Exclusive: Trump plans shutdown compromise Trump speaking to reporters

AXIOS ^ | Jonathan Swan

[palmer]

Ties between the executive and judicial branches are determined by the Congress through proper legislation.

Not sure what that means. The executive can act on explicit or implicit powers in the Constitution, or by legislation. The courts have to decide what is Constitutional, or implied, or legislated.

OTOH, there's nothing in the National Emergencies Act about allowing the courts to decide what is an emergency and what is not. That is entirely up to the President and Congress. Congress would need enough votes to override a veto if they want to terminate the emergency. But the emergency has to be declared on some legal authority. In the past the authority was somewhat circular: e.g. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/2808 used by GWBush after Sep 11. Bush had already declared the emergency by EO: https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010914-4.html and several more orders after that to help sieze assets and stop terrorist financing.

[arrogantsob]

It has been obvious from day one that a deal over DACA would be in the works. The Demons will reject it even though it makes their hypocrisy obvious to all.

[aquila48]

“Law abiding is the words I would use.”

Abiding whose laws? Making you pay for abortions? Other people’s birth control? Raking you over the coals if you say anything un-PC, affirmative actions, quotas disguised as diversity, same sex marriage, transgender insanity... And I could go on for another page. The left brown shirts love to run roughshod over obedient,” law abiding”, meek opposition.

Is there a point at which you start fighting back against them and their laws?

[Uncle Sham]

Co-Equal means what it says. The Executive Branch gets to have it's opinion as well. If it's opinion is different from that of the Judicial branch, there is NOTHING the Judicial branch can do to impose it's opinion other than make rulings. If the issue is important enough, Congress can legislate an opinion to solve the issue but they don't necessarily have to address it at all. In this case, the Executive branch, being the enforcement branch can do what it damn well pleases.

Remember, the courts are LIMITED to that which is brought before them. They cannot rule willy nilly just because they have an opinion on something, especially if that something hasn't been brought to them for a ruling.

[palmer]

Well for your first paragraph, I would certainly expect that the executive would follow the rulings of the judiciary. That’s just common sense. Without that, we have no protection from executive overreach. For your second paragraph I agree. Even with cases brought before them, there are jurisdiction questions. No federal judge in East Podunk should be able to rule on the entire US.

[eartick]

Who is slinking girly man, now after giving out 1.6 billion to illegal invaders that we stopped the Trump has been called.

[Uncle Sham]

"I would certainly expect that the executive would follow the rulings of the judiciary. That’s just common sense. Without that, we have no protection from executive overreach."

The Judicial branch needs to follow the Constitution and obey it. The executive branch being co-equal is our protection from JUDICIAL overreach. There are instances where it needs to be used in that fashion, especially in areas such as immigration where the executive branch has the constitutional authority and the judicial branch has none. I would hope that the President protects his turf as is his constitutional duty to do so. THAT is common sense and the way that our founders intended.

[VanDeKoik]

“Who is slinking girly man, now after giving out 1.6 billion to illegal invaders that we stopped the Trump has been called.”

What on Earth did I just read?

[freddy005]

I’m afraid that you’re absolutely right....unfortunately.

[Pining_4_TX]

I hope I’m just included among the pearl-clutchers. :-)

[catnipman]

“I hope I’m just included among the pearl-clutchers. :-)”

ROTFLOL!