It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

POTUS vs SCOTUS

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
reply to post by Nucleardiver
 


Is the power of arrest not inherent with the Executive Branch? The Courts cannot arrest, the Congress cannot arrest. They can only issue warrants. They cannot arrest. They would send a federal marshall to make the arrest.

The police agencies in our country are all part of the Executive Branch. Sheriff's are enabled under the Executive Branch. Erik Holder is part of the Executive Branch. Holder can have people arrested. Obama is his boss. Can he direct a federal marshall to arrest a member of the Court?


edit on 4-4-2012 by Nite_wing because: (no reason given)


The power to arrest is inherent in the executive branch but the power to issue a warrant for an arrest is not. Again, if you went to law shcool you should have learned about procedural law. Law enforcement or the executive branch investigates and then the evidence must go either before a grand jury or a judge or magistrate to have the evidence heard to see if there is probable cause for an arrest. If PC is found then only a judge can sign off and issue a writ.

So in win English, no Obama does not have the judicial authority to order an arrest. If it were in fact a USSC justice that he wanted to have arrested then only congress can order the arrest after an impeachment investigation.




posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


No he does not have the authority to do that in anyway. The SCOTUS is a legitimate branch of government just like the legislative and executive branches of government. SCOTUS is in the judicial branch of government. Only in a oligarchy or dictatorship could he pull of such an act. Our nation is heading faster towards an oligarchy every day but we are not at that point yet. If he tries something like that he could be impeached.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Nite_wing
 


He cannot arrest them or do anything to them..

But he could add justices to the bench.

Or he could pull a Lincoln (everyones favorite tyrant) and simply tell the Supreme Court they are no longer needed. (When he suspended Habeas Corpus, the Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional, Lincoln then proceeded to explain to the Supreme Court he didn't really care what they thought)

I suppose the lesson Lincoln taught us was ... while he may not have the .. erm .. "authority" .. it all comes down to how far can you push before being pushed back? If no one stands up for the Justices, if no one condemneds the actions of the POTUS ... then he can do whatever he wants. Hence why Conservatives (those damned Constitutionalist) are so pissed off that the POTUS is threatening the SCOTUS. We don't need another Lincoln.



posted on Apr, 4 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803) is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide.

It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring it "unconstitutional".

The landmark decision helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the American form of government.

You would think that if Obama truly is a constitutional law scholar and a law professor as he claims that he would be aware of the Marbury v Madison ruling since it is the first in a long list of rulings that established presedent and case law to support judicial review on the constitutionality of laws. Hell, I'm no law professor however I did take 1 year of pre-law and Marbury v Madison was one of the first cases that we reviewed because it did set the precedent for judicial review which is in fact the most important job of the USSC.

The fact that Obama is trying to say that if the USSC finds the healthcare law unconstitutional that their actions will be "unprecedented" tells me that Obama is either an absolute idiot and fraud, or that he has absolutely zero respect for our system of government. I would venture to say that the latter is closer to the truth and that in fact he despises our system of government and is doing all he can to destroy it.

I would absolutely love to see the USSC strike down Obamacare and in doing so issue a Writ of Mandamus compelling Obama to refrain from any further attempts at passing any form of healthcare. The USSC has the judicial and constitutional authority to issue a Writ of Mandamus against any public government official including the POTUS when the writ is compelling that official to refrain from doing an act that violates statutory or administrative duty.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:51 AM
link   
I went to law school. A warrant is not always necessary to effect an arrest,



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:11 AM
link   
He might have the authority to decide whether or not federal agencies would seek the arrest of a Judge, but what crimes have been committed? As far as I know the Supreme Court's doing what it's supposed to do isn't unconstitutional, unless some party finally decides to bring up the fact that Judicial Review isn't really a power given to the Judiciary in the Constitution.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkinin
 


How about sedition by an act of speech that disagree's with the President's policies?
Generally an arrest for sedition would require a warrant but it is not stricly necessary.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
The next question could be:

Does the Court have authority to determine whether or not an
Executive Order is unconstitutional ?

