Justice Department argues Congress can't sue the Trump administration at all
10 replies, posted
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/justice-department-house-cant-sue-trump-administration
WASHINGTON — In defending President Donald Trump's decision to order billions of dollars in federal funds moved around to pay for a wall along the US-Mexico border, the Justice
Department on Thursday made the sweeping argument that Congress shouldn't be able to sue the administration at all.
Appearing before a federal judge in Washington, DC, Justice Department official James Burnham argued the US Constitution simply did not give one branch of government — in this
case, the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives — the tools to sue another branch. The framers of the Constitution "would have been horrified by that prospect," Burnham said,
since it would put the courts above Congress and the executive branch.
It's an argument that extends far beyond the fight over the border. The Justice Department argued in its brief that lawsuits by Congress to enforce subpoenas to the executive branch were
also inconsistent with the Constitution — Burnham cited examples of presidents before the mid-20th century who refused to give information to Congress and weren't taken to court. But
both Republicans and Democrats have argued to the contrary when they've gone to court to enforce their subpoenas.
Douglas Letter, general counsel to the House of Representatives, argued there was clear precedent supporting the role of the courts in stepping in to resolve fights between the other two
branches. He argued the Constitution did contemplate one branch suing another when it made clear that the executive branch couldn't sue Congress over legislative decision-making.
Wow they actually came out and said it: judicial oversight is unconstitutional.
This asshole is essentially saying that the judicial branch of government should have no power over the executive.
The framers of the Constitution "would have been horrified by that prospect," Burnham said,
since it would put the courts above Congress and the executive branch.
Fuck off. That's how the system of checks and balances works. The courts have the power to make judgements and interpretations of laws over Congress and the executive branch, and Congress and the executive branch, collectively, pass laws and instate judges and supreme court justices, and can impeach a judge if they have enough of a majority. This person wants to remove the Judicial branch's check over the executive branch completely, leading to an even greater imbalance of power than we already have. He can fuck off with that.
I love when these people start screaming about the constitution to justify their horrid actions when it's obvious they haven't read a word in constitution.
They know what they are saying, they are just buying time.
If the framers didn't want Congress to hold the president in check why is Congress allowed to overrule executive vetos
ya it should be noted that the constitution only establishes a singular supreme court, with only a singular chief justice, everything else was created by congress. It'd be perfectly constitutional to shrink the entire justice system down to one chief justice if congress and the president wanted to, not that it'd be a good idea.
Yes, we're very much aware that the Republicans want to bring our country back to the 18th century, thank you very much. That's been the agenda of the Federalist Society from the get-go - of which all five conservative justices on the Supreme Court are members.
not really my point, the executive is arguing congress hasn't the authority to do something, and that the court can't rule because it doesn't say they have that power explicitly in the constitution but the whole of the 3rd article of the constitution is very slim, there's only a mention of a chief justice in the 2nd article, a supreme court, congress's courts, and a vague idea of what sorts of disputes the courts can rule on
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
