“No court of the United States may use appropriated funds to enforce a contempt citation for failure to comply with an injunction or temporary restraining order if no security was given when the injunction or order was issued”.
Now that sounds a bit like gobbledygook, and in a very real sense, it is. But what it really means is this: no federal court in the USA may enforce a contempt action, and that’s because they would need to use federal funds to do that, and they’re being denied the right to use funds for that purpose.
No, that’s not right. The court should ask the people asking for the injunction for an amount to cover damages that might be caused by the injunction if it then turns out – after the full hearing – that the injunction will be lifted.
It’s nothing, at all, to do with the use of Federal funds. It’s whether the applicant for the injunction has to have skin in the game or not.
Murphy and his fellow travellers love the idea of using the courts frivolously – that cunt Maugham is a great example of this, though he does it with donated cash from gullible cretins – so it’s nice to see the Septics making it a bit less frivolous.
Did Murphy cut up rough when the courts refused to hear election fraud cases on the basis that the complainants lacked standing – being mere citizens, voters and taxpayers?
This is hilarious:
So, what is there to say in conclusion?
You can forget everything that was said in Magna Carta in the USA; that’s history; that’s gone, and so has the Constitution.
So have all the protections that you ever thought you had in that country.
So has habeas corpus.
So in fact, has every right that everybody had because you now will have a supreme monarch, able to do whatever he wishes.
Good luck with that, I say.
It’s your job to work out how to live under fascism now, but no one has ever succeeded with that, and nor will you.
And so this is the most intensely dangerous situation, and it’s going to end in tears.
Vote Fascist for a glorious third decade of TOTAL pants-shitting.
I used to have fun pointing out to Americans that their President is an elected monarch and that the Constitution gives him more tyrannical powers than George II had. Ooh, they used to bridle.
Now it’s slowly dawning on them that I was right. Mind you, rabbiting on about democracy completely misses the point: the Constitution describes a federal Republic, not a democracy.
And banging on about fascism is just pathetic dishonesty. Twats!
@dearieme
That wasn’t the way the Founders had in mind when they created the Constitution. Congress was to be the preeminent power in the US. It was supposed to control both the laws and the money. The Senate was supposed to represent the States, but that was knackered by the 17th Amendment, turning control over to the Parties. The House gave up control of the purse, mainly on electoral cowardice.
The AI bots seem to be talking to each other now. Can we somehow corrall them into their own echo chamber and watch them explode?
MG,
I can’t remember which one one of the Cato institute constitutional scholars reckons that Congress has the power to tell the President to sit on a beach and read a book and they’ll call him when they need him.
Murphy’s obsession with fascism everywhere is getting rather full-on McCarthyite.
What a jerk
“I used to have fun pointing out to Americans that their President is an elected monarch and that the Constitution gives him more tyrannical powers than George II had. Ooh, they used to bridle.”
You may be interested in (or amused by) the Federalist Papers No. 69, which goes into exactly that question!
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493456
“I can’t remember which one one of the Cato institute constitutional scholars reckons that Congress has the power to tell the President to sit on a beach and read a book and they’ll call him when they need him.”
I think they usually call that “shutting down the government” when they have one of their periodic fights about passing the next gargantuan spending bill. Congress has the power of the purse. If they don’t provide any money, the executive can’t spend any.
Back on the original topic, I found Federalist Papers No. 78 goes into the question of judicial review and whether the courts can identify laws as unconstitutional.
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-71-80#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493470
The President is Commander-in-Chief of both the Army and the Navy. By contrast George III was in charge of the navy – the Royal Navy – but parliament controlled the Army – the British Army.
See: more checks and balances here than there. The monarchical aspect of the Presidency was of the pre-George III era i.e. a bit outdated even when it was introduced.
And it was in the time of George III that parliament rationalised its control of the money by having George hand the Crown Estate to parliament in return for receiving the Civil List to defray the costs of his public duties.
I can’t for the life of me see why Americans dislike such obvious points being made except that they can’t bear being teased about such things, to which they rarely seem to have devoted any thought.
I mean that modern Americans haven’t thought such things through – the “Founding Fathers” were a different kettle of fish. Some able chaps there.
@dearieme
Agreed.
dearieme: a fine post!
I think they usually call that “shutting down the government” when they have one of their periodic fights about passing the next gargantuan spending bill. Congress has the power of the purse. If they don’t provide any money, the executive can’t spend any.
Nope. They believe that the Feds shouldn’t be doing 90% of what they do and it should be handed back to the states if it needs to be done.
“Nope. They believe that the Feds shouldn’t be doing 90% of what they do and it should be handed back to the states if it needs to be done.”
What do you mean “Nope”? I was answering the question of whether “Congress has the power to tell the President to sit on a beach and read a book and they’ll call him when they need him”. They do. It’s what they do every time they shut down the government.
Congress has the power to shut down the government, or 90% of it if you like, but they don’t have the political or personal motivation to do so. They use public spending to buy more votes, and to fund their campaigns from lobbyists. Congress, as a rule, has been very happy to expand government. But it’s not a matter of constitutional controversy that they have the power to do otherwise.
dearieme:
The President was in charge of the Navy because the Navy didn’t exist at the time. There was a debate over whether to actually have a Navy; the alternative would have been to issue letters of marque and reprisal and have a purely private-sector one.
This plan didn’t survive the Royal Navy impressing Americans and the Barbary pirates kidnapping and enslaving them though.
He was in charge of the Army, again because there wasn’t supposed to be a permanent Army. Circumstances changed there as well.
Comments are closed.