keeping such information secrete.

Hence following the constitution as written and abolishing the IRS and the various unconstitutional federal 'welfare' programs that forcefully collect said information.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

I'd rather the government have it than an oligarch and his dude bros, one of which was already fired from another job for leaking information.

Besides you act is if I had a choice. I had to file taxes, I have a birth certificate and a social when I was born. I had no say in that matter. Stop acting like a shill for these people. Its pathetic.

[monorprise]

I see @Ez-Bri-Z_v2 in that case you must have no problem with Trump employing a contractor to deal with and identify such information. This is in fact what the goverment does all the time with basically all it's information.

Government employees are soo difficult to fire, discipline, and administered by people who are themselfs consistently only qualified to win a popularity contest. Most agencies that need to do real work will contract it out to a 3rd party firm and employees they can replace and get results from.

stacker.com/.../100-biggest-us-government-contractors-and-what-they-do

That is who has your information.

[Amy10223]

@monorprise I think you're delusional if you think Trump can do whatever he pleases, and secondly, no, most Americans do not agree with Trump.

[msc545]

@Amy10223 Our friend mono will turn anything and everything around and make it your fault in his defense of Trump and Musk.

[Amy10223]

@monorprise I guess not only do they know Ez-BriZ_v2's information, but they know yours as well, if you live in the US.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

And that should terrify people, but it doesn't. They are so quick to want to be accepted by their team that they will sign away their rights just to do it.

[Amy10223]

@msc545 I can see that. He always misses the points where he has to answer the question directly too, I noticed.

[DrPepper12]

Yup.

[goaded]

"I agree that the Social Security Administration is not responsible for the improper disclosure of any information that the Social Security Administration has provided to me or any information that is on or from my computer or other device, whether due to my negligence or the wrongful acts of others."
New terms of service.

[Ez-Bri-Z_v2]

Oh gross.

[Amy10223]

This says it all in your post: "courts have rarely been tested by a chief executive who has ignored their orders." Yet, he continued to ignore some gag orders when he was in court many times. They should have fined him each time he did. The courts, if they don't order him to do what's in the Constitution and to obey the laws of this country and the Constitution, we might as well kiss democracy away. He has defied them before and the gov't and courts, need to take action if he does anything against those orders.

[Twalli]

He wasn't POTUS thrn

[Amy10223]

@Twalli That was in the past when he was in the NYC southern district court. He didn't follow through then--and he may not follow through now. Time will tell.

[Twalli]

Tell me again (not you specifically, just someone) how is he the one supporting Law and Order?

[Amy10223]

@Twalli, He is NOT supporting law and order. I don't get what you mean. I am referring to this questioner's point:
"If Trump 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." That's why I wrote what I did. And, to refresh your memory, he was not POTUS THEN, because he kept delaying his trial over and over--until he was no longer president. That particular trial was on for years, the years where he was being investigated for taxes as well as the hush money payment.

[blueonblack22]

So help me understand this. Democrats are angry at DOGE for exposing fraud, radical partisanship and corruption in government agencies run by unelected bureaucrats using our tax payer money and that’s somehow “evil and wrong”.

I got a feeling would have a different opinion if tax payer money was being used via USAID for bible studies abroad or if USAID employees used tax payer grants to sign up for “premium Fox News” subscriptions.

If anything you should be happy because this is lowering our federal deficit so we can spend tax payer money on issues that actually matter like housing for homeless veterans.

[DrPepper12]

Politico was a PROFESSIONAL SUBSCRIPTION.

Would you say the same if the Fed subscribed to Bloomberg or WSJ?

Get real.

[blueonblack22]

Using tax payer money to do so? It’s funny how democrats are trying to defend fraud, abuse and waste when it comes corrupt tax payer funded bureaucracy’s like USAID thinking that’s a position most Americans are on board with.

But I say let the left double down on this. See how popular it makes them.

[DrPepper12]

Civil servants shouldn't have the tools to do their jobs? No pencils for teachers? No guns for cops? No band aids for EMS?

[blueonblack22]

Politico is a LEFT LEANING PUBLICATION. And our tax payer money by unelected bureaucrats to support a left leaning publication.

www.allsides.com/news-source/politico-media-bias

[DrPepper12]

They're also a research organization. It was a professional database subscription fool!!

