What Do We Have Here? A Constitutional Crisis?

1. 60

   Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

   Vance's statement that "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power" has sparked concerns among legal experts, who suggest it could lead to a constitutional crisis or a breakdown of the American political system. 
   
   This is due to the fundamental principle that the judiciary is empowered to determine the legitimacy of executive actions under the Constitution. 
   
   Is the statement an  indication that the executive branch might refuse to comply with court orders, based on Trump's personal assessment of his powers?    Keeping in mind that the judiciary IS  the branch that decides what a president can legitimately do.
   
   If the executive branch ignores the judicial branch, it would represent a raw exercise of power, potentially leading to a breakdown of the system
   
   Judges' rulings are currently weighing down a good number of Trump initiatives.  Will we reach the point where the rulings are ignored?  Who is okay with that?

   replyreport
2. 60

   Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

   A federal judge found Monday that the Trump administration hasn't fully followed his order to unfreeze federal spending and told the White House to release all the money.
   
   A U.S. District Court Judge John McConnell ruled that ongoing struggles to get federal money for things like early childhood education, pollution reduction and HIV prevention research violated his Jan. 31 order. He ordered the Trump administration to "immediately take every step necessary" to follow his temporary restraining over halting its plans for a sweeping freeze of federal funding.
   
   Court orders are optional?
   
   https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … rcna191528

   replyreport
   1. 72

      Miebakagh57posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      The Executive, even the  Legislature, must compiled with Court orders. The Democratic American Constitution clearly state the separation of powers.                                              The seperation is a check and a balance. The Trump administration, is wrong in not carrying out the Judge's order.

      replyreport
3. 60

   Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

   If a president chooses to ignore orders from a court, should that president be impeached?  Should those from both sides of the aisle support impeachment? 
   
   Is anyone bold enough to go on record with an answer?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      If it is expected from the other side, I would not hold my breath waiting for it....
      
      Any reply would have to incriminate them.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         Yep,  makes it harder to twist themselves into a pretzel afterward to support absolutely  anything Trump says or does.   
         
         The courts are on a crash course over their decisions on these executive actions and the administration's compliance.

         replyreport
         1. 68

            Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            I am going to guess that in some areas the Trump Admin and DOGE have wandered into areas that are not the purview of the President/EO but rather Congress... and there are ways of processing their stoppage or review by way of requesting Congress to do so.
            
            And there are Judges that have overstepped their authority by attempting to keep Trump appointees from accessing information required of their position... NY AG & Judges, of course, as NY is corrupt and politically biased and has shown it will bend any law or amendment as suits their interests.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

               "I am going to guess that in some areas the Trump Admin and DOGE have wandered into areas that are not the purview of the President/EO but rather Congress...
               
               Absolutely. All of his executive orders could have been done through Congress... They realize that they don't have the numbers to get any of it through Congress though.

               replyreport
4. 85

   Sharlee01posted 4 weeks ago

   I think you're missing the nuance of what Vance is saying. His point isn't that judges shouldn't have power or oversight, but rather that there seems to be an increasing trend where the judiciary oversteps its bounds and tries to block a president’s legitimate actions—often for political reasons. What Vance is addressing is the concern that judges may be trying to influence the executive branch’s agenda in a way that undermines the will of the people who elected that president. It’s not about dismissing the judiciary, but about ensuring that checks and balances aren't being used to halt progress based on partisan politics. A healthy balance between the branches is key, but there’s a growing sentiment that the judiciary has been overly active in blocking certain policies, which could potentially hinder a president’s ability to fulfill their mandate.
   
   The Democrats need to stop trying to prevent our nation from moving forward with an agenda that the majority voted for. The simple fact is that they lost, and they lost because the people lost trust in them, in what they promoted, and in what they stood for. It’s time to respect the will of the voters and allow the government to work for the people, as it was intended.
   
