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

Well if Congress threatens them with removal and they pull Judicial Review again, then what?

It would fall to the executive to enforce it one way or the other.

Jefferson didn't when that happened last time.

 

You mean if they try to use "judicial review" to stop impeachment?

I'm pretty sure the officers in the government are going to follow Congress, not the Supreme Court, in that case. Congress could always create a separate Supreme Court. Then it might basically be a very short bloodless civil war, until the judges got arrested.

Of course it's not entirely theoretically impossible the reverse could happen, and then there might be a coup. I would call it a coup if Congress were dissolved, but not if the Supreme Court were.

 

Yes.

What if they say they don't recognize that congress has the power to vote them out of office without a high crime or misdemeanor which their voting would not qualify for?

They would simply say to congress that you don't have the power to do that.

 

Then it's the same thing as saying you're going to defy the law to follow the Constitution. That usually doesn't work out too well.

Anyway, the Constitution doesn't give the Supreme Court any explicit power for "judicial review" (there's just a vague statement that it is the ultimate Appellate court, meaning it can eventually decide to set people free).

 

Well great debating this topic with you but I do have to run for the evening.

Hopefully we can catch it up some other time.

I'd love to pick your brain.

You seem very knowledgeable.

Have a great night!

 

Legal power and actual power are not the same thing. On a very theoretical framework level, the Constitution is supposedly the ultimate legal authority in the government, but in more practical reality it is Congress.

It's the same with a judge. You might not have done anything to break the law but if a judge says you're going to jail then that's what's going to happen. Same thing with a police officer arresting someone.

 

Each branch has checks, and balances.
That being said, I think allot of people tend to gravitate towards the judicial branch.

 

Provided that the three branches of our government stay in their lanes, my view is that the judicial branch (Supreme court) would possess the most clout
since they are given the final say about most disagreements between the other branches of our government.

 

Yes, of course. Not that "coomplete"

 

The legislative cannot replace judges. They can change the number of judges we have, and can remove judges with a very long complex tedious process of impeachment, but they do not appoint new judges. The Supreme Court can wipe out six months of legislative law writing before lunch on any given day, and congress can do nothing about it.

 

Federal courts can change or rewrite laws without any hindrance or without support of neither the legislative nor the executive branch. Or without support from State governors, legislatures, judges, or referendums, for that matter.

 

Excellent point. The framers would be astounded with the power currently wielded by the Supreme Court. The early leaders let Marshall get away with it because Jefferson was pleased the Marshall ruled in his favor -- a bad and improper ruling, BTW.

 

Another excellent point. Although judges can only be removed for bad behavior, which dies not include bad decisions.

 

Excuse another little correction. The Constitution is explicitly clear: The president is commander in chief of all the armed forces and is the sole chief executive in the government.

 

I dislike getting too deep here, but what the hey. At the foundation of every civil society is a general but strong belief in virtue and doing what is deemed right.. When the Court accepts the president's suit, they are completely ignoring the law they are to uphold. When they then side with the president they pour salt on the open wounds of virtue.. So the Congress goes to impeach every Justice. Will the Speaker of the House send the Capitol police across the street to drag the justices out of their chambers? Will they put them in irons even though impeachment is not a criminal proceeding? Will they then wait for the president to appoint replacement justices, or will they just go ahead and appoint the justices themselves? On and on ad infinitum.

This scenario describes a total breakdown of out constitutional republic and, most importantly, a total collapse of virtue. We are beyond any rational discussion. We are done. There is nothing but lawless chaos and anarchy.

And probably no PF.

 

But I believe that's more of an intended role than a specific Constitutional power granted to the president. A lot of these concepts in the Constitution are rather vague and it's up to Congress to pass laws putting those concepts into practice. I don't believe it explicitly says he is the "sole" chief executive.

 

Congress could raise a new force to do the job, in the old days they might have employed a state militia.

That's discussing legal means. In the event of an attempted coup, Congress might not have much direct power.

If they give official orders even after they are no longer legal officers, then it could be a crime. Even representing yourself as an officer when you are not could be a crime. A lawyer could find endless legal excuses to have them arrested.

You are assuming the Supreme Court is a third equal branch of the government, which it is not.

The Court is there at the behest of Congress (and the President) to enforce its will, and theoretically to uphold the law and the Constitution.

If Congress is like the police chief, the court would be compared to the officers out on the street.

The court only has real power if Congress (and the President, because of his veto) are not acting in unison.

 

Per Article II: "Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;" That's pretty clear.

 

I still think the Constitution leaves room open for Congress to bypass the President, if they really wanted to. Then again, if they had the votes to do that and override his veto they could also remove him from office (theoretically), so it's sort of the same thing either way, a moot point.

 

The three branches of government are pretty well balanced.
May God give us gridlock today, gridlock tomorrow, gridlock forever. Amen.

 

Of course it is.

So who do you expect to execute the order? The House Sergeant at Arms?

Law enforcement agents? What else would they be under?

No. The only state personnel he has constitutional authority over, and only in exigent circumstances, is state militia members.

They can say anything they want. What are they gonna do when federal agents come to evict them from their offices?

The way you frame this is misleading, as strictly speaking, the Constitution, being merely a document, is not itself a source of any authority, but a codification of authority from the People as represented by a supermajority of states. So what you're really saying is that in practical terms, the tail (Congress) wags the dog (the People).

Not according to the Constitution, they aren't.

Not really.

If it does so unconstitutionally, Why would Congress need to do anything about it?

Not under the Constitution, they can't.

Actually I'm under the impression Jefferson didn't much give a damn about the holding, as had it not gone his way he'd have just ignored it. OTOH, he was still railing against some of the dicta years afterword.

How so, precisely?

 

The two other branches of our government will yield to the findings of the Supreme Court in real life, the Constitution notwithstanding.

 

Because...?

 

RodB said: ↑
Federal courts can change or rewrite laws

I did not say they write and rewrite laws constitutionally, because they don't. They write and rewrite laws unconstitutionally, and that sticks because there is nothing to check such judicial actions.

Rewrite is usually used metaphorically but in one notable example it was literal -- when Roberts literally rewrote the PPACA from the bench.

 

No, it sticks because the Executive branch fails to exercise the easiest check there is, which is to tell the Judiciary to go take a flying puck at a rolling donut.

You neglected to answer the question about Marbury, BTW.