Is the Executive Branch required to abide by the whims of a DC District Court judge? What can be done if inferior courts forget they are, in fact, inferior?
It may be that the judiciary's judgement of executive actions is only advisory. As President Jackson pointed out the judiciary has no means of enforcement. That's the job of the executive. When the judiciary corrects the executive's application of the law it falls to that executive branch to enforce that judicial order against itself, creating a paradox.
In criminal prosecutions the prosecutor always has discretion in the decision to prosecute. This may apply analogously to the federal judicial branch in enforcing orders. This is an open question, which is surprising considering the age of the Republic.
This was Stephen Millers' reply to CNN commentator: Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
President of the United States and his administration reserve all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country—men like John Adams—was written explicitly to give the President the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States. That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, enjoin, restrict, or restrain in any way. There’s not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review
This is not justiciable. In other words, this is not subject to judicial remedy. When the President is exercising his Article II powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he’s exercising his core Article II powers as Commander in Chief. This is a Title 50 authority, given solely to the Commander in Chief.
A district court judge DOES NOT HAVE the right to interfere, deny, direct or enjoin troop movements overseas.
Under the terms of the statute, Transdieragua is an alien enemy force that has come here, as detailed at length in the proclamation, at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says that a President has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed by a foreign state or government. It is documented that Transdieragua was sent by the Venezuelan government in the proclamation. And here’s an even more important point: under the Constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one or the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy?
Read the statute, Alien Enemies Act of 1798. It says if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government and lists three qualifying actions: 1: an act of war, 2: Illegal invasion, and 3: Predatory incursion (thousands entering the country illegally is both an invasion and predatory incursion, by their criminal actions in the almost two dozen states they've been sent to) So this meets all three statutory criteria, but with respect to this particular statute, the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language in the statute.
The district court has no ability to in any way restrain the President’s authorities under the Alien Enemies Act or his ability to conduct foreign affairs for the United States.
Under a proper reading of the Constitution, district court judges provide relief to individual plaintiffs seeking relief. District court judges do not have the authority, as a general matter, to enjoin the functioning and the fundamental powers of the President of the executive branch. Any authority is at its lowest point when the President is exercising his powers as Commander in Chief.
It's an interesting dilemma that SCOTUS will need to resolve. Instead of 3 co-equal branches of government, we seem to have one branch "bossing" the other around. The Babylon Bee did a "Federal judge appoints himself president" satire (that isn't satire at this point).
Someone on X asked "We all realize that if the President can just defy the courts, nothing differentiates them from a dictator, right... right?" To which I replied "It hasn't occurred to you that the lower courts have become "dictators" at the dictates of leftists who are fighting the Executive branch's Constitutional powers?"
Its truly interesting, because we actually do not have "coequal" branches of government. There are powers solely vested in the POTUS that the other two branches do not have authority over, Pardon power, Veto power, and the Article 2 secton 3 of executive branch.
I don't remember any place in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court final authority over the other two branches. I'm not saying that the branches should ignore the court, just that it seems each branch should have equal authority in determining constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court arrogated this supremacy to themselves.
It may be that the judiciary's judgement of executive actions is only advisory. As President Jackson pointed out the judiciary has no means of enforcement. That's the job of the executive. When the judiciary corrects the executive's application of the law it falls to that executive branch to enforce that judicial order against itself, creating a paradox.
In criminal prosecutions the prosecutor always has discretion in the decision to prosecute. This may apply analogously to the federal judicial branch in enforcing orders. This is an open question, which is surprising considering the age of the Republic.
This was Stephen Millers' reply to CNN commentator: Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
President of the United States and his administration reserve all rights under the Constitution to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States. The Alien Enemies Act, which was passed into law by the founding generation of this country—men like John Adams—was written explicitly to give the President the authority to repel an alien invasion of the United States. That is not something that a district court judge has any authority whatsoever to interfere with, enjoin, restrict, or restrain in any way. There’s not one clause in that law that makes it subject to judicial review, let alone district court review
This is not justiciable. In other words, this is not subject to judicial remedy. When the President is exercising his Article II powers to defend the country against an invasion or to repel a foreign terrorist that is unlawfully in the country, he’s exercising his core Article II powers as Commander in Chief. This is a Title 50 authority, given solely to the Commander in Chief.
A district court judge DOES NOT HAVE the right to interfere, deny, direct or enjoin troop movements overseas.
Under the terms of the statute, Transdieragua is an alien enemy force that has come here, as detailed at length in the proclamation, at the direction of the Venezuelan government. The statute says that a President has the ability to repel an invasion or predatory incursion that is directed by a foreign state or government. It is documented that Transdieragua was sent by the Venezuelan government in the proclamation. And here’s an even more important point: under the Constitution, who makes that determination? A district court judge elected by no one or the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy?
Read the statute, Alien Enemies Act of 1798. It says if a predatory incursion is perpetrated by a foreign government and lists three qualifying actions: 1: an act of war, 2: Illegal invasion, and 3: Predatory incursion (thousands entering the country illegally is both an invasion and predatory incursion, by their criminal actions in the almost two dozen states they've been sent to) So this meets all three statutory criteria, but with respect to this particular statute, the proclamation is utilizing the incursion and invasion language in the statute.
The district court has no ability to in any way restrain the President’s authorities under the Alien Enemies Act or his ability to conduct foreign affairs for the United States.
Under a proper reading of the Constitution, district court judges provide relief to individual plaintiffs seeking relief. District court judges do not have the authority, as a general matter, to enjoin the functioning and the fundamental powers of the President of the executive branch. Any authority is at its lowest point when the President is exercising his powers as Commander in Chief.
It's an interesting dilemma that SCOTUS will need to resolve. Instead of 3 co-equal branches of government, we seem to have one branch "bossing" the other around. The Babylon Bee did a "Federal judge appoints himself president" satire (that isn't satire at this point).
Someone on X asked "We all realize that if the President can just defy the courts, nothing differentiates them from a dictator, right... right?" To which I replied "It hasn't occurred to you that the lower courts have become "dictators" at the dictates of leftists who are fighting the Executive branch's Constitutional powers?"
This is where we are.
Its truly interesting, because we actually do not have "coequal" branches of government. There are powers solely vested in the POTUS that the other two branches do not have authority over, Pardon power, Veto power, and the Article 2 secton 3 of executive branch.
I don't remember any place in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court final authority over the other two branches. I'm not saying that the branches should ignore the court, just that it seems each branch should have equal authority in determining constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court arrogated this supremacy to themselves.