   Constitutionally ---Elections and Mandates: Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution specifies that the President is elected by the Electoral College, which reflects the will of the people. Once elected, the President is tasked with fulfilling their constitutional duties, including the execution of laws passed by Congress and the enforcement of their agenda. When a president is elected, they are expected to represent the people’s will, which could be seen as the basis for fulfilling the agenda that the majority voted for.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      "but rather that there seems to be an increasing trend where the judiciary oversteps its bounds and tries to block a president’s legitimate actions—
      
      Says who?  The people who don't like the decisions?  I certainly don't  remember Republicans speaking up in this manner about Judges blocking Biden continuously???
      
      
      You explained the constitutional basis for executive branch  powers but leave out the constitutional duties of  the equal judicial branch?
      
      In  reality, it IS the actual role of the judicial branch to review  and ensure that the executive branch does not exceed its authority and adheres to the rule of law.   They are doing their job, Musk just doesn't like the outcome...

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

         In my view, I see nothing but biased judges. I also feel Trump will push every one of these judgments to the Supreme Court level -- and I don't always predict --- but he will win most of them. Just my view.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            Biased?  So they were similarly biased against Joe when so many of his initiatives or orders were totally struck down by the courts? 
            
            I believe the number was around 150 struck down... Was that also a "judicial coup"?  As Vance claims is happening to Trump?
            
            Remember what Republicans told us about those Court rejections of Biden's initiatives??
            
            They were actions taken by judges to stall Biden’s agenda?  Oh just part of the checks and balances typically seen by an administration pushing a boundary.... Lol, just those old checks and balances.  But now I'm to believe there is a judicial  coup...nope, not buying it.

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

               It not about fact and rational determination, they say what ever to get the square peg in the round hole. Nakedly partisan to the extreme and not even worthy of rational debate.

               replyreport
   2. 74

      Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      "The Democrats need to stop trying to prevent our nation from moving forward with an agenda that the majority voted for."
      
      For the 100th time. A majority of Americans who voted picked another candidate instead of Trump. No, they were not all Democrats so here we are. And 90 million illegible voters did not vote at all.
      
      Trump was not the choice of a majority.

      replyreport
      1. 89

         wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         Can there be a more plaintive cry than this?  We all know and understand that Trump legitimately won the election, and even did so after the underhanded method (second time in a row) that Democrats picked their candidate.
         
         To whine that it isn't a majority is quite disingenuous, and has no bearing on anything at all.

         replyreport
         1. 85

            Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            I for one am beginning to be embarrassed for them. This kind of non-sensical denial needs to end.

            replyreport
         2. 74

            Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            You wish.  Like denying he lost the 2020 election? The only reason that wasn't embarrassing is that his followers have no shame. Still don't.

            replyreport
      2. 85

         Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         Voter turnout in U.S. presidential elections typically turnout tends to be higher in presidential election years than in midterm elections, where it usually hovers around 40%–50%.
         
         The total number of registered voters in the U.S. for the 2024 election is not specified in the available sources. However, with an estimated voting-eligible population (VEP) of around 240 million, the voter turnout rate was approximately 63.9% went to the polls. Second highest since 1900. So maybe stop blaming folks for sitting at home--- they did not.
         
         2020: 66.8% (highest since 1900)
         2016: 59.2%
         2012: 58.6%
         2008: 61.6%
         2004: 60.1%
         
         Donald Trump received about 77.3 million votes (49.8% of the popular vote), while Kamala Harris garnered approximately 75 million votes (48.3%).
         
         Trump secured 312 electoral votes across 31 states and Maine's 2nd congressional district, whereas Harris obtained 226 electoral votes
         
         He was the choice of the Majority. Period. Maybe time to face that fact.
         
