• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With a friendly Supreme Court, Would Clinton Rule By Decree?

With a friendly Supreme Court, Would Clinton Rule By Decree?

  • Yes

    Votes: 6 28.6%

  • No

    Votes: 15 71.4%
  • Total voters
    21
  • Poll closed .
SDET

SDET

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
May 1, 2015
Messages
7,802
Reaction score
1,610
Location
Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
What if for example Clinton wanted to declare all illegal aliens as voting US citizens by decree and a compliant Supreme Court rubber stamped it?
 
SDET said:
What if for example Clinton wanted to declare all illegal aliens as voting US citizens by decree and a compliant Supreme Court rubber stamped it?
Click to expand...

The POTUS could never get away with ignoring the federal immigration law as written. ;)
 
SDET said:
What if for example Clinton wanted to declare all illegal aliens as voting US citizens by decree and a compliant Supreme Court rubber stamped it?
Click to expand...

She has to think about her reelection.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The POTUS could never get away with ignoring the federal immigration law as written. ;)
Click to expand...

With a friendly USSC that law is toast as is any other in the way of progress. :)
It's a brave new world! Let's grab it!
 
Both sides have given up on the legislative process and see the SCOTUS as a way to force their agenda.
 
joG said:
With a friendly USSC that law is toast as is any other in the way of progress. :)
It's a brave new world! Let's grab it!
Click to expand...

Long live the queen and her court! ;)
 
reinoe said:
A friendly SC could "interprete" laws as they see fit.
Click to expand...

So can the POTUS using (or not using) his/her DOJ. ;)

How a law is written makes little difference, it is how that law is (or is not) enforced that matters - see sanctuary cities and states with legal marijuana.
 
SDET said:
What if for example Clinton wanted to declare all illegal aliens as voting US citizens by decree and a compliant Supreme Court rubber stamped it?
Click to expand...

The president would be successfully impeached right after he decreed. The public would be in open rebellion. We may be sheep, but we're smart little ****ers when the rubber meets the road.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The POTUS could never get away with ignoring the federal immigration law as written. ;)
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. Obama has gotten away by ignoring our present immigration laws as written and has changed some of our immigration laws by EO and ignoring congress.
 
Perotista said:
I don't know about that. Obama has gotten away by ignoring our present immigration laws as written and has changed some of our immigration laws by EO and ignoring congress.
Click to expand...

My sarcasm was missed. Look for the ;) sarcasm clue.
 
Someone mentioned impeachment. That is the remedy for gross betrayals of the public trust like the one being discussed here, and it does not rely on the cooperation of the President who has been impeached and convicted. The moment that final vote is cast in the Senate, there is a new President, and the one convicted no longer has any authority.

I notice that people often seem to think the Supreme Court has much more power than it really does. There are several means available to the other two branches, particularly Congress, to bring the Court to heel. What is missing is the will to use them. Maybe it would help to talk more about those means, so that so many people did not feel quite so helpless in the face of outrageous Supreme Court decisions--Obergefell being a good example of one.
 
SDET said:
What if for example Clinton wanted to declare all illegal aliens as voting US citizens by decree and a compliant Supreme Court rubber stamped it?
Click to expand...

There's a 0% chance of that. Clinton knows she doesn't have the political capital to do that and I don't see even the most liberal members of the Court as willing to endorse something so blatant.
 
Perotista said:
I don't know about that. Obama has gotten away by ignoring our present immigration laws as written and has changed some of our immigration laws by EO and ignoring congress.
Click to expand...

And this is the fault of Congress, in my opinion. This EO power needs to be challenged and narrowly defined. It was begun to facilitate existing legislation. Presidents in recent history have used the power to bypass Congress and legislate directly.
 
SDET said:
What if for example Clinton wanted to declare all illegal aliens as voting US citizens by decree and a compliant Supreme Court rubber stamped it?
Click to expand...

As with Obama, if Mrs. Clinton thinks something is a good idea then it is a good idea.
 
She could only do so much.

But yes, this is how tri-equal government branches work: Each pulls & tugs a bit, until legislation and/or EOs pop out! :thumbs:
 
SDET said:
What if for example Clinton wanted to declare all illegal aliens as voting US citizens by decree and a compliant Supreme Court rubber stamped it?
Click to expand...

Clinton is not popular. Neither is Trump for that matter. No matter who wins the public will likely displeased with the next President from day one, as well they should be.

No one winning this coming Presidential election will have a mandate from the people. In fact neither candidate will win the election. It will be a matter of the other candidate being a bigger loser.
 
SDET said:
What if for example Clinton wanted to declare all illegal aliens as voting US citizens by decree and a compliant Supreme Court rubber stamped it?
Click to expand...
U.S. Presidents don't rule - they administer & execute. Monarchs & dictators rule.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
So can the POTUS using (or not using) his/her DOJ. ;)

How a law is written makes little difference, it is how that law is (or is not) enforced that matters - see sanctuary cities and states with legal marijuana.
Click to expand...
The federal government cannot compel states to co-operate. The federal government can withhold funding (which is what happened with raising drinking ages). The Feds threatened to withhold highway funding to states that didn't raise the drinking age to 18 (or maybe it was 21 I don't remember). Mothers Against Drunk Driving had enough social pull to pull it off. There is no such popular movement for enforcement of immigration laws, but with Trump at the helm he can probably do such a thing.
 
MaggieD said:
The president would be successfully impeached right after he decreed. The public would be in open rebellion. We may be sheep, but we're smart little ****ers when the rubber meets the road.
Click to expand...

Let's hope you're right, irrespective if Mussolini with a combover or Stalin in a skirt wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom