The Constitution is not a grant of power for a king.

berg80

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2017
21,159
17,721
2,320
The Constitution is not a grant of power for a king.

It is, instead, a grant of authority from the sovereign people to establish a republican form of government — a representative democracy of limited and enumerated powers. And the republican character of American constitutional government is expressed in the way it divides the executive, legislative and judicial powers among separate institutions.

“In the establishment of a free government,” a 19th-century Supreme Court justice, Joseph Story, observes in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” this division “has by many been deemed a maxim of vital importance, that these powers should for ever be kept separate and distinct.” When those powers are mixed in a single individual, “such a form of government is denominated a despotism, as the whole sovereignty of the state is vested in him.”

It is not, as Story continues, that the “departments of government” should have “no common link of connection or dependence, the one upon the other, in the slightest degree.” Rather, it is that “the whole power of one of these departments should not be exercised by the same hands, which possess the whole power of either of the other departments; and that such exercise of the whole would subvert the principles of a free constitution.”

In our system, the executive branch cannot exercise the full power of the legislature. It cannot act as a monarch would. The sovereign people did not imbue their power into a leviathan. The upshot of this is that any interpretation of the Constitution that grants the president monarchical power is wrong. The structure of the Constitution precludes a royal prerogative and the ethos of American democracy forbids it. Otherwise, the revolution was for nothing.

Opinion | Trump Tries on His Crown

Bravo.

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law. An act that will undoubtedly come back to haunt the country. Forever tarnishing the legacy of an already tarnished Roberts court.
 
1732306944511.png


~S~
 
The Constitution is not a grant of power for a king.

It is, instead, a grant of authority from the sovereign people to establish a republican form of government — a representative democracy of limited and enumerated powers. And the republican character of American constitutional government is expressed in the way it divides the executive, legislative and judicial powers among separate institutions.

“In the establishment of a free government,” a 19th-century Supreme Court justice, Joseph Story, observes in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” this division “has by many been deemed a maxim of vital importance, that these powers should for ever be kept separate and distinct.” When those powers are mixed in a single individual, “such a form of government is denominated a despotism, as the whole sovereignty of the state is vested in him.”

It is not, as Story continues, that the “departments of government” should have “no common link of connection or dependence, the one upon the other, in the slightest degree.” Rather, it is that “the whole power of one of these departments should not be exercised by the same hands, which possess the whole power of either of the other departments; and that such exercise of the whole would subvert the principles of a free constitution.”

In our system, the executive branch cannot exercise the full power of the legislature. It cannot act as a monarch would. The sovereign people did not imbue their power into a leviathan. The upshot of this is that any interpretation of the Constitution that grants the president monarchical power is wrong. The structure of the Constitution precludes a royal prerogative and the ethos of American democracy forbids it. Otherwise, the revolution was for nothing.

Opinion | Trump Tries on His Crown

Bravo.

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law. An act that will undoubtedly come back to haunt the country. Forever tarnishing the legacy of an already tarnished Roberts court.

What a waste of font.

"OMG Trump is going to govern in a way I don't like, so he must be trying to be a monarch"
 
The Constitution is not a grant of power for a king.

It is, instead, a grant of authority from the sovereign people to establish a republican form of government — a representative democracy of limited and enumerated powers. And the republican character of American constitutional government is expressed in the way it divides the executive, legislative and judicial powers among separate institutions.

“In the establishment of a free government,” a 19th-century Supreme Court justice, Joseph Story, observes in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” this division “has by many been deemed a maxim of vital importance, that these powers should for ever be kept separate and distinct.” When those powers are mixed in a single individual, “such a form of government is denominated a despotism, as the whole sovereignty of the state is vested in him.”

It is not, as Story continues, that the “departments of government” should have “no common link of connection or dependence, the one upon the other, in the slightest degree.” Rather, it is that “the whole power of one of these departments should not be exercised by the same hands, which possess the whole power of either of the other departments; and that such exercise of the whole would subvert the principles of a free constitution.”

In our system, the executive branch cannot exercise the full power of the legislature. It cannot act as a monarch would. The sovereign people did not imbue their power into a leviathan. The upshot of this is that any interpretation of the Constitution that grants the president monarchical power is wrong. The structure of the Constitution precludes a royal prerogative and the ethos of American democracy forbids it. Otherwise, the revolution was for nothing.

Opinion | Trump Tries on His Crown

Bravo.

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law. An act that will undoubtedly come back to haunt the country. Forever tarnishing the legacy of an already tarnished Roberts court.

We're in the second American revolution, and you're a loyalist to the crown.
 
The Constitution is not a grant of power for a king.

It is, instead, a grant of authority from the sovereign people to establish a republican form of government — a representative democracy of limited and enumerated powers. And the republican character of American constitutional government is expressed in the way it divides the executive, legislative and judicial powers among separate institutions.

“In the establishment of a free government,” a 19th-century Supreme Court justice, Joseph Story, observes in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” this division “has by many been deemed a maxim of vital importance, that these powers should for ever be kept separate and distinct.” When those powers are mixed in a single individual, “such a form of government is denominated a despotism, as the whole sovereignty of the state is vested in him.”

It is not, as Story continues, that the “departments of government” should have “no common link of connection or dependence, the one upon the other, in the slightest degree.” Rather, it is that “the whole power of one of these departments should not be exercised by the same hands, which possess the whole power of either of the other departments; and that such exercise of the whole would subvert the principles of a free constitution.”

In our system, the executive branch cannot exercise the full power of the legislature. It cannot act as a monarch would. The sovereign people did not imbue their power into a leviathan. The upshot of this is that any interpretation of the Constitution that grants the president monarchical power is wrong. The structure of the Constitution precludes a royal prerogative and the ethos of American democracy forbids it. Otherwise, the revolution was for nothing.

Opinion | Trump Tries on His Crown

Bravo.

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law. An act that will undoubtedly come back to haunt the country. Forever tarnishing the legacy of an already tarnished Roberts court.
How many laws and court orders has Biden ignored and is still ignoring?... how many times has he tried to get Trump with lawfare and a weaponized DOJ?...
its dems that think they are kings pal...
 
The Constitution is not a grant of power for a king.

It is, instead, a grant of authority from the sovereign people to establish a republican form of government — a representative democracy of limited and enumerated powers. And the republican character of American constitutional government is expressed in the way it divides the executive, legislative and judicial powers among separate institutions.

“In the establishment of a free government,” a 19th-century Supreme Court justice, Joseph Story, observes in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” this division “has by many been deemed a maxim of vital importance, that these powers should for ever be kept separate and distinct.” When those powers are mixed in a single individual, “such a form of government is denominated a despotism, as the whole sovereignty of the state is vested in him.”

It is not, as Story continues, that the “departments of government” should have “no common link of connection or dependence, the one upon the other, in the slightest degree.” Rather, it is that “the whole power of one of these departments should not be exercised by the same hands, which possess the whole power of either of the other departments; and that such exercise of the whole would subvert the principles of a free constitution.”

In our system, the executive branch cannot exercise the full power of the legislature. It cannot act as a monarch would. The sovereign people did not imbue their power into a leviathan. The upshot of this is that any interpretation of the Constitution that grants the president monarchical power is wrong. The structure of the Constitution precludes a royal prerogative and the ethos of American democracy forbids it. Otherwise, the revolution was for nothing.

Opinion | Trump Tries on His Crown

Bravo.

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law. An act that will undoubtedly come back to haunt the country. Forever tarnishing the legacy of an already tarnished Roberts court.
You need to pace yourself bergy. You are going to burn out before Trump even takes office. :cool:
 
Bizarro werld.

Link for anyone that wants to read this dreck.
1732309202488.png


In the eyes of the NYT, when an establishment president is in power, it's fine to do whatever.

". . In our system, the executive branch cannot exercise the full power of the legislature. It cannot act as a monarch would. The sovereign people did not imbue their power into a leviathan. . . "

. . . and yet, they had no problem with the current administration being free to create a crisis w/o the approval of congress. They even impeded the impeachment attempts of DHS secretary Mayorkas, for his willful dereliction of duty.

5pig2e.jpg



OTH? When the will of the voters is revealed in elections, the motivations of the guy they elected is "monarchical?" :rolleyes:
C'mon, give us all a break.

". . Last week, Donald Trump proposed for nomination — to key agencies, including the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Justice — a group of unqualified apparatchiks, sycophants and conspiracy theorists. . ."

(Wonderful! The NYT is just using fallacious ad hom arguments to justify this excuse for an editorial.)

". . To do this, Trump would invoke an unused power found in an obscure provision of Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, which states that the president may “on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper.”

1732307290770.png


"Article II, Section 3 both grants and constrains presidential power. This Section invests the President with the discretion to convene Congress on “extraordinary occasions,” a power that has been used to call the chambers to consider nominations, war, and emergency legislation. It further grants the President the authority to adjourn Congress whenever the chambers cannot agree when to adjourn, a power that no President has ever exercised. "

The administration wants to appoint someone that will take care of, and ENFORCE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, for a "crisis," that even politicians on the left admit is occurring.

RINOs that represent multinationals and cartels, as well as DNC reps who want to shift the character of the nation for electoral purposes have telegraphed they intend to stymie the will of the voters.

iu


Why should a body that is NOT really representative of the people, get to decide how the administration, (who was elected to solve this intentionally created crises,) then get a say over who the administration picks?

7ls0dn.jpg
7ydk2o.jpg


91e37k.jpg


This is not up for debate, even the left admits there is a crisis.

SO? If the Senate will not cooperate with his desired appointment to enforce LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS THAT WERE PASSED BY CONGRESS?

I see no reason why he should not be able adjourn the congress in this time of crises, to make a recess appointment to address this crises that the previous DHS secretary came under impeachment hearings for causing.


Let us take this to the SCOTUS and see what they say about all this garbage.
 
Last edited:
Then every national emergency would technically be unconstitutional Berg.....~S~
You have such a way with words and logic.

You wrote the same thing I wrote in a long post, but did it in nine words.

:auiqs.jpg:
 

Forum List

Back
Top