Third World Skeptical Kid

No. Judges were never given that power. The power to check the president was given to congress in the form of impeachment. Honoring the judges rulings on constitutionality is tradition not law.

Article III, Sections 1 & 2 says otherwise.

Article III, Section 1 of the United States Constitution states, "The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office."

Article III, Section 2 delineates the scope of the judicial power and states, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;—between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Sorry, nowhere does it state they can declare something unconstitutional.

Art. III covers the judicial Power, grants authority to declare something unconstitutional. The judicial Power is the power to adjudicate. Adjudicate what? Cases brought before Court. A constitutional challenge brought before the Court is, therefore, within the scope of the Court's judicial Power to adjudge constitutional/unconstitutional.

No, it doesn't. It only grants them power to rule on whether existing laws are violated or not. The constitution is above all three branches of government.

No. "The judicial Power shall extend to *all* Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States. ... —to *Controversies* to which the United States shall be a Party" --look up the legal definition of "controversy". Also, although dry and a dull read, recommend Congress' "ArtIII.S2.C1.1 Overview of Cases or Controversies" Constitution webpage.

The Constitution is the penultimate law from whence all other U.S. law flows, the Judiciary (SCOTUS, lower courts) effectively its sheriff & deputies and the judicial Power expressly granted therein the authority to make "arrests" so to speak.

Sorry no. The constitution is above the law, thus separate. Meaning they can't rule on it.
Controversy does not include "highest law of the land". Courts give warrants not arrest power. Arrest power is executive branch.

XiaoJia0 ups, <1h
"The constitution is above the law, thus separate."

Wrong. The Constitution is not above the Law, it is the Law -meaning the SCOTUS can rule on Controversies arising under it. To wit:

Article VI, Clause 2

**This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;** and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Just so we're clear on the matter, in accordance, lockstep with Article III, Section 2, Controversies of Law arise **under** law regardless of superior/inferior situation. If one violates a law, whether it be civil or criminal violation, that Controversy is addressed by said law's respective Judical tier. If that tier's ruling is appealed to a higher Court, the Controversy is then transfered upward to the next highest Court, lather rinse repeat until it lands in the SCOTUS' lap.

"Courts give warrants not arrest power. Arrest power is executive branch."

Firstly, it was a metaphor -that's why the word "arrest" was in quotes, spotlighted with the "so to speak" follower.

Secondly, no, that's not correct; the power to make arrests under the law is possessed by every citizen (hence the term "citizen's arrest"). The warrant/probable cause requirement established by Amendment V, reinforced by Amendment XIV is a guardrail against arbitrary arrest at the hands of LEOs with the Executive Branch merely being the top tier of the governmental LEO hierarchy.

What's going on with you? This is all middle-school level Civics that, as someone who is, at the very least, of age to use Imgflip, you should know already.

The constitution is "the highest law of the land" thus separate from congressional law. It is the thing that grants congress the power to pass laws.
In your own quote the judges are bound by the constitution. The constitution makes it clear that executive power resides in the president. That's the power to execute laws. The courts can't execute anything.
The 9th and 10th amendments limit the powers of the federal government to what is actually written in the constitution. This overrides your quote. Congress cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional. The judicial branch cannot rule on the constitution, and the executive cannot enforce laws not on the books.
This power is granted to the states and people.

Also nowhere did I say that arrest power is solely by police. Good luck getting a judge to grant a warrant to a citizen though.

"In your own quote the judges are bound by the constitution."

Yes, just as every other section of the government is bound to abide by the strictures enumerated therein.

"The 9th and 10th amendments limit the powers of the federal government to what is actually written in the constitution."

-and, per the judicial Power enumerated in Article III, Section 2, it is the Court's authority to hear cases brought before it, adjudicate them in terms of constitutional/unconstitutional, render judgement thereon.

"Congress cannot pass a law that is unconstitutional."

Actually Congress can and has -which is where the the judicial Power enumerated in Article III, Section 2 comes in, grants the Court authority to strike such laws down.

"The judicial branch cannot rule on the constitution"

The Court doesn't rule on the Constitution, it rules on constitutional compliance of those under the Constitution's strictures.

"and the executive cannot enforce laws not on the books. This power is granted to the states and people."

And who is the government? Is it your contention that the government isn't comprised "of the people"?

