1
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« on: February 05, 2025, 07:02:32 PM »Since the President is clearly above the powers of other branches a more accurate statement is that he provides the permission for his actions. The President is the check against the other branches, not vice-versa. You guys have that backwards.
Another example is the recent "TikTok ban". It was passed legally by Congress and upheld by the Supreme Court. TikTok went offline for a while and then it was brought back online by internet telecommunication companies after declarations from Trump. Trump issued statements and an EO that he will put the orders for the TikTok ban on pause and not uphold it, demonstrating that he is above those powers and can simply ignore the orders.
The best Congress can do is impeach him and give him that label, but whether they have the power to actually forcefully remove him against his will is in debate since it has never been done and the President has an encompassing enforcement power that nullifies other branches. In fact, the article I posted a couple of posts back says that he can overturn or overthrow Congress in his official capacity without fear of arrest. It is interesting to speculate about the limits of the President's vast power, but it is nonetheless very clear that he is incredibly powerful in likeness to a king.
As a UK citizen it's not my speciallist subject, but the Supreme Court seems to believe that the Judicial Branch determines what powers the President can employ.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/constitutional.aspx#:~:text=When%20the%20Supreme%20Court%20rules,legislative%20action%20can%20be%20taken.
Quote:
"The complex role of the Supreme Court in this system derives from its authority to invalidate legislation or executive actions which, in the Court’s considered judgment, conflict with the Constitution. This power of "judicial review" has given the Court a crucial responsibility in assuring individual rights, as well as in maintaining a "living Constitution" whose broad provisions are continually applied to complicated new situations". (My bold).
Fully agree on the concept that a constitutionally-powerful president can make all the difference to national success e.g. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Lukashenko, Saddam, Mugabe.
Of course, to quote another powerful president, Mao Zedong, real power comes from the barrel of a gun, so if you can get enoough guns on-message the Supreme Court can go suck. But that would be Insurrection, wouldn't it?