         Your statement regarding 90 million did not vote... Yes, millions upon millions are not registered to vote and I am not sure why you would think these 90 million would have voted for a Democrat. Non-sensible.

         replyreport
         1. 72

            Miebakagh57posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            The the thing or trouble is that the  Dem have not the will to work with President Donald Trump.                                              In any democratic seting, 3 major parties or more parties are competiting for election. Only ond party will win, and Donald Trump won.                                                 The Dem should co-operate and work with him. This will make America, go more forward, and greater.                                            God bless America!

            replyreport
5. 68

   Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks ago

   This gentleman explains how USAID (and other US associated funds) destabalize and destroy foreign nations... and I dare say that same tactic has been used on us here in America as well... as will be exposed:
   
   https://youtu.be/5WTopF5pKtc?t=475
   timestamped

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Willowarborposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Couldn't be further from the truth.  Usaid programs  stabilize volatile regions.

      replyreport
      1. 81

         peterstreepposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         100%

         replyreport
   2. 85

      Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      Thanks for the link. It was very informative. DOGE is rolling--- just posted more this AM.

      replyreport
6. 60

   Willowarborposted 3 weeks ago

   Trump signed an Executive Order...
   
   “That only he and the Attorney General can state on opinion on what the law is”
   
   Welcome to day 30 of Trump being a “Dictator For One Day.”
   
   Maga... Can you be a "patriot" if you are against the Constitution?

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      Willow, this is ominous can you point to a source?

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         The announcement:
         
         https://x.com/NoLieWithBTC/status/1891968000598610116
         
         https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/1 … s-00204798
         
         https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/18/us/t … c-fcc.html
         
         A full-blown power grab. I don't know how it can be interpreted in any other manner but I'm sure the maga faithful will find a way to spin it.  SCOTUS will certainly hear this one.

         replyreport
7. 60

   Willowarborposted 3 weeks ago

   What in the actual hell??
   
   
   Bloomberg...
   Kristi Noem warned employees that polygraph tests will be used to help crack down on leaks that agency officials claim have foiled immigration enforcement plans.
   
   Noem last week issued an internal directive that all polygraphs the Department of Homeland Security administers must include a question about unauthorized communications with media and nonprofit organizations, according to a memo described to Bloomberg Government by two people without authorization to speak publicly.
   
   Gee, polygraphs would have been handy for Trump's cabinet confirmation hearings, right? 
   
   I am beginning to not even recognize this country anymore.  Why don’t they just tase people into submission? Skip the polygraph and get right to the fascist gist....
   
   https://news.bgov.com/bloomberg-governm … rity-leaks

   replyreport
   1. 81

      Credence2posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      I don't recognize the country I was born in either. I am appalled that so many so called responsible legislators and officials deliberately turn their heads 180 degrees while the Constitution is shredded before  their very eyes.
      
      What is unauthorized communications with non-profits and the media? Where does the authority exist for conducting polygraph tests for employees? Obviously use of the polygraph have been selective. Good God, this Trump is such a cad.
      
      But, the American people chose these clowns and despots with their eyes wide open, I just regret that I have to be here to witness the results.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         Credence, I  think they are sending a strong message to the American people. Signaling that you will conform, you will carry the water or else .   And simultaneously they've shown America,  quite openly, that if you do the bidding you will be absolved of any potential  consequences...like the J6 mobsters and now Eric Adams. Sadly, I don't think we've seen anything yet.

         replyreport
         1. 91

            IslandBitesposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            
            
            
            SMH

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

               And  from the White House X account...
               
               

               replyreport
               1. 91

                  IslandBitesposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  And MAGA loves it. Disgusting cult.

                  replyreport
               2. 85

                  Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Donald Trump has been referred to as the "King of New York" at various points in his career. This post was made in celebration of the administration's decision to halt New York City's congestion pricing program.

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                     That's a stretch but so much for states rights.  He is driving this country toward dictatorship. 
                     Particularly with his recent executive  claiming that ONLY the President and Attorney General can speak for “what the law is.”.

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                        I’ll admit that I’m focusing my energy on what I see as positive and good in the country right now. I hope the problems will be fixed, the government will run more efficiently, and things will improve significantly. I don’t find it beneficial to be so negative, especially when I’m seeing things I like happening. The Democrats’ hyperbolic rhetoric and constant ranting don’t hold my attention—I see no logic in the path they’re taking. One would think they’d recognize how many found it offensive, and perhaps that’s why more people pushed Trump across the finish line. I feel good about the direction Trump is taking the country.