Adjudicate and rule unconstitutional are not the same thing. Adjudicate is interpret. Not strike down.
See the courts can say an action or law is unconstitutional all day, but they have no enforcement power. That's what the executive branch is for. If the executive branch does wrong things, that's where impeachment comes in.

People are not the government. I'm talking individual rights, states rights, and Federal government rights.

"Adjudicate and rule unconstitutional are not the same thing. Adjudicate is interpret. Not strike down."

Okay, I see the problem here; you don't understand the words. Let's fix that:

ad·ju·di·cate verb -make a formal judgment or decision about a problem or disputed matter.

rule verb -pronounce authoritatively and legally to be the case:

Synonyms for adjudicate include:

Decide
Settle
Determine
Arbitrate
Judge
Adjudge
Resolve
Try
Mediate
Referee
Pronounce
Rule <<<

"See the courts can say an action or law is unconstitutional all day, but they have no enforcement power. That's what the executive branch is for."

Yes, that's why when the Court issues a ruling in a constitutional Controversy per Art. III, Section 2, finding for the plaintiff that violation of the Constitution has occurred, orders the defendant to correct the violation and the defendant doesn't comply, the Court hands the matter over to the U.S. Marshals Service

"If the executive branch does wrong things, that's where impeachment comes in."

Impeachment of a criminal member of the federal government is wholly contingent upon a Congressional body which isn't majority-corrupt, honors its Oath to the Constitution. If either the Executive or Legislative Branch violates the Constitution, it is the constitutionally endowed Power of the Court to render judgement accordingly, order correction of the issue (the Court's corner of the checks and balances triangle) as a means of ensuring continuity of government prior to resorting to impeachment. Should either Executive or Legislative Branch not comply, the Court is thereafter empowered to, may rule such non-compliance as criminal contempt (High Crime, impeachable offense), order arrest of the offending official -and that's the catch; the Marshals Service operates under the authority of the Attorney General, meaning that a corrupt A.G. operating in conjunction with a majority-corrupt Legislative Branch may order the Marshals Service to do nothing.

"People are not the government. I'm talking individual rights, states rights, and Federal government rights."

Okay, that's it... you've now crossed over into crazy town and claimed that the government isn't staffed by people.

Yeah, it seems like you don't understand the language at the time of writing.

The term "adjudicate" was not defined in dictionaries from 1776. Based on its etymology and earliest recorded use, it meant "to make a judicial decision or to settle a dispute."

Citations:

Etymology of "adjudicate" from Etymonline
Johnson's Dictionary Online

Ah, no you seem to be going outside the constitution. Remember the constitution is the highest law of the land and if it's not explicitly stated in the constitution the federal government can't legally do it. All enforcement and arrests reside in the executive branch. That means by definition if the Marshall's try to arrest someone with out an execute order they are violating the law and can be arrested themselves. Since the president can only be impeached by congress he's immune.

"Yeah, it seems like you don't understand the language at the time of writing. The term 'adjudicate' was not defined in dictionaries from 1776."

"Adjudicate" as an English language verb was officially defined by the O.E.D. in 1655, has been thenceforward defined by the O.E.D. Before that its, English noun form was already present as "adjudication". Before that, its Latin form had likely been in use for at least 2 millenia.

"Based on its etymology and earliest recorded use, it meant 'to make a **judicial decision** or to **settle a dispute.'"**

Uh-huh.

ad·ju·di·cate verb -make a **formal judgment or decision** about a problem or **disputed matter.**

In other words, no functional difference.

"Ah, no you seem to be going outside the constitution. **Remember the constitution is the highest law of the land and if it's not explicitly stated in the constitution the federal government can't legally do it.**"

No, still within the bounds of the Constitution.

Remember how this conversation started at a question of the authority granted per the Constitution -specifically your assertion: "No. Judges were never given that power. The power to check the president was given to congress in the form of impeachment. Honoring the judges rulings on constitutionality is tradition not law." which was immediately shut down in light of the Judicial Power to check the POTUS allocated to the Court under Article III, Section 2's provision of "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution... ...to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party"?

Remember how that discussion started in response to questions of whether a sitting POTUS can extrajudicially arrest, deport individuals without Constitution-mandated due process?

