Who said it?

[Tripnsweep]

One person does not get to make the law in this Republic. The president is called upon to enforce the law.

Fundamentally, that means he does not get to pick and choose which laws he'll enforce and which laws he'll ignore. He does not get to pick and choose who must obey the law and who gets to live above the law, and he does not get to change laws or make laws by decree. That is the difference between the American Republic that prides itself on being a nation of laws and not of men and the European despots of old who boasted that the law was in their mouths.
–
Fortunately, the American Founders anticipated that someday a president might attempt to subvert the Constitution in this manner and they provided a variety of defenses available to both the legislative and the judicial branches.
–
Since our earliest days, the Supreme Court has guarded our nation from unconstitutional acts by both the legislative and executive branches, and that role is desperately needed now.

I believe there's no substitute for Congress doing everything within its power to invoke judicial intervention. I cannot believe that even the most devoted (REPUBLICANS) on the bench can be comfortable with this brazen act of usurpation. Assuming the court stands with the Constitution, the president would have no choice but to back down or face a catastrophic public and congressional backlash.

Whether we choose to recognize it, this is a full-fledged constitutional crisis. If allowed to stand, this precedent renders meaningless the separation of powers and the checks and balances that comprise the fundamental architecture of our Constitution. If it stands, every future president, Republican and Democrat, will cite it as justification for lawmaking by decree. The seizure of legislative authority by the executive is fatal to a Republic such as ours.

Indeed it was Julius Caesar's usurpation of the Roman senate's legislative prerogatives that brought down the Roman Republic and began four centuries of dictatorship. Once the rule of one man is established over the rule of law, it's a very difficult thing to stop.

Unlike every law that's passed under our Constitution, the Constitution itself has no penalties for those who break it. The reason is that the Constitution was written to be self-enforcing. But that only happens if the powers of government are evenly balanced. The Founders relied on each branch acting to keep those powers in balance.

Now, in our time, that responsibility is ours

[Husker_Du]

3 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

One person does not get to make the law in this Republic. The president is called upon to enforce the law.

Fundamentally, that means he does not get to pick and choose which laws he'll enforce and which laws he'll ignore. He does not get to pick and choose who must obey the law and who gets to live above the law, and he does not get to change laws or make laws by decree. 

stop talking so mean about Joe Biden's border policy. he's old and has dementia. let it go.

[Tripnsweep]

Just now, Husker_Du said:

stop talking so mean about Joe Biden's border policy. he's old and has dementia. let it go.

Don't keep your brother waiting in the shower. 

[Saylors_Tiny_Willie]

5 hours ago, Husker_Du said:

stop talking so mean about Joe Biden's border policy. he's old and has dementia. let it go.

Stop living up to our worst expectations about you.

[Lipdrag]

10 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

But that only happens if the powers of government are evenly balanced. The Founders relied on each branch acting to keep those powers in balance.

Yes.  Congress abdicated to the Deep State and so did the courts in the Chevron Ruling (and many others before that).  What Trump is doing is mostly aligned with laws passed by Congress.  Emergency powers granted by laws are mostly BS and an abdication by Congress of it duties.  For the Courts to protect the citizens from the Executive they must strike down laws that grant emergency powers that last longer than about 2 weeks - enough time for Congress to get together and actually vote on a topic.

So, when Congress grows a pair and when the courts strike down legislation with never ending emergency powers as unConstitutional (i.e. abdicating responsibility) then we might get something closer to operating under a Constitution.  I'm not holding my breath.  Until then the throttle on the power of the executive is the ballot box.  So that still kind of works.

[Lipdrag]

11 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

Whether we choose to recognize it, this is a full-fledged constitutional crisis.

"The real “crisis” seems to be that Trump is winning in some of these cases. To make matters worse, he is complying with adverse rulings."

Long read from J. Turley.  Who voted for Clinton and has been decribed by the Washington Post as, " . . . a liberal Democrat who was “articulate, . . . "

https://jonathanturley.org/2025/03/10/panic-politics-law-professors-umpteenth-constitutional-crisis-falls-flat/

[mspart]

Turley doesn't have much patience for academic law profs that cry crisis every other day.   They want the constitution abolished.   So that tells you where they are in this grand experiment of ours.  

Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky published a book titled “No Democracy Lasts Forever: How the Constitution Threatens the United States.”

So that's the ilk of the folks telling us Trump is breaking the constitution.   They don't like the constitution so it is a problem when someone follows it.   They do their usual thing where everything  is opposite day.  

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

Just so everyone is aware. That was not from anybody recently. That was from Republican congressman Tom McClintock speaking about the actions of President Obama in 2014.

 

[mspart]

6 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

Just so everyone is aware. That was not from anybody recently. That was from Republican congressman Tom McClintock speaking about the actions of President Obama in 2014.

 

https://www.acslaw.org/press_release/more-than-950-law-scholars-sound-alarm-on-constitutional-crisis/

I hope you are not talking about the above.  Just happened recently.

mspart

[Tripnsweep]

48 minutes ago, mspart said:

https://www.acslaw.org/press_release/more-than-950-law-scholars-sound-alarm-on-constitutional-crisis/

I hope you are not talking about the above.  Just happened recently.

mspart

Apparently you have trouble reading. 

[mspart]

Apparently you have trouble placing your posts in the correct sequence.   Or quoting what you are addressing.   I admit to doing the same thing myself.   That's why I said "I hope you are not talking about...."     I thought it might be that you were referring to something else, but it was right after mine.

mspart