Anonymous wrote:This is incredibly messed up. On top of everything, apparently Steve Bannon nixed a Department of Homeland Security recommendation to leave out the green card holders. Because he wants to see chaos at the gates?

This administration clearly doesn't have it together. They are making America look not great, but weak. At odds with itself and in a state of disintegration. Get it together and follow the LAW.

you are underestimating Bannon. He WANTS the chaos. He wants foreigh countries to hate us, he wants NATO to dissolve, he wants the EU to dissolve etc.

Where Bannon is concerned, throw out the norms.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

Look: a law and order liberal!

I'm a liberal and a prosecutor, so yeah.

Broken clock is right twice a day

And yet you're always wrong. Hmmmmm.

Fault here lies in part with the MWAA police. Dulles is leased Federal property; the Members of Congress have the right under the lease to enter and inspect at any time. MWAA is merely a state-law lessee of the premises. The MWAA police are not under CBP or ICE command. MWAA cops have zero right to deny detainee access to lawyers, and zero right to decline to provide access to Members of Congress, and zero right to refuse to provide the list of detainee names that they have. At the end of this stage of the mess, I hope the MWAA cops are sued to bits and pieces in their individual capacities.

The Supreme Court has made egregious rulings in history and, yes, they were the law of the land despite being bad. Dred Scot, Plessey v. Ferguson, Bush v. Gore, Citizens United, etc. The Court is of its time and the median Justice ideologically is generally moderate compared to the politics of the day. The reason people think the Court is more left or right is because the Court rules on contentious legal issues while Congress likes to talk about contentious issues but does not like to take definitive action on them.

Anonymous wrote:This is incredibly messed up. On top of everything, apparently Steve Bannon nixed a Department of Homeland Security recommendation to leave out the green card holders. Because he wants to see chaos at the gates?

This administration clearly doesn't have it together. They are making America look not great, but weak. At odds with itself and in a state of disintegration. Get it together and follow the LAW.

Bannon prides himself as a honey badger. He doesn't give a shit about the law or Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Good one. What TTT law school did you attend? Liberty?

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.

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?

That's what peaceful resistance is for. No I would not execute an innocent person because the court said so. But this isn't that situation. You honestly want a bunch of executive branch employees defying court orders and the rule of law?

I never said that. I just said it was not accurate to claim that they are "ignoring the constitution." Ignoring he law, as established by court precedent, yes. But at some point, as you acknowledge, the courts don't have the ultimate say. We aren't there yet, though.

Top notch trolling because no lawyer can be this stupid, right? But just to clarify, executive branch officers and employees don't have the discretion to decide on their own whether any particular court ruling is in accordance with the US Constitution. That's a recipe for chaos and fundamentally contrary to the rule of law. There's a good reason the Framers gave federal jurists lifetime appointments. People who flout court orders get held in contempt and go to jail. This is about the most moronic thing I've read in a while, and I've read slot of posts written by Trumpniks. You might find common cause though with Sovereign Citizens.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Good one. What TTT law school did you attend? Liberty?

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.

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?

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.

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?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Good one. What TTT law school did you attend? Liberty?

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.

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?

That's what peaceful resistance is for. No I would not execute an innocent person because the court said so. But this isn't that situation. You honestly want a bunch of executive branch employees defying court orders and the rule of law?

I never said that. I just said it was not accurate to claim that they are "ignoring the constitution." Ignoring he law, as established by court precedent, yes. But at some point, as you acknowledge, the courts don't have the ultimate say. We aren't there yet, though.

They are ignoring the Constitution as interpreted by the courts. Good enough.

This is incredibly messed up. On top of everything, apparently Steve Bannon nixed a Department of Homeland Security recommendation to leave out the green card holders. Because he wants to see chaos at the gates?

This administration clearly doesn't have it together. They are making America look not great, but weak. At odds with itself and in a state of disintegration. Get it together and follow the LAW.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Good one. What TTT law school did you attend? Liberty?

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.

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?

That's what peaceful resistance is for. No I would not execute an innocent person because the court said so. But this isn't that situation. You honestly want a bunch of executive branch employees defying court orders and the rule of law?

I never said that. I just said it was not accurate to claim that they are "ignoring the constitution." Ignoring he law, as established by court precedent, yes. But at some point, as you acknowledge, the courts don't have the ultimate say. We aren't there yet, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Good one. What TTT law school did you attend? Liberty?

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.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Good one. What TTT law school did you attend? Liberty?

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.

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?

That's what peaceful resistance is for. No I would not execute an innocent person because the court said so. But this isn't that situation. You honestly want a bunch of executive branch employees defying court orders and the rule of law?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

Look: a law and order liberal!

I'm a liberal and a prosecutor, so yeah.

Broken clock is right twice a day

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

Look: a law and order liberal!

I'm a liberal and a prosecutor, so yeah.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They need to be held in contempt and arrested.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Good one. What TTT law school did you attend? Liberty?

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.

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?