Does anyone thing Trump understands our government at all?

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I mean seriously, the system of checks and balances?

A president has almost unilateral power when it comes to the national security of the U.S. This decision will be overturned. Even liberal icons, Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley agree along with many conservative legal scholars even thought they disagreed with this policy.

Did you complain when many of Obama's actions were overturned by SCOTUS. Trump's EO was stayed by a single federal judge, many of Obama's actions by SCOTUS and by 9-0 votes. Selective outrage?
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
A president has almost unilateral power when it comes to the national security of the U.S. This decision will be overturned. Even liberal icons, Alan Dershowitz and Jonathan Turley agree along with many conservative legal scholars even thought they disagreed with this policy.

Did you complain when many of Obama's actions were overturned by SCOTUS. Trump's EO was stayed by a single federal judge, many of Obama's actions by SCOTUS and by 9-0 votes. Selective outrage?
You don't even know what the poster is referring to Paxx. Maybe they are stating in a general sense.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
I mean seriously, the system of checks and balances?

Is Alan Dershowitz wrong:

Dershowitz wrote in Canada’s Globe and Mail:

President Donald Trump avoided a constitutional crisis by appealing, rather than defying, an overbroad injunction against his visa executive order issued by a federal judge in Washington State. Justice James Robart’s injunction is nation-wide in effect, despite another federal judge in Massachusetts having rendered a decision refusing to renew a similar injunction, and thus allowing the visa restrictions to be implemented.

In light of these conflicting rulings, the President could have said that he was going to follow the one he and his lawyers believed was correct. Had he done so, the judge in Washington might well have held the President in contempt of court, thus creating a constitutional crisis between co-equal branches of our government.



Whatever one thinks about the merits or demerits of Justice Robert’s injunction – or of the Massachusetts Federal Judge’s refusal to renew the injunction – we are observing in action the American system of checks and balances, and separation of powers.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
No I don't think he understands at all, and I think most of his cabinet would love to change that system of checks and balances.

So Dershowitz, a liberal icon, Constitutional Scholar, much more knowledgable than you and just as partisan disagrees. Is he wrong:

Dershowitz wrote in Canada’s Globe and Mail:

President Donald Trump avoided a constitutional crisis by appealing, rather than defying, an overbroad injunction against his visa executive order issued by a federal judge in Washington State. Justice James Robart’s injunction is nation-wide in effect, despite another federal judge in Massachusetts having rendered a decision refusing to renew a similar injunction, and thus allowing the visa restrictions to be implemented.

In light of these conflicting rulings, the President could have said that he was going to follow the one he and his lawyers believed was correct. Had he done so, the judge in Washington might well have held the President in contempt of court, thus creating a constitutional crisis between co-equal branches of our government.



Whatever one thinks about the merits or demerits of Justice Robert’s injunction – or of the Massachusetts Federal Judge’s refusal to renew the injunction – we are observing in action the American system of checks and balances, and separation of powers.
 

bamaEER

Freshman
May 29, 2001
32,435
60
0
I actually think your description is pretty accurate.
If he could, he would do away with the house and senate, because they are just getting in the way of his law making. SCOTUS? Gone. Constitution has to be rewritten anyway. This is the beginning of a new era, a whole new world order.
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
If he could, he would do away with the house and senate, because they are just getting in the way of his law making. SCOTUS? Gone. Constitution has to be rewritten anyway. This is the beginning of a new era, a whole new world order.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
If he could, he would do away with the house and senate, because they are just getting in the way of his law making. SCOTUS? Gone. Constitution has to be rewritten anyway. This is the beginning of a new era, a whole new world order.

Are you prepared to admit that Obama ignored the Constitution many, many, many times? Are you prepared to admit Obama ruled with a pen and a phone, thus eliminating Congress and the Senate? Paris Climate Accord, no vote by Senate. Iran deal, no vote by the Senate. Immigration reform granting work permits ruled unconstitutional. Many other Obama actions ruled unconstitutional.

This goes both ways my friend. You indignance apparently depends on whose ox is being gored. Obama lost at SCOTUS more than any President in modern history.

http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06...supreme-court-more-than-any-modern-president/
 

dave

Senior
May 29, 2001
60,572
755
113
If he could, he would do away with the house and senate, because they are just getting in the way of his law making. SCOTUS? Gone. Constitution has to be rewritten anyway. This is the beginning of a new era, a whole new world order.
Another accurate prediction by the crazy psuedoscientist envirowhacko.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,688
1,758
113
If he could, he would do away with the house and senate, because they are just getting in the way of his law making. SCOTUS? Gone. Constitution has to be rewritten anyway. This is the beginning of a new era, a whole new world order.
Nothing that has happened would suggest your post to be consistent with reality. Moreover, you feeling this way now after the behavior of the last guy is quite amusing. It's like you have selective amnesia.