"**Remember the constitution is the highest law of the land and if it's not explicitly stated in the constitution the federal government can't legally do it.**"

You do realize you're now arguing for Article III, Section 2's assignment of judicial Power over the POTUS & against extrajudicial arrest, deportation sans due process, correct?

"All enforcement and arrests reside in the executive branch. That means by definition if the Marshall's try to arrest someone with out an execute order they are violating the law and can be arrested themselves."

No. The USMS operates on the same basic plain-view operational mechanics as every other policing organization.

No sorry. Your strawmans and red herrings mean nothing. Arrest power is executive branch run by the president. Judicial can't do anything like that. The president is given complete immunity sans a congressional impeachment so anyone trying to arrest them would immediately be arrested.

This is all basic stuff clearly written in the constitution.

"Arrest power is executive branch run by the president. Judicial can't do anything like that."

Never said it wasn't. Arrest power is also the power of every citizen, meaning that should a member of the Judicial Branch choose to execute an arrest they may.

"The president is given complete immunity sans a congressional impeachment so anyone trying to arrest them would immediately be arrested."

Nope. The POTUS has immunity for all **official acts undertaken per the duties of the Office of the Presidency.** Should a POTUS commit murder, that POTUS could lawfully be arrested immediately on grounds of clear and present danger with the process of Impeachment, removal from office, formal criminal charges following thereafter.

"This is all basic stuff clearly written in the constitution."

And yet this whole rigamole has been one long, round-about exercise in you demonstratedly struggling to understand how the Constitution applies... 🤨

No sorry. While they are president they cannot be touched. After they get out they can then not be held accountable for official acts. It helps if you drop the insults and assumptions and read the rulings.

"While they are president they cannot be touched."

Nope. A sitting POTUS is immune to prosecution but is not immune to arrest.

"After they get out they can then not be held accountable for official acts."

Yes, that's why I stated "The POTUS has immunity for all **official acts undertaken per the duties of the Office of the Presidency.**"

"It helps if you drop the insults and assumptions and read the rulings."

What insults? Copy and paste them. What assumptions am I making? And while we're on the subject, name the rulings.

He's immune from everything except impeachment by congress.

Article II, Section 4 (Impeachment Clause):

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Since the president has arrest power and executes the law, anyone attempting to arrest him would be interfering in his ability to execute the law and would be subject to immediate arrest as the inability to execute laws would be a public danger, meaning he wouldn't even need a warrant.

"He's immune from everything except impeachment by congress. 'from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.'"

So what you're saying is that if a POTUS just started murdering everyone around him, the Secret Service, rather than arrest a plain-sight murderer, is obligated to sit still and allow others and themselves to be murdered because "Presidential Immunity"?

-that sounds suspiciously like you're arguing that clear-and-present-danger isn't valid grounds for arrest.

"Since the president has arrest power and executes the law, anyone attempting to arrest him would be interfering in his ability to execute the law and would be subject to immediate arrest as the inability to execute laws would be a public danger, meaning he wouldn't even need a warrant."

Nope. That's why we have a chain of succession; if the POTUS is incapacitated -in this instance due to arrest under clear-and-present-danger doctrine- the Vice-POTUS assumes the duties of the POTUS until such time as said POTUS' incapacity is resolved.

So where are those "insults" you claimed I've been throwing around? Or how about the "assumptions" you've alleged I'm making? You can copy and paste them, right? Any time you're ready, just let 'em rip, let's see them.

In the meantime, how about the rulings you've claimed back up all the straws you've been grasping at? C'mon, don't be shy about it -parade those dogs out so everyone can have gander.

Oh, also before you attempt some lame denial of the chain of succession, remember, you're the one who accorded "the constitution is the highest law of the land and if it's not explicitly stated in the constitution the federal government can't legally do it."

Article II, Section 1, Clause 6:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or **Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office,** the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

So, the question, now that your own words are coming back to haunt you, is whether you're about to backtrack on your previous position, deny the constitutionality of arresting a POTUS under clear-and-present-danger doctrine.

Sure but it would never get to that point because anyone attempting to arrest him would be arrested by the SS. Thus his ability to do his duty would never be in question.

"Sure but it would never get to that point because anyone attempting to arrest him would be arrested by the SS. Thus his ability to do his duty would never be in question."

So you are, in fact, arguing that the Secret Service would arrest the Service Service, ignore a clear and present danger in favor of simply standing idly by, allowing themselves and others to be killed by a POTUS committing open, en flagrante murder, then?

