undefined | Better HN

0 pointsepistasis10mo ago0 comments

If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law. We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed.

It's quite clear that the current President does not give a damn about the constitution, know anything about it, or have any compunction about blatant violation of the constitution.

> Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf.

This is factually wrong.

0 comments

rayiner10mo ago

> > Otherwise, all authority in the executive branch effectively belongs to the president and random midlevel bureaucrats can only exercise it on his behalf.

> This is factually wrong.

It’s literally the first sentence of Article II! “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.” Article II doesn’t even talk about an “executive branch.” It assigns powers and responsibilities to the President.

It’s an extremely easy to understand structure that has been obfuscated during the 20th century. The constitutional actors are: the President, the 100 senators and 435 Congressmen, the 9 Justices, and Article III judges. They hold all the powers of their respective offices.

Can Congress appoint employees to be part of the Supreme Court, and provide for them to exercise judicial powers independently of the Justices? Of course not! Can Congress delegate to a staff of employees the power to make laws independently of the Congressmen? No! Obviously not! That would be absurd.

The executive branch isn’t any different.

mmooss10mo ago

> We are a constitutional republic and the constitution must be followed.

Also the law must be followed.

jimbokun10mo ago

> If a presidential candidate promises to break the law in his campaign, that does not give him the authority to break the law.

The Supreme Court ruled otherwise.

otterley10mo ago

That’s not exactly what they held. They held that the President is immune from prosecution for official acts. Prosecutorial immunity doesn’t mean his conduct is not unlawful; it means he can’t be criminally prosecuted for it. That distinction is important because it doesn’t prevent courts from issuing injunctions. And, as stated by others, the immunity is extended only to official acts. What constitutes an official act isn’t super clear yet, but I think it’s safe to assume that golfing isn’t an official act.

throw1618033910mo ago

The Roberts court invented the official acts immunity out of whole cloth for the sole purpose of keeping Trump out of jail. They're quite capable of interpreting everything he does as an official act.

mrkstu10mo ago

Sort of. He would still be breaking the law, it’s just that if it’s an ‘official act’ then the judiciary can’t do anything about it, just Congress via impeachment.

dcrazy10mo ago

I think that opinion would have been less controversial if the President hadn’t openly advertised his intent to violate the law repeatedly. It’s not like the courts are rendered powerless if the President violates the law; any judgments they render are still binding on the parties, even if they require the parties act in ways contrary to the executive’s interpretation of the law. That still means something as long people continue to respect the judiciary. The dangerous game we’re playing is finding out whether that respect will continue.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse