| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 25 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 31:42:09 |
| Calls: | 492 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,078 |
| Messages: | 67,374 |
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional
power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional
power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional
power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so?
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold
the constitution?
Your pearl clutching is performative political theater designed not to enlighten but to inflame and obfuscate.
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional
power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify >unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so?
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you >square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold
the constitution?
Your pearl clutching is performative political theater designed not to >enlighten but to inflame and obfuscate.
On 7/4/2025 9:25 AM, Wilson wrote:
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:The president can't effectively run the country with every two-bit local >judge throwing up obstacles for every little thing.
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional
power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark.á Only some experts?á How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things.á We know already.á Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify
unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so? >>
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you
square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold
the constitution?
Your pearl clutching is performative political theater designed not to
enlighten but to inflame and obfuscate.
Apparently, the Supreme Court recently addressed judicial overreach, >specifically regarding the use of nationwide injunctions by lower--
courts. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court limited the ability of lower federal >courts to issue these injunctions, which block the enforcement of
government policies nationwide.
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:25:43 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional
power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify
unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so? >>
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you
square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold
the constitution?
The pres is not the one who has the power to determine that. It takes
a majority of sc judges to make the decision, not simply one person.
On 7/4/2025 2:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 12:25:43 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional
power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify
unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so? >>>
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you
square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold >>> the constitution?
The pres is not the one who has the power to determine that. It takes
a majority of sc judges to make the decision, not simply one person.
Any of the branches can determine a law is unconstitutional. The remedy
for such a determination varies depending on the branch.
Only the president and his executive branch has the power to enforce
laws. Non-enforcement is effectively nullification.
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional
power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so?
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold
the constitution?
Your pearl clutching is performative political theater designed not to enlighten but to inflame and obfuscate.
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:27:23 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 2:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
The pres is not the one who has the power to determine that. It takes
a majority of sc judges to make the decision, not simply one person.
Any of the branches can determine a law is unconstitutional. The remedy
for such a determination varies depending on the branch.
Only the president and his executive branch has the power to enforce
laws. Non-enforcement is effectively nullification.
He can appoint an attorney general. He cannot tell the AG how to
decide his cases or what to prosecute. We have been through that up
here. The AG got fired, and a new one appointed who did what the boss wanted. Still kind of slimy, but at least according to law and
dispersed powers. The prime minister did not attempt to interfere
with the prosecution in question.
Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote in news:d9c35643babdb050a50225ec2cc09f8ca1c294de@i2pn2.org:
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional
power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify
unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so? >>
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you
square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold
the constitution?
Your pearl clutching is performative political theater designed not to
enlighten but to inflame and obfuscate.
A minor point,
The judiciary branch generally considers issues that have been brought to its attention. The executive branch generally concerns itself with issues for which it was elected. The congressional branch does so too. We all recognize that individuals also have personal agendas.
On 7/4/2025 3:30 PM, David LaRue wrote:
Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:d9c35643babdb050a50225ec2cc09f8ca1c294de@i2pn2.org:
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional
power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify
unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so? >>>
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you
square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold >>> the constitution?
Your pearl clutching is performative political theater designed not to
enlighten but to inflame and obfuscate.
A minor point,
The judiciary branch generally considers issues that have been brought to its
attention. The executive branch generally concerns itself with issues for >> which it was elected. The congressional branch does so too. We all
recognize that individuals also have personal agendas.
Agreed, everyone has an agenda especially politicians.
On 7/4/2025 2:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:27:23 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 2:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
The pres is not the one who has the power to determine that. It takes >>>> a majority of sc judges to make the decision, not simply one person.
Any of the branches can determine a law is unconstitutional. The remedy
for such a determination varies depending on the branch.
Only the president and his executive branch has the power to enforce
laws. Non-enforcement is effectively nullification.
He can appoint an attorney general. He cannot tell the AG how to
decide his cases or what to prosecute. We have been through that up
here. The AG got fired, and a new one appointed who did what the boss
wanted. Still kind of slimy, but at least according to law and
dispersed powers. The prime minister did not attempt to interfere
with the prosecution in question.
That sounds like the Canadian AG was fired and replaced by a compliant >toady.
On Jul 5, 2025 at 11:22:02?AM EDT, "Wilson" <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 3:30 PM, David LaRue wrote:
Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:d9c35643babdb050a50225ec2cc09f8ca1c294de@i2pn2.org:
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional >>>>> power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify
unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so? >>>>
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you >>>> square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold >>>> the constitution?
Your pearl clutching is performative political theater designed not to >>>> enlighten but to inflame and obfuscate.
A minor point,
The judiciary branch generally considers issues that have been brought to its
attention. The executive branch generally concerns itself with issues for >>> which it was elected. The congressional branch does so too. We all
recognize that individuals also have personal agendas.
Agreed, everyone has an agenda especially politicians.
And we vote for the politician who has an agenda close to our own.
On Jul 5, 2025 at 11:22:02 AM EDT, "Wilson" <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 3:30 PM, David LaRue wrote:
Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:d9c35643babdb050a50225ec2cc09f8ca1c294de@i2pn2.org:
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional >>>>> power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify
unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so? >>>>
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you >>>> square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold >>>> the constitution?
Your pearl clutching is performative political theater designed not to >>>> enlighten but to inflame and obfuscate.
A minor point,
The judiciary branch generally considers issues that have been brought to its
attention. The executive branch generally concerns itself with issues for >>> which it was elected. The congressional branch does so too. We all
recognize that individuals also have personal agendas.
Agreed, everyone has an agenda especially politicians.
And we vote for the politician who has an agenda close to our own.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 11:19:06 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 2:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:27:23 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 2:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
The pres is not the one who has the power to determine that. It takes >>>>> a majority of sc judges to make the decision, not simply one person.
Any of the branches can determine a law is unconstitutional. The remedy >>>> for such a determination varies depending on the branch.
Only the president and his executive branch has the power to enforce
laws. Non-enforcement is effectively nullification.
He can appoint an attorney general. He cannot tell the AG how to
decide his cases or what to prosecute. We have been through that up
here. The AG got fired, and a new one appointed who did what the boss
wanted. Still kind of slimy, but at least according to law and
dispersed powers. The prime minister did not attempt to interfere
with the prosecution in question.
That sounds like the Canadian AG was fired and replaced by a compliant
toady.
Trudy, right. But he did not try to make himself dictator.
On 7/5/2025 12:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 11:19:06 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 2:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:27:23 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>> On 7/4/2025 2:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Any of the branches can determine a law is unconstitutional. The
The pres is not the one who has the power to determine that. It >>>>>> takes
a majority of sc judges to make the decision, not simply one person. >>>>>
remedy
for such a determination varies depending on the branch.
Only the president and his executive branch has the power to enforce >>>>> laws. Non-enforcement is effectively nullification.
He can appoint an attorney general. He cannot tell the AG how to
decide his cases or what to prosecute. We have been through that up
here. The AG got fired, and a new one appointed who did what the boss >>>> wanted. Still kind of slimy, but at least according to law and
dispersed powers. The prime minister did not attempt to interfere
with the prosecution in question.
That sounds like the Canadian AG was fired and replaced by a compliant
toady.
Trudy, right. But he did not try to make himself dictator.
He was just found to have violated the Canadian constitution and the
rights of her citizens.
On 7/5/2025 12:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 11:19:06 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 2:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:27:23 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>> On 7/4/2025 2:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Any of the branches can determine a law is unconstitutional. The remedy >>>>> for such a determination varies depending on the branch.
The pres is not the one who has the power to determine that. It takes >>>>>> a majority of sc judges to make the decision, not simply one person. >>>>>
Only the president and his executive branch has the power to enforce >>>>> laws. Non-enforcement is effectively nullification.
He can appoint an attorney general. He cannot tell the AG how to
decide his cases or what to prosecute. We have been through that up
here. The AG got fired, and a new one appointed who did what the boss >>>> wanted. Still kind of slimy, but at least according to law and
dispersed powers. The prime minister did not attempt to interfere
with the prosecution in question.