The WSJ is right leaning and I WANT federal economists reading it!!

I want our diplomatic corp subscribed to EVERY popular newspaper & magazine in the world no matter how left or right!!

How the hell are people supposed to do their jobs without the right tools?

[blueonblack22]

Alright I see the point you are trying to make. But again this is for a research organization that also has ideologically partisan editors. There is still a conflict of interest. Money is fungible and the tax payer funded subscription helped them employ journalists who clear ideological motives.

The majority of the legacy media shamelessly leans left and that’s no secret. And I am livid knowing that my tax payer money is going to help support left leaning media outlets.

Above all what really matters is TRANSPARENCY. If we were under a democratic administration right now, do you think the American public would ever know what kind of bullshit was going on with unelected bureaucrats spending our f*cking money virtually on whatever they want (e. g. USAID funding trans surgeries in Guatemala). Run on sentence I admit, but I don’t know how else to word it.

And DOGE is going after the pentagon as well. And if our defense department is wasting money and/or involved in corruption I’m ALL FOR exposing it! Democrats actually have something to look forward with DOGE.

[DrPepper12]

Media" is just one part of often sprawling companies. It's really disingenuous to paint them all so. They're objective of research info is accuracy, reality, facts otherwise they're useless

[blueonblack22]

“ They're objective of research info is accuracy, reality, facts otherwise they're useless”. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

I am talking about the LEGACY media. The likes of CNN, NBC, CBS NYT and going bankrupt MSNBC. They are ALL left leaning. The only exception is FOX news (and no I don’t watch FOX news).

[DryGermanGuy]

I don't know about the potential damages, but the risks are definitively there. The sooner Muskrat and his juvenile hackers are stopped, the better for all of us.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/RolP21mqa5o

[monorprise]

@DryGermanGuy
More people than you think have nuclear codes.
While Elon has no reason to have access to such information.

Elon is proably better hands than Trump. I say that as someone who thinks Trump is a good president and voted for him.

[OneViewpoint]

How about this. Our government is completely compromised. The House. The Senate. The courts. And the presidency. There is a slow moving coup in process.

[msc545]

Yes, exactly

[DrPepper12]

Correct

[Amy10223]

It's a coup all right, and few people on here know that.

[Staximus]

It's time for everybody to realize that the government wastes taxpayer money on stupid unnecessary bureaucracy and frivolous bullshit. The government has a responsibility to the taxpayers to spend the money wisely and it's time for that to happen.

[goaded]

www.telegraph.co.uk/.../

[msc545]

@staximus in other words, things you dislike.

[DrPepper12]

And how does Big Balls further that endeavor?

[Staximus]

@msc545 yeah, you're too young to remember when the Pentagon was caught paying $700 each for hammers and toilet seats. The government does a lot of stupid shit with your tax dollars.

[DrPepper12]

That doesn't mean you give a teen a sledgehammer and not a CPA the books...

[msc545]

Trump can defy the courts, and if he does, he can and should be held in contempt and jailed, if the Marshall Service can actually manage to do that. If they cannot, no court orders henceforth need to be obeyed, and THAT is the end of democracy.

[WhiteBoyChill]

You’re actually serious?

Doge is exposing government corruption. So if anything blocking DOGE from exposing corruption is really just the courts doubling down on how corrupt they are.

Trump ought to start mass firing people

[Amy10223]

@WhiteBoyChill He already has.

[msc545]

@WhiteBoyChill Really - do you have knowledge of anything they have done that is actually corruption, or is it just things Trump and Musk dislike? There is a difference.

[dustybiker2]

The lawsuits for wrongful termination are already filing in. People fired for saving the wrong people money.

[Likes2drive]

He is using Elon to help make the the government spending more efficiently and not wasteful, he certainly doesn’t need the money so he isn’t going to steal it but if he has college kids doing the work with sensitive information then that’s not a good idea so that’s what they are worried about and Trump needs to be in control over that so that seems why they are going crazy over this

[goaded]

Tell that to the people who have already died because of their choices. www.telegraph.co.uk/.../

[Likes2drive]

@goaded sounds like they did it wrong by just stopping it abruptly like that instead of gradually, not sure why other countries were not stepping up and helping out around the world and only relying on the United States for overseas help, it’s not good the way they cut it out like that but the US has been paying for everything lately in the world

[goaded]

There's a (fired) Inspector General's report about the abrupt stop to aid that warns that nearly $500 million in food aid is at risk of spoilage as it sits in ports, ships, and warehouses.

oig.usaid.gov/.../...ce%20Programming%20021025.pdf

I wonder why he was fired. (Not really.) I really wonder how quickly you think any other country could "step up" with food, buying it, storing it, shipping it, etc.

