The "national emergency" in the context of Constitutional Governance


I was thinking about this earlier - and I really hope that they do.

I made a post about it - but now I see you beat me to it by half a day or so.


Technically yes. The reichtag fire that was blamed on Hitler’s opponents was the final straw even though he was assuming many new powers beforehand.


It’s only true on the most superficial of levels.

Yes, that is a technically accurate statement. But it is not in any way an accurate (or relevent) comparison to the situation today.


The one to watch if it reach SCOTUS is Gorsuch.


I can’t wait, can you?

The judiciary has a huge problem.


Well at least you got one fratboy lapdog on the court


Indeed it does…just as bad as legislative branch.

Irony the executive branch might be in best shape…despite bureaucracy.


Gorsuch and Roberts.


Kavanaugh will do what Roberts tells him to.



Trump may be counting on a SCOTUS win.

Far from clear that he’ll get one.


Roberts if anything will side with libs. Gorsuch will have his own reasons.

If you want to get into his head a bit he did write this.

JUSTICE GORSUCH, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Vague laws invite arbitrary power. Before the Revolu­tion, the crime of treason in English law was so capa­ciously construed that the mere expression of disfavored opinions could invite transportation or death. The founders cited the crown’s abuse of “pretended” crimes like this as one of their reasons for revolution. See Declaration of Independence ¶21. Today’s vague laws may not be as invidious, but they can invite the exercise of arbitrary power all the same—by leaving the people in the dark about what the law demands and allowing prosecutors and courts to make it up.
The law before us today is such a law. Before holding a lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya sub­ject to removal for having committed a crime, the Immi­gration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine that the ordinary case of the alien’s crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case
and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows. The law’s silence leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate. In my judgment, the Constitution demands more.

Vague laws invite arbitrary power.

We’re also seeing it unfold throughout bureaucracy…which leads to abuse we are witnessing.


I truly hope it does get reined in. A lot.


I hear you…but damage is already done. It will take half a century at least to repair the damage and that’s providing we have 9 justice that thinks the way he does.

Trump had opportunity to pick another one that holds similiar views.


Kudos for labeling Trump’s declaration an abuse of power.


You hear in color?


Post the list of the FBI and DOJ trash that been fired or quit before they could be. Last number I heard was 25. I’m sure it’s higher now.


Credit where credit is due. That was very funny.


What is that proof of? That Trump gets his way when he wants his enemies punished?


Because he’s been to the border, (which the opponents if the wall haven’t), and spoken to the border patrol agents who actually are tasked to protect our border, and asked them what they need…


Legislators in California haven’t been to the border?!