That sounds like the Canadian AG was fired and replaced by a compliant
toady.
Trudy, right. But he did not try to make himself dictator.
He was just found to have violated the Canadian constitution and the
rights of her citizens.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 13:10:35 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/5/2025 12:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:True, we don't like him. But he did not resist when the time for him
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 11:19:06 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 2:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:27:23 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/4/2025 2:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Any of the branches can determine a law is unconstitutional. The remedy >>>>>> for such a determination varies depending on the branch.
The pres is not the one who has the power to determine that. It takes >>>>>>> a majority of sc judges to make the decision, not simply one person. >>>>>>
Only the president and his executive branch has the power to enforce >>>>>> laws. Non-enforcement is effectively nullification.
He can appoint an attorney general. He cannot tell the AG how to
decide his cases or what to prosecute. We have been through that up >>>>> here. The AG got fired, and a new one appointed who did what the boss >>>>> wanted. Still kind of slimy, but at least according to law and
dispersed powers. The prime minister did not attempt to interfere
with the prosecution in question.
That sounds like the Canadian AG was fired and replaced by a compliant >>>> toady.
Trudy, right. But he did not try to make himself dictator.
He was just found to have violated the Canadian constitution and the
rights of her citizens.
to go had obviously come. He did not pull a Himbo 2016 on canadians.
Did not attempt to thwart and nullify elections nor attempt to find
hidden votes for himself.
Which is the way most canadian elections go. As soon as the loosing
party is announced, the loosing lead of that party resigns, most of
the time. Exactly like that. But the himbo lookalike Poilievre not
only was leader of the loosing party, he also lost his seat in
parliament at the same time. He should be gone. But no, he asked
that some conservitive candidate that won give up his seat so
poilievre can have it. He has a volunteer. It looks like there is a
limit to how soon a winner can give up their seat. Not unheard of,
but quite uncommon.
Regardless, nobody is cheating, everybody plays within the rules. And
nobody cries and whines about loosing.
On Jul 5, 2025 at 11:22:02 AM EDT, "Wilson" <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 3:30 PM, David LaRue wrote:
Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:d9c35643babdb050a50225ec2cc09f8ca1c294de@i2pn2.org:
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional >>>>> power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts
consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify
unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so? >>>>
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you >>>> square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold >>>> the constitution?
Your pearl clutching is performative political theater designed not to >>>> enlighten but to inflame and obfuscate.
A minor point,
The judiciary branch generally considers issues that have been brought to its
attention. The executive branch generally concerns itself with issues for >>> which it was elected. The congressional branch does so too. We all
recognize that individuals also have personal agendas.
Agreed, everyone has an agenda especially politicians.
And we vote for the politician who has an agenda close to our own.
On 7/5/2025 2:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 13:10:35 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/5/2025 12:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:True, we don't like him. But he did not resist when the time for him
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 11:19:06 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 2:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:27:23 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>>> On 7/4/2025 2:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Any of the branches can determine a law is unconstitutional. The remedy >>>>>>> for such a determination varies depending on the branch.
The pres is not the one who has the power to determine that. It takes >>>>>>>> a majority of sc judges to make the decision, not simply one person. >>>>>>>
Only the president and his executive branch has the power to enforce >>>>>>> laws. Non-enforcement is effectively nullification.
He can appoint an attorney general. He cannot tell the AG how to
decide his cases or what to prosecute. We have been through that up >>>>>> here. The AG got fired, and a new one appointed who did what the boss >>>>>> wanted. Still kind of slimy, but at least according to law and
dispersed powers. The prime minister did not attempt to interfere >>>>>> with the prosecution in question.
That sounds like the Canadian AG was fired and replaced by a compliant >>>>> toady.
Trudy, right. But he did not try to make himself dictator.
He was just found to have violated the Canadian constitution and the
rights of her citizens.
to go had obviously come. He did not pull a Himbo 2016 on canadians.
Did not attempt to thwart and nullify elections nor attempt to find
hidden votes for himself.