It could have been done sensibly, but that's not Musk's or Trump's way, even when people will die because of it. www.telegraph.co.uk/.../ Children are going to starve to death because of this nonsense.

By the way, a lot of that food was bought from American farmers and that revenue stream is going to disappear.

The report concludes: "USAID OIG’s independent oversight of USAID’s humanitarian assistance programs over the years has identified significant challenges and offered recommendations to improve Agency programming to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Our longstanding concerns about existing USAID oversight mechanisms persist. However, recent widespread staffing reductions across the Agency, particularly within BHA, coupled with uncertainty about the scope of foreign assistance waivers and permissible communications with implementers, has degraded USAID’s ability to distribute and safeguard taxpayer-funded humanitarian assistance."

[Likes2drive]

@goaded they’re trying to get rid of wasteful spending, but at the same time they’re not realizing that the damage they’re doing by just cutting it out completely and not gradually. , did you ever watch the movie Dave?

[goaded]

Oh, I think they know, they just don't care or want to admit it. Dave is about a slow-minded person who ends up as president, right? Not the Peter Sellers one, though. I don't think I've seen it.

[Likes2drive]

@goaded Dave is about a guy that looks like the president and takes over when the real president is in a coma and tries to fix things with his friend an accountant when he sees how poorly run it is while everyone thinks he’s the president except for a few that put him there. Kevin Kline and Charles Grodon

[goaded]

I'll keep an eye open. I don't suppose Dave ran a crypto scam just before he got into office that cost investors (suckers) $2 bn and "earned" him and his buddies $100m in fees, did he?

files.mastodon.online/.../45df0dfd65bdb7ab.jpeg

[Likes2drive]

@goaded The movie was from 1983 , way before crypto, which to me is like a pyramid scheme, crypto is too risky

[goaded]

And yet, Trump used it to "earn" $100 million at the expense of his supporters, who lost $32 billion.

[goaded]

Trump is not Dave, he's a crook.

[Likes2drive]

@goaded I guess we’ll see what happens in the next four years

[goaded]

$2 billion, sorry. Trump's been a crook all his life, the only thing left is to see how much he can damage the US in his term.

[Kelley1]

He is only a federal judge. Trump can use the law granted to him by Congress to declare any person a terrorist and hold them indefinitely without trial, including the Federal Judge. That will send a strong message to the other terrorist judges who think they disobey the president.

[msc545]

"only a federal judge". That might be funny if it was not so pathetic. Did you ever take a civics class?

[Kelley1]

@msc545 Yes

[msc545]

Then you should have learned that federal judges have tremendous amounts of power...

[Kelley1]

@msc545 Re: Andrew Jackson - "The Court's opinion was moot because it had no power to enforce its edict (not being a legislative body)."

[msc545]

That is a very different sort of problem.

[Kelley1]

@msc545 Your hero, Lincoln had an arrest warrent written for Chief Justice Taney’s arrest, but did not serve it, apparently instead relying on Taney’s awareness of the warrant to bring him into line.

Other judges both state and federal who attempted to uphold laws were beat bloody and dragged off to prision or placed under house arrest and prevented from performing their judicial duties. Judge Richard Bennett Carmichael in Maryland attempted to enforce due process. Lincoln’s Secretary of State William Seward sent armed federal soldiers. They pistol-whipped the judge in his chambers, “beat him bloody and unconscious, and dragged him off to Fort McHenry.”

[msc545]

Where did you copy all of that from?

[goaded]

@msc545 From "How Lincoln Destroyed the United States" confederatehonor.home.blog/.../...nited-states.pdf

[msc545]

How is that relevant to anything we are discussing?

