Out of the three branches of government who has the most power?

Most of this has never been tested so it's all theoretical at this point.

We have the Civil War to look at I guess but that's not relevant in all cases.

 

Only Chase was impeached and he was acquitted.

 

They could start ordering and threatening, but at that point it would basically be a legalized war between the courts and the executive branch, although someone would likely end up getting punished because this would not be seen as acceptable.

In practice (if not in law) the Executive and those high up in that department are given special legal immunities that ordinary people do not get.

I'm not sure what the specific laws are, but it would be decided by Congress, and I wouldn't be surprised if Congress had been very neglectful in writing the law and not made any exception for the Executive, such that the law technically gives the Judicial authority over the executive, even though in practice that is very doubtful.

 

I agree with that.

They do ultimately have the majority of power outside of commanding our fighting forces who I think would probably sit this out.

I would say it ultimately rests with the states but since they are represented in congress they would make their will known through that body.

 

The President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war, and Congress may override any such presidential veto.
Long title: Joint resolution concerning the war ...
Enacted by: the 93rd United States Congress
War Powers Resolution - Wikipedia

 

Sure they can, but they're all dead letters if the President refuses to enforce them - which, if they violate the Constitution, he is obligated to do per his oath of office.

 

Walter Nixon was convicted in the Senate and booted out.

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/minute/Senate_impeachment_trial_powers_upheld.htm

 

But what is the meaning of Declaration of War.

The Supreme Court has refused to address it.

Many people believe it has nothing to do with authorizing fighting units but to simply give new powers to congress that the do not have in peace time such as raising more money or dealing with other nations.

In fact, this was ripped off straight from England when it was added to the Constitution.

 

Not necessarily true. I could be wrong, but I believe the courts have the power to order arrests without the need for a prosecution.
(Not sure in the specific law though, if all the agents are under the Executive)

 

Good point.

 

Ahhh, when you said High Court I thought you meant the supreme court.

My mistake.

 

(quietly sneaking out of the topic.) I love you but did my best.

 

It's a vague meaning, in practice.

Congress is the one with ultimate authority to wage a war if they decide to.

 

That begins to get complicated though.

The president enforces our laws but does he control state police?

 

Great debate though, as always Robert.

Wishing you and your family the best as always!

 

Exactly!

In a complete Constitutional Crisis I'm sure State Legislatures could decide to start weighing in through their Representatives.

 

State agencies have to yield to the authority of federal agencies, but they might be allowed some leeway in specific situations if state officials believe certain federal officers can't be trusted. For a state to try to assert Constitutional issues defying the federal offices (overall), or especially Congress, would effectively be a rebellion.

 

They would have too I imagine.

If the three branches get in a pissing contest someone is going to have to put an end to it.

And I think that people have forgotten that it is the States who made the Constitution, nobody else.

They all sent their representatives there, and argued about it, and came up with something but nowadays it has taken on this thing that seems to be all of its own and it's really not.

 

I think Spooky is trying to discuss a Constitutional crisis that would not be resorting to physical conflict.

 

Which is why originally it was state legislatures who appointed the Senators in Congress.

 

Then we approach the tenth amendment and enumerated powers which ultimately will fall back on the judicial to decide.

For instance, they've already determined that the federal government cannot force them to mandate a speed limit or drinking age but they can withhold funding if the state doesn't comply.

 

Which we should return to.

 

If Congress does not put pressure on the judicial. But in a full out hypothetical battle of legal force, they might.

 

Agreed. I read at the time they passed the 17th Amendment there was very little public debate about that side of the issue, how changing that might affect the structure of government and the concept of federalism.

Probably most people at the time did not fully understand why that was the way it was in the Constitution's design. Which is why you should be very careful going about tinkering with the Constitution. Will likely have all sorts of unintended future consequences that will not be foreseen.

 

Love the thread!