Which is the way most canadian elections go. As soon as the loosing
party is announced, the loosing lead of that party resigns, most of
the time. Exactly like that. But the himbo lookalike Poilievre not
only was leader of the loosing party, he also lost his seat in
parliament at the same time. He should be gone. But no, he asked
that some conservitive candidate that won give up his seat so
poilievre can have it. He has a volunteer. It looks like there is a
limit to how soon a winner can give up their seat. Not unheard of,
but quite uncommon.
Regardless, nobody is cheating, everybody plays within the rules. And
nobody cries and whines about loosing.
The 2016 "Russia!" fraud perpetrated against Trump and the american
people by the Dems and their deep state & corporate media handmaidens
was indeed awful.
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 13:10:35 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/5/2025 12:37 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:True, we don't like him. But he did not resist when the time for him
On Sat, 5 Jul 2025 11:19:06 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 2:32 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
On Fri, 4 Jul 2025 14:27:23 -0400, Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote: >>>>>> On 7/4/2025 2:01 PM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
Any of the branches can determine a law is unconstitutional. The remedy >>>>>> for such a determination varies depending on the branch.
The pres is not the one who has the power to determine that. It takes >>>>>>> a majority of sc judges to make the decision, not simply one person. >>>>>>
Only the president and his executive branch has the power to enforce >>>>>> laws. Non-enforcement is effectively nullification.
He can appoint an attorney general. He cannot tell the AG how to
decide his cases or what to prosecute. We have been through that up >>>>> here. The AG got fired, and a new one appointed who did what the boss >>>>> wanted. Still kind of slimy, but at least according to law and
dispersed powers. The prime minister did not attempt to interfere
with the prosecution in question.
That sounds like the Canadian AG was fired and replaced by a compliant >>>> toady.
Trudy, right. But he did not try to make himself dictator.
He was just found to have violated the Canadian constitution and the
rights of her citizens.
to go had obviously come. He did not pull a Himbo 2016 on canadians.
Did not attempt to thwart and nullify elections nor attempt to find
hidden votes for himself.
Which is the way most canadian elections go.
party is announced, the loosing lead of that party resigns, most of
the time.
only was leader of the loosing party, he also lost his seat in
parliament at the same time. He should be gone. But no, he asked
that some conservitive candidate that won give up his seat so
poilievre can have it. He has a volunteer. It looks like there is a
limit to how soon a winner can give up their seat. Not unheard of,
but quite uncommon.
Regardless, nobody is cheating, everybody plays within the rules.
nobody cries and whines about loosing.
On 05/07/2025 16:26, Tara wrote:
On Jul 5, 2025 at 11:22:02 AM EDT, "Wilson" <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote:
On 7/4/2025 3:30 PM, David LaRue wrote:
Wilson <wilson@nowhere.net> wrote in
news:d9c35643babdb050a50225ec2cc09f8ca1c294de@i2pn2.org:
On 7/4/2025 8:00 AM, Noah Sombrero wrote:
NY Times,
"Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that Trump has the constitutional >>>>>> power to nullify laws, newly disclosed documents show. Some experts >>>>>> consider it a stark overreach of presidential authority."
Stark. Only some experts? How about we agree that we don't need
experts to tell us such things. We know already. Stark.
The Supreme Court is widely recognized as having the power to nullify >>>>> unconstitutional laws. Is it the only branch of government that can do so?
If a law signed by a previous president is unconstitutional, is the
current president bound by it until the court rules? If so, how do you >>>>> square that with the oath taken by every president they they must uphold >>>>> the constitution?
Your pearl clutching is performative political theater designed not to >>>>> enlighten but to inflame and obfuscate.
A minor point,
The judiciary branch generally considers issues that have been brought to its
attention. The executive branch generally concerns itself with issues for >>>> which it was elected. The congressional branch does so too. We all
recognize that individuals also have personal agendas.
Agreed, everyone has an agenda especially politicians.
And we vote for the politician who has an agenda close to our own.
It's more complicated than that in the UK. :)