[Lliam]

I think it's high time that the Treasury Department and all other agencies were thoroughly audited. What shady dealings are they hiding?
They are not independent of government. They should be answerable to the people.

[DrPepper12]

Why would t you start at the Pentagon? NVM Ik why... Get it now?

[WhiteBoyChill]

Just the sole fact Democrats are freaking out about it says a lot

[DrPepper12]

@WhiteBoyChill process matters. Intent matters. Security matters. Institutions matter.

[WhiteBoyChill]

I’d rather not fck around and wait.

I’d rather not spend any time debating in Congress whether funding trans BS in Greece should be excluded

[DrPepper12]

@WhiteBoyChill so you disregard process.

The definition of Authoritarianism

[jshm2]

No as it's his hope Elon can gut the institutions before the courts get involved. Then he can just "pardon" Elon and cohorts so they avoid jail

But it seems the courts have caught up faster, and things might get halted.

[Surely]

It is my understanding that Musk only has read only clearances to do a much needed audit for the taxpayers. He can not write checks nor shut down agencies. Just report his findings to the president.
I am sure that the information he is reviewing. Has been hacked by the rest of the world by now.

[DrPepper12]

Wrong
Wrong
TBD

[Surely]

Wrong!
wrong!

Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency team has been given "read only" access to the Treasury Department's federal payment system, and federal expenditures have not been affected, the Treasury said in a letter to Congress late Tuesday.

[dustybiker2]

A sane judge 👏🏻

Let's hope this is the end of the insanity and beginning of being held accountable for actions.

[exitseven]

Trump will get these nuisance court orders overturned. The question is if he can get it done fast enough before democrats can shred all the evidence.

[KrakenAttackin]

Here's the thing, most agencies of the federal government work for the executive, so POTUS can do what he likes to these agencies. I don't think the courts can order anything.

[dustybiker2]

@KrakenAttackin

Interesting read.

www.npr.org/.../who-enforces-judicial-rulings-against-the-president

[DrPepper12]

Congress, the states & the courts can do plenty.

[DrPepper12]

Those executive agencies are creatures of the Congress.

[Dongie]

Yeah, the corrupt freaks don't want Elon uncovering any of their illegal data. How many times did bidens crime family get court ordered? Guess there was nothing to hide.

[beefcakebradybatson]

Trump, as a lawless popinjay, will try to defy the courts, but will almost certainly fail unless he declares a national emergency, which may let him to implement his destructive agenda.

[Anonymous]

Under Biden I was paying $3.99 for a gallon of gas.

Today I paid $5.99 per gallon.

Yes, voting for President poopy pants was a great idea.

[Anonymous]

The deep state fights back. The swamps is going to get drained no matter what. No more 500k a year to sit on their backsides

[SingleGuy101]

Congress will support Trump and over rule the courts.

[JamesRandiDebates]

Courts don't make laws. They interpret laws passed by Congress and the President. Show me the law that says the President can't do what Trump is doing. The courts need to be slapped down a peg, and Trump is just the one to do it.

[lightbulb27]

Those systems are under the executie branch. it's temporary...

[Dargil]

Trump will conform and appeal. He will also exploit legal loopholes and work arounds.

[dustybiker2]

Of course he will.

[Dargil]

@dustybiker2 Good we agree. You are coming around.

[dustybiker2]

Up until I applaud him walked away in handcuffs and you curse and stomp your foot.

[Dargil]

@dustybiker2
You can knock me down,
step in my face
Slander my name all over the place
Do anything that you want to do
But uh-uh biker, lay off of my shoes

[dustybiker2]

Good man •pats back• Chin up. That's right.

[Dargil]

@dustybiker2 I'm always RIGHT.

[dustybiker2]

Politically? You do sound like a republican. But even they are most often wrong.

[Dargil]

@dustybiker2 Imagine that.

[Max3205]

Just get some supplies and get in your bomb shelter.

[WhiteBoyChill]

You’re only freaking out because you hate when Democrat corruption starts getting exposed.

If there’s nothing to hide then why not share your spending receipts?

[chrissykerdock]

whatever trump wants do is ok

[Pohjolan]

Trump will just pardon Trump&Co later on.

[Oncewildtwiceburned]

Nuclear war

[Anonymous]

Trump is King!!!
ENJOY!!! While you can