Reply to Customs agents refuse to follow court order and continue enforcement the executive order

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Customs agents refuse to follow court order and continue enforcement the executive order "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]They need to be held in contempt and arrested. [/quote]
ICE agents work for Trump. If they don't follow their boss' order, they would be in contempt.

This is clearly within the authority of the executive branch to implement policies for public safety. The constitutionality of the order will be decided by the supreme court.[/quote]
No, they are in contempt of court.  They have sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution.  That means respecting checks and balances and the ability of the judicial branch to stay implementation of Federal law/EOs pending review of the legality/constitutionality.  Trump does not get to unilaterally demand that Federal employees (who do not work for Trump directly) do his bidding no matter what.[/quote]

It's actually not required by the constitution that the courts have the ultimate say on whether something is constitutional and that the other branches must comply. That idea didn't come around until Mabury v. Madison. It's just as defensible to say that executive branch officers that swore an oath to uphold the constitution have a duty to ignore an incorrect court order. [/quote]

I it isn't just as defensible because Marburg v Madison is the law of the US.  You are advocating an upending of the entire system of laws of our country. [/quote]

Yes it's the law based on court precedent but it isn't dictated by the constitution. So saying that the executive officers "won't follow the constitution" is not accurate. Just pointing that out.[/quote]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you are not a lawyer...[/quote]

I am, actually. I just think it's laughable when people point the finger and say "you don't care about the constitution," when really SCOTUS (along with everyone else) has been shitting on the constitution for decades.  So don't try to take the constitutional high ground after finding magical rights for men to marry each other, for the government to regulate the size of holes in Swiss cheese, etc.  The "constitution" is just a rhetorical device at this point. [/quote]

Some lawyer. I think you missed the point that the Constitution is whatever Scotus says it is, unless there's an actual Constitutional Amendment passed. Marbury v. Madison was decided 200 years ago and it's been that way ever since. People way smarter than you or me have interpreted the Constitution for decades. The fact that you disagree with their interpretations means nothing. It's the law. Get over it.[/quote]

Wrong! Executive branch officers swear an oath to uphold the constitution. If the Supreme Court violated the constitution, they are duty-bound to ignore that Court order. [/quote]

Good one.  What TTT law school did you attend?  Liberty? [/quote]

Seriously. That mindset explains a lot, actually. News flash, buddy -- executive branch officers (and I am one) swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. They don't get to interpret it, however. That is for the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, to do. If there is no guidance then sure, the executive branch can interpret all they like, but once court rulings come down they are bound to follow them. Upholding the Constitution means upholding it as interpreted by the judicial branch.

I am also a lawyer. If you are one, you are an embarrassment to the profession and your law school. Or a troll. Your pick.[/quote]

Ok, let's look at your logic. If the Supreme Court issued a decision that was clearly unconstitutional, for example a decision that it is legal for congress to pass a law ordering that all left-handed people be summarily executed, would executive branch officers be upholding their oath by following that decision? Or would they have a duty to ignore it and follow the constitution?[/quote]

are you the person claiming to be a lawyer, who's giving this hypothetical?

yes, executive branch officers would be required to uphold the ruling. just like they are required to uphold roe v wade even when they don't want to, and citizens united even when my side doesn't want to, and etc. they can file cert petitions on new cases in which they try to chip away at that first decision, then, too. 
[/quote]

Seriously? How about if the court upheld a law saying that all first-born children would be ground up and turned into dog food? Still upholding your oath to obey the constitution by blindly enforcing that law as well?[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics