News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Sort of. The Founders gave specific powers to the President, and specific other powers to Congress and the Courts. They envisioned that ambitious people would aim to keep their powers, and not give them up willingly.
The wide-ranging powers of the Presidency are meant to be held in check by the other branches. The Founders did not anticipate a Congress and Supreme Court that would let the President break laws with impunity, just because that President aimed to hurt people they all hated
That's such a load of bullshit. Your Founders barely bothered to outline what the Supreme Court is and what it can do. It was in 1789 that Congress actually determined the details of that and most of the powers of the Supreme Court were determined during John Marshall's tenure as Chief Justice.
This is also doubly funny because it has happened before when President Andrew Jackson refused to respect the Supreme Court Decision in Worcester v. Georgia and the Supreme Court did nothing because the State of Georgia and the President aimed to hurt people they all hated (Native Americans) and it eventually led to the Trail of Tears.
I swear Americans don't know their own history.
Actually, this illustrates my point entirely. Article III (which describes the Judiciary) explicitly defines a single Supreme Court but leaves the structure of the rest of the Judiciary to the Congress. So this interplay between Congress and the Court is exactly what they were looking for. The Courts have wide latitude to judge cases, but it has to be within the structure that Congress creates.
They didn't get into specifics, on purpose, because they felt that in a well-functioning government, ambitious people would keep each other in check.
Because the SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism for what you described. Even just for Worcester v. Georgia, what is the USMS supposed to do against the state of Georgia without support from the Executive? Jackson literally wrote in 1832: "the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." Jackson did eventually threaten enforcement as part of what became known as the nullification crisis.
But either way, Worcester v. Georgia wasn't directly about the 1830 Indian Removal Act or 1835's Treaty of New Echota; it was about the freeing of Worcester etc., which did eventually go through. The Treaty of New Echota should've been illegal on the basis of *Georgia v. Worcester", but again, the SCOTUS doesn't just go around enforcing cases it didn't rule on unless it gets back to their court to rule on that separate case; that's the Executive's job.
"The Supreme Court did nothing because they hate Indian Americans" is such unfounded bullshit that you just made up because it sounded right. You can correctly argue all you want that this shows separation of powers is just an illusion because one single person has to agree to enforce laws and can only be removed (theoretically) with a supermajority of Congress if they fail to do so.