So, Just What Are the Checks and Limits on Presidential Power?

[0ddl0t]

Here is the relevant text from the Constitution:



Since the word used is "Persons", everyone present, not just citizens, is to be counted, including immigrants, legal and otherwise.

Yup, and the 14th amended the text to: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."


California is the big winner - it has 6 extra seats in the house due to its high immigrant population. Florida, New York, and Texas each gain an extra seat, while Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin all lose a seat.

https://www.fairus.org/issue/societa...deral-programs

[Bart Carter]

Yup, and the 14th amended the text to: "Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed."


California is the big winner - it has 6 extra seats in the house due to its high immigrant population. Florida, New York, and Texas each gain an extra seat, while Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Wisconsin all lose a seat.

https://www.fairus.org/issue/societa...deral-programs

So obviously, we need a presidential executive order to count illegal aliens as Indians not taxed. There, problem solved.

[jrm]

So obviously, we need a presidential executive order to count illegal aliens as Indians not taxed. There, problem solved.

Yep just make them a sovereign nation within our borders and bam problem solved.

[littlejerry]

I think the language free persons is rather interesting.

As a felon in prison, or on parole, you can't vote.

Would you consider someone here illegally, quite literally on the run from the law, a free person?

[CWM11B]

Free person at the time of the writing meant non slave. I do not see a modern analogue

[0ddl0t]

The 14th amendment removed the "free person" requirement anyway.


Back to governing by executive order. I thought Obama was bad and I hoped the Democrats would be scared of Trump enough to try and curtail this means of presidential legislation. Unfortunately, Harris and Warren both seem eager to *expand* the use of executive orders if they're elected...

[Borderland]

The 14th amendment removed the "free person" requirement anyway.


Back to governing by executive order. I thought Obama was bad and I hoped the Democrats would be scared of Trump enough to try and curtail this means of presidential legislation. Unfortunately, Harris and Warren both seem eager to *expand* the use of executive orders if they're elected...

I'm not sure it matters who the president is. They will try to do what they want until someone sues them and the SC steps in. I think Obama lost more SC decisions (55% lost) than any president in modern history. That didn't stop him from trying. Trump may best his record if he continues losing however.

[HCM]

It won't be so harmless when we get another AWB by executive order from this president or the next one.

People will say 'what's the big deal, I don't think we need semi-auto rifles anyway'

A president could easily try the SC with that using a public safety justification, and bingo, the SC agrees with him.

That's what's going on right now.

No, it’s not. If executive orders were the magic wand you describe you think Obama would not have banned assault weapons ?

You sound like an AstroTurf fundraiser for Wayne LaPierre.

Jesus Christ people did no one in this thread except TC in VA take basic Civics ?

[HCM]

Let me start off by saying that I have no issue with the question of citizenship being raised on a U.S. census. I think it is reasonable for the government to know who resides within its borders.

That said, if the president can thumb his nose at Congress and the Supreme Court, then what measures remain to check his or her authority from those of a monarch? Seizure of his person and arrest? Impeachment? Something more severe?

Or will he simply override any such actions with an executive order?

Where is the line drawn and how will it be enforced?

I voted for the current occupant of the oval office because I feared that the alternative was less acceptable at the time.

There is no way in good conscience that I can vote for that individual going forward despite the fact that there is nobody in the opposition, nor its platform that I favor. However, it's well beyond the 2A and the RKBA at this juncture. The choice must be greater than simply "either / or".

I have a terrible feeling in the pit of my stomach about the future of our country and democracy.

I'm interested in your thoughts...

My thought is I’m sorry your thread about checks and balances which is clearly needed, became a shit show census question thread.

The courts and the power of the purse are significant checks on executive power. Congress’ power of the purse doesn’t end once money is authorized. Budget /appropriations are “laws” and taxpayer funds must be used for the purposes for which Congress appropriated them. Mis appropriating funds is illegal to include civil and criminal penalties. Cute tricks like Trumps attempt to re-purpose DOD funds to build a border wall are unlikely to make it out of the courts.

As for the well, but what if, nonsense beyond that, either we have the rule of law or we don’t. The final check on that is the individuals in the system. There is a reason everyone in all three branches of government take oaths to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. While we like to imagine “domestic enemies” as extremists opposite our own leanings (ANTIFA / NEO NAZI - take your pick), a domestic enemy could very well be someone inside any of the three branches of government who puts their desired end result over our constitutional principals.

The census question has bigger implications in the context of attempts to establish one party rule and should have its own thread.

[blues]

H, I've been sitting back and just monitoring the sorts of responses being offered in the thread and I appreciate all points of view which are offered in good faith.

The point of the thread isn't so much an exploration of classic textbook civics, but more a desire to look behind the curtain where end runs take place.

We all know that certain activities follow the law or the spirit of the law, and that others are clearly attempts to circumvent the law or spirit of the law.

For example, when my investigation during the Bush 41 administration led to uncovering the CIA's role in willfully supporting narco-trafficking into the U.S. (as well as abroad) in furtherance of extralegal agendas...as well as matters involving Caribbean dictatorships which once uncovered were quickly covered up and ignored without justification. It is not credible that this activity went unknown at the very highest levels of the executive branch. (The funny thing is that I received an award and commendation signed by then President Bush as well as an OLEO award during the course of the case, and I always had a soft spot for Bush 41.)

The point being that what concerns me is not when the machinery of government works properly as designed, (as illustrated in textbooks)...but when it is circumvented, perverted, adulterated or willfully ignored.

I wish I had a more positive view of things from my vantage point. I'd prefer to be wrong.