                        replyreport
                  2. 60

                     Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                     One would think a king could more easily lower grocery prices, but who knows?

                     replyreport
                     1. 89

                        wildernessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                        He could probably set price controls, just as Congress has done in the past...with disastrous results. 
                        
                        What is it about people that they think a government can simply set prices without regard to costs, AND that it will all work out wonderfully with cheap everything but enormous labor costs.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                           I don't know? Where was this thinking over the past several years when people were whining incessantly over food costs?  People are just looking for trump to make a good on the promises he made to them.  They voted for him based on those promises.

                           replyreport
                           1. 85

                              Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                              How many days has he been in office? Maybe we could give him a bit of time.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                                 No. He promised day one.  Worse yet, he doesn't even have a plan.  Yet he has banned paper straws, renamed a  body of water, determined that only he and Barbie can interpret law for independent agencies, adding tariffs... Yet the crap at the store keeps going up.  And look at where this bunch has us 30 days in... The pariah of the world again. Bullying and pissing off our allies while sucking up to who used to be our enemies... No one voted for this.
                                 
                                 AND he's off his rocker for saying Ukraine started the war and that Zelensky is a dictator.  That alone makes me and millions of others sick.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 85

                                    Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                                    I think you have a right to your view Thanks for sharing.

                                    replyreport
                              2. 72

                                 Miebakagh57posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                                 I agreed completely.

                                 replyreport
                        2. 85

                           Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                           Dan, they sure can't set the prices, but they sure can mess them up.

                           replyreport
                     2. 85

                        Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Yes, that would be nice. Many have been suffering in the last 3 years under the staggering cost of living.

                        replyreport
8. 91

   IslandBitesposted 3 weeks ago

   
   
   "Law and order"
   
   Riiigghhtt...

   replyreport
9. 72

   Miebakagh57posted 3 weeks ago

   The Dem will never agree that Trump, really won the November 5, 2024 election. That's they ONLY trouble.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Kathleen Cochranposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

      WE admit he won. But not by a majority of Americans. People need to stop saying he represents the majority. He does not.

      replyreport
      1. 85

         Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

         Some might also just do the math, and check out historic voting norms.

         replyreport
         1. 60

            Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

            The math?
            
            If "Did Not Vote" had been a presidential candidate, they would have beaten Trump by 9.1 million votes, and they would have won 21 states, earning 265 electoral college votes to Trump's 175 and Harris's 98.
            
            Almost 90 million people, who were registered to vote,  chose not to.  They won in a landslide.  Wonder how they're feeling today?

            replyreport
            1. 72

               Miebakagh57posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

               90 millons registered voters in America, don't vote?                                        What prevented them? I know some here who said they'll not vote, and I rebuked them for wasteing the power or electoral franchise. Let me name two guys:. W..d..n..s and t.m.g. You get it?                              Failing to vote in a presidntial election, is a very awful and terrific thing. I pity such mature guys.

               replyreport
            2. 85

               Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

               We had a historic number come out and vote--- not sure that your millions that did not ever have voted --- you are grasping at straws. Only one other time did more vote nad that was for Joe Biden.
               
               Voter turnout in U.S. presidential elections typically turnout tends to be higher in presidential election years than in midterm elections, where it usually hovers around 40%–50%.
               
               The total number of registered voters in the U.S. for the 2024 election is not specified in the available sources. However, with an estimated voting-eligible population (VEP) of around 240 million, the voter turnout rate was approximately 63.9% went to the polls. Second highest since 1900. So maybe stop blaming folks for sitting at home--- they did not.
               
               2020: 66.8% (highest since 1900)
               2016: 59.2%
               2012: 58.6%
               2008: 61.6%
               2004: 60.1%
               
               Donald Trump received about 77.3 million votes (49.8% of the popular vote), while Kamala Harris garnered approximately 75 million votes (48.3%).
               
               Trump secured 312 electoral votes across 31 states and Maine's 2nd congressional district, whereas Harris obtained 226 electoral votes
               
               He was the choice of the Majority. Period. Maybe time to face that fact.
               
