Pelosi claims Congress is a 'superior branch' of government, as clash with White House intensifies

And I am sure you were saying the same thing when Obama wasn't getting everything he wanted when Republicans held the house and senate right? You weren't calling them "obstructionists"? I do agree that legislative is "higher" on the scale cause its harder to get 400+ people to agree than to have one over ruling branch. That's why we are a constitutional republic.

 

I never argued that Congress did not have the Constitutional power to thwart Obama.

 

Congress doesn't 'veto'. Congress can override vetoes with a 3/4ths supermajority and I believe the last time was I think it happened with the Iranian bill, I'm not sure. If not that, definitely later. Congress doesn't act as an organization and thus its override power is almost obsolete in this political age.

 

Congress, not the House. Without the Senate, the House can't do ****. Why do you think I'm more intrigued by the Senate? I want to protect the presidency from future attacks. I can only do that as a Senator.

 

I never said Congress can veto. Read more carefully.

 

Well it is true in a way. I don't buy into the "three branches of government" view.

The two branches of government are the House of Representatives and the Senate. The President constitutes a third branch only in so far as his veto powers (and a few other specific special constitutional powers).


(That's different from the typical three branches view that sees Congress, the Executive, and the Judicial as three equal branches)

 

I don't want you as a Senator if you don't understand that that Congress is made up of BOTH the House and Senate. And the Senate's job is not to protect the President from the law.

 

If that's the reasoning you want to use, the the Judicial is the superior branch. They can override any law made by Congress or EO from the executive.

 

Theoretically, at least, they are under the power of Congress. The Senate can remove them from office if they don't like what they're doing.

In other words, the Supreme Court is basically just a body of convenience that Congress has delegated out its power to.
Theoretically (at least under the Constitution) supreme power belongs to Congress.
(Not to say that the court does not have a huge amount of practical influence)

 

Not really, because Congress has the power to re-write laws and to introduce Constitutional Amendments that would force the Supreme Court to revise their decision. Sort term power - the supreme Court. Long term - Congress. Congress could also vote to reduce the number of Justices to just one ... or raise it to 20 to change the balance of power. Congress also has the power to impeach any Supreme Court Justice.

 

Civics fail.

The branches are co-equal with checks and balances against each other.
The Judiciary has the last word.
The Presidency has the veto and foreign policy, and exists in the hands of one person rather than several or many making it simpler to exercise.
Congress is broken in twain: One side with the power of the purse the other with appointment powers. Both having a piece of impeachment.
Only together can they act, only together can they remove someone from office.
Only as a supermajority in both houses can they override a veto.
etc.

 

That depends on how you want to perceive the branches.

What you're talking about is just a conception your kind made up.


The "three branches of government" is just as much of a myth as "the separation between church and state". Got to wonder who's teaching that.

 

Yes, you did fail.

 

Congress can only propose amendments to the states. The states can also completely bypass Congress if they so choose.

And we have lawyers and judges making law all the time in court. Havent you ever heard the term "legislating from the bench"?

 

Congress can only remove SCOTUS justices for cause, not just because they dont like them.

 

Dems don’t believe in the co-equal branches of govt the way our constitution dictates. They believe wherever they have power, they are superior....it’s a fundamental belief in absolute power, it’s why lettist societies always end up like Venezuela

 

The reality is they could remove the justices for any cause, if they could raise the necessary majorities.

(You might point out to provisions in the Constitution, but remember many of those provisions are vague and practically unenforceable)

 

Technically, yes. As long as you have the votes I'm congress you can remove any sitting president or federal judge for no reason.

 

Technically is how the government runs, unfortunately.

You can't legislate the government into proper behavior by writing things into the Constitution.
(Although at least the Constitution tries)

 

I'm pretty sure she said Congress. Are you saying the Senate is not part of Congress?

Not that I agree with her. Both Congress and the WH are acting like little children.

 

Really. I don't recall the Founders and Framers saying they wanted any of the three branches of government to be superior to the others. Is there some statement in the Constitution or the Federalist Papers that I missed?

And they gave the majority of foreign policy powers along with the executive powers to the President and the judicial powers to the courts, not Congress.

And the president can defy the will of Congress in many ways.

You and Pelosi are entitled to your opinion but the Founders and the facts don't support either one of you.

 

So a politician has a superiority complex. Big news!

 

Kinda like how Trump think he can get everything done on his own.

 

They never said they wanted them to be "equal" either.

 

They gave all the law making power to the legislature. That’s what legislatures do. But they can make all the laws they want, if there is no president enforcing them they are meaningless. Our founders created co-equal branches. None was more superior. The left wants to fundamentally change what our founders did though,