Take a moment and think about that... say it aloud if necessary -can you hear how crazy the bare-bones reality of what you've tacitly proposed would happen sounds?

Unfortunately it has to be that way because otherwise they can make some Trumped up charges that are fake and remove any president they don't like.
The founders knew what they were doing. (Pun intended)

"Unfortunately it has to be that way because otherwise they can make some Trumped up charges that are fake and remove any president they don't like."

Article II, Section 4:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and **Misdemeanors.**

So yeah... I've got some bad news for you -take a moment and look up the definition of "misdemeanor" circa 1787. As the word had multiple definitions at the time, is undefined by the Constitution, Congress is fully, constitutionally within its authority to impeach a POTUS for pretty much any reason ranging from actual criminality to simple behavior unbecoming of the Office.

Misdemeanors meant more than a simple low level offence. So a parking ticket wound not qualify. Also this is congress we are talking about which is impeachment. Not some random person trying to arrest him. If a 2/3rd majority of 200+ people agree to kick him out then that is a good indicator he needs to be removed.

"Misdemeanors meant more than a simple low level offence."

Mhmm... and, perhaps, had you done more than a cursory search of the term, you'd know that at the time of the Constitution's issue "misdemeanor" was also defined as "ill behavior; evil conduct; fault; mismanagement."

Yes back when sex outside marriage was a prison offence and if you insulted someone a deadly duel would ensue.

"Yes back when sex outside marriage was a prison offence and if you insulted someone a deadly duel would ensue."

Nice strawman, bud.

"Your strawmans and red herrings mean nothing."

Remember saying that?

It's not a strawman. A strawman is when someone makes up an argument that you didn't make and then proceeds to knock it down. In this case I'm only giving context to the original meaning of the word when it was written into the constitution. This is important to understand what the laws mean.
Just like when people don't understand that "militia" in the 2nd amendment meant every able bodied person that found use a gun.

"A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of REFUTING an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction."

strawman -an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is **set up** because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument:

Concerning the definition of "misdemeanor" including things that you most likely strategically ommitted due to their undercutting of your arguments, you **set up** the argument:

"Yes back when sex outside marriage was a prison offence and if you insulted someone a deadly duel would ensue."

-which is wholly irrelevant to a discussion concerning the definition of the word "misdemeanor." In response to which I pointed out:

"Nice strawman, bud." to shut that bullshit down immediately. And now you've claimed:

"It's not a strawman."

Only to also turn right around and confirm what it means to deploy a strawman, that you did, in fact, know full well you had deployed a strawman:

"A strawman is when someone makes up an argument that you didn't make and then proceeds to knock it down." [this is not a discussion about 1700s-era social mores]

The execution of which I'm denying you. So yeah, definition of "strawman" is up there. You trucked out a strawman and obviously tried to deflect, redirect the conversation toward matters of period social mechanics, away from the true topic of the definition of "misdemeanor" when the Constitution was written as pertains to the word's use in, bearing on Amendment 25's provision for removal of a POTUS on grounds ranging from felony (High Crimes) to simple conduct unbecoming of the Office (Misdemeanors).

As you've finally chosen to openly lie, there's no point in continuing this discussion. We're done here. Well, I'm done here -you'll likely try some other lying, last wordist bullshit sooo... yeah, have at it, field's yours.

I was done here about 10 messages back when you started trotting out modern definitions for law that's over 100 years old. I was simply trying to educate you, but you are too far gone. Indoctrinated into your leftist social media bubble.

Side note because it's getting messy on the other page:

"Its funny how no one is talking about the real solution to all this: for congress to make enough courts to handle all the cases in a year and then run them through those courts so no one can complain."

The immigration courts were definitely overloaded and needed more judges. And the judge firings didn't help things at all. Granted it was only 20 judges but when the court's already suffering from drag-ass...

This is on congress though. They could all work together and clear this problem in less than a month. But the left won't work with the right without pork, even though it would be a quick easy win.

Yup, it'd be a win all around.

Neither side will work with the other without pork. Don't be fooled; both sides of the aisle love pork-barrel spending but only when it's the kind with which they agree.

That's true. A lot of Republicans need to be replaced with conservatives in the next election so we can get stuff done.

Thank you for looking for it for me.