Or even perhaps whether any decision by for example, the HHS involving their (the HHS)
interpretation and/or implementation of something within ObamaCare that is not specifically clear in the law itself ?



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 06:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
I went to law school. A warrant is not always necessary to effect an arrest,


I admit a warrant is not always needed for petty crimes and some higher crimes. However for ANY capital or federal crime a grand jury indictment is required.

Honestly If you went to law school I hope to god you work in insurance or real estate because if you are practicing criminal law I feel very bad for your clients. I took a year of pre law and one of the first things we studied in our introduction to law class was procedure and right to judicial review.

I am seriously starting to think that you are making a sad attempt at trolling considering the fact that you keep stating how you went to law school yet seem to have no clue.as to the most basic legal principles.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 08:02 PM
link   
It appears they told you in pre-law that if a person committed murder in in the street, that the police couldn't arrest them without a warrant. Very advanced pre-law school. Must have been the same school Eric Holder went to. You are just too advanced for me. Since you are now resorting to insults....

I will ask to Mod to please close this thread.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
It appears they told you in pre-law that if a person committed murder in in the street, that the police couldn't arrest them without a warrant. Very advanced pre-law school. Must have been the same school Eric Holder went to. You are just too advanced for me. Since you are now resorting to insults....

I will ask to Mod to please close this thread.


Yes please do as troll threads are almost as irritating as the trolls that start them.

Of course a murderer that committed the crime in front of police would be arrested, however formal charges would not be filed until the evidence was reviewed by either a grand jury or a judge. Don't try to insinuate that I'm stupid when it is you who supposedly went to law school yet started this thread asking legal questions.

That would be equivalent to me starting a thread asking what the decompression tables are for a 10' 15 minute dive in fresh water when I am a deepwater commercial diver trained by the Navy.

I hope you are full now because I will not be feeding the troll anymore.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
So in win English, no Obama does not have the judicial authority to order an arrest. If it were in fact a USSC justice that he wanted to have arrested then only congress can order the arrest after an impeachment investigation.


I'm not sure what you mean. Obama aside, a justice of the Supreme Court can be arrested and charged under the same standard as an ordinary citizen. So, hypothetically, if one of them was driving drunk one evening and pulled over, s/he could be arrested and sent to jail and later charged like any ordinary citizen.




edit on 5-4-2012 by IamCorrect because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nite_wing
reply to post by loam
 


I wasn't speaking of impeachment. I was speaking of charging a member of the Court with a crime or high misdemeanor and then arresting them setting the stage for impeachment.

Could they arrest a member of SCOTUS while they were in session from the first Monday in October through their entire session?


Members of Congress and the Supreme Court do not enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution while in office like the President does. They can be arrested and charged under the same standards as any other citizen, whether the arrest be made by the local police, FBI, etc.



posted on Apr, 5 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by IamCorrect

Originally posted by Nucleardiver
So in win English, no Obama does not have the judicial authority to order an arrest. If it were in fact a USSC justice that he wanted to have arrested then only congress can order the arrest after an impeachment investigation.


I'm not sure what you mean. Obama aside, a justice of the Supreme Court can be arrested and charged under the same standard as an ordinary citizen. So, hypothetically, if one of them was driving drunk one evening and pulled over, s/he could be arrested and sent to jail and later charged like any ordinary citizen.




edit on 5-4-2012 by IamCorrect because: (no reason given)


/sigh.........You obviously didn't take the time to read all the posts in this thread. Please go back and read the last post on page 1, I stated then that even though they enjoy sovereign immunity in the course of performing their duty on the bench they still must obey all laws just as any other citizen.

I can't post links from my phone but go to the Cornell Law legal reference site and research what sovereign immunity is. Maybe then you will understand it.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join