               Your statement regarding 90 million did not vote... Yes, millions upon millions are not registered to vote and I am not sure why you would think these 90 million would have voted for a Democrat. Non-sensible.

               replyreport
               1. 60

                  Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Folks are acting as if 90 million people do not exist. Do not have opinions. Won't vote in the future? Won't protest?  Nowhere in my post did I claim that these folks are Democrats. My statement stands, the 90 million won in a landslide.
                  
                  Trump's majority? The smallest margin of victory in history....of the people who decided to cast a vote. 
                  
                  The math is the math.  More people decided to stay home than to vote for either Trump or Harris.  90 million.

                  replyreport
                  1. 85

                     Sharlee01posted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                     I have to say, you do amuse me. These individuals have always existed, but they’ve never had an interest in registering to vote—this isn’t a new phenomenon, it’s historical. Perhaps next time, some on the left might consider trying to reach that 90,000. But even if you and others managed to get this portion of society to register, what makes you so certain they would have voted for a Democrat? That seems like a big assumption—an odd concept, in my view.
                     
                     This narrow margin is especially noticeable because voter turnout in 2024 was historically high. According to estimates, approximately 80 million voters cast ballots in the general election, the second largest turnouts in recent history.

                     replyreport
                     1. 60

                        Willowarborposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                        "what makes you so certain they would have voted for a Democrat? That seems like a big assumption—an odd concept, in my view."
                        
                        What's more odd is that this claim continues to be made.  Never made that assumption.    I have not stated that these 90 million belong to any particular party.  What party they belong to is irrelevant.

                        replyreport
10. 72

    Miebakagh57posted 3 weeks ago

    The Democrats are a awful lot.

    replyreport
11. 91

    IslandBitesposted 3 weeks ago

    President Donald Trump on Thursday again raised the prospect of serving for an unconstitutional third term, asking a crowd at a White House event whether he should run again and receiving audience chants of “Four more years!”
    
    The suggestion followed a stretch of days in which Trump referred to himself as a king and quoted a dictator in suggesting that he was immune from following laws — all while his administration has continued pushing the bounds of presidential power.
    
    Trump’s suggestion before attendees of a Black History Month reception came after he mentioned “the next time” in a seeming reference to running again. He then cut off his own sentence to ask the audience if he should run another time. Met by shouts of affirmation, Trump basked in the attention, laughing and waving a hand at the audience.
    
    Hours later, former Trump adviser Stephen K. Bannon led an audience to chant “We want Trump!” referring to the 2028 election while speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Baltimore.
    
    “We want Trump in ’28,” Bannon said. “That’s what they can’t stand. A man like Trump comes along only once or twice in a country’s history. Right? We want Trump!”
    
    As he did Thursday, Trump often raises ideas about his power in a joking manner. But his actions bolster his opponents’ fears — and warnings — that his actions are motivated by undemocratic ideals and could plunge the United States into authoritarianism.
    
    Trump has repeatedly mused about running for a third term. He raised the idea more than once during his first term in office and has done so since winning in November.
    
    Days after winning the election, he told House Republicans: “I suspect I won’t be running again unless you say ‘He’s so good, we got to figure something else out.’” Last month, at the House Republicans’ annual retreat, he joked about whether he was allowed to run again.
    
    In December, Bannon suggested that Trump should run again, asking a 1,000-person crowd at a New York dinner: “Are you ready for Trump ’28?” and raising the idea that a constitutional loophole could allow Trump to run for a third term.

    replyreport
    1. 68

       Ken Burgessposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

       I am sure deep down inside you want him as your president, you need him as your president.
       
       Maybe that's why so many kept their focus on him, even after he was out of office, in 2021, and it looked like he was finished.
       
       Some people could never stop talking about him... Biden was destroying the world to the best of his addled ability ...
       
       Still for a few, it always came back to Trump, no matter what the issue, even if completely unrelated... To hate someone so much... To focus ones attention on them incessantly... It's a sign of admiration and idolization being buried under a veil of resentment and distrust.

       replyreport
       1. 91

          IslandBitesposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

          Im sorry, but...

          replyreport