United States, Congress, President Trump discussed on Free Talk Live
That's eight five five five zero four three seven seven free as in freedom. And that's what we want to talk about. And we're going to talk about a couple things related to the US constitution that piece of paper that is supposed to be supposed to be allegedly. The way they wrote it the ultimate law of the land though. The one thing that all other laws are always supposed to follow. And that all government officials are supposed to follow. So occasionally we bring in stories, and the we tonight is myself, Chris, Bob, and Melanie, and the first story we wanted to discuss a little bit was from reason, David Burstein rights on the dangers of government by executive. So we've been talking about this problem of governing from the executive branch only the way the US constitution was set up. With was the idea that the representatives of the people in congress since Pacific in the house of representatives would come up with a law that they want to pass and assuming that it is constitutional for them to do. So then if it cleared the. The house. It would then go to the Senate. The Senate originally was a much more austere body than it is now originally state legislatures chose the senators that would go to Washington, the senators were thought to be more learned men, and they would serve a longer term. They would serve six years as opposed to the house of representatives which serve two years, and assuming that the house and the Senate both approved a law, then it could go to I should say a Bill. See I forgot all my schoolhouse rock stuff. But once the Bill was passed by both both houses of congress than it would go to the president who could then choose to sign it into law or veto it go either way. That all sort of changed in our history with the passage of the seventeenth amendment which allowed popular vote to determine who your senators are. So again, when you selected your senators that wasn't really done by used by your representatives in your state house and after the seventeen th amendment was just done by a popular vote. It really isn't a popular vote. What it means is whoever raised the most special interest money gets to choose who is going to be your Senator in a few doubt me on that ask why forty million dollars was spent on a Montana Senate race, for example. David Burstein rights. There are lots of things one could say about Trump's invocation of an emergency statute to quote, build the wall other commentators, including Ilia have said most of them so all refrain but in short, it's a terrible idea. And I hope the court stops it. I did want to add one additional consideration that goes beyond the issue of the wall and goes to the general issue of presidents acting unilaterally on significant controversial issues, regardless of whether they have a technical legal authority under broad vague statutes during the Obama administration defenders of presidential unilateralism argued vociferously that a the president was elected to get things accomplished. We've got to get things done. Be congress be a Republican majorities in the house and later the house and Senate were being obstructionist and see therefore the president was within. His rights to use his authority to govern unilaterally even the face of long standing contrary. Norms, for example, Obama like Trump was stymied by congress on his preferred immigration policy, so he used his broad statutory authority under the immigration laws to resolve the dreamers unquote issue indefinitely using the thirty far more broadly, more consequentially and in more direct defiance of congress than any president had previously. So this is what I find interesting. We we have a lot of people on the left going. You can't just exercise this broad use of executive power. It's unconstitutional. And then you have people on the right now that Trump is being elected sane. He has every right Obama. Did it? Oh bomb. Did it right? Of course. And then, of course, there are just going to go back and forth in the state will continue to grow, which is, you know, left wing right wing same bird, shoot it down. Right. But. It's it's almost like we're just we're just at this point. We're playing who was the original hypocrite, right? Is it the Democrats is the Republicans? What's what's your there? Even a difference or they just in collusion. That's a good point. You look like you have something to say, Melanie, I mean, other than I am completely revolting you buy this topic. Not really there's I mean, they haven't paid attention to the constitution since John. John adams? So I mean before then. Yep. And that's being generous. I guess. Yeah. They're breaking the law. They're going to continue to break the law. That's about it. So why do you bring up John Adams? What our second our second president. What did he do? There was so bad. Alien and sedition acts. That was a doozy. Wasn't it? Yeah. Why don't you tell us a little bit about that? What what was what was an alien? Anyone not born here. Very much. So does that that speaks to me of current topics too? The alien and sedition, and we'll talk a little bit about sedition the aliens act, basically said if I'm correct, and I'm often wrong on these things. But it was specifically we were in a war with the French at the time, and anyone who was a French ancestry could be arrested for no reason whatsoever. And anyone caught helping the French for any reason or a French person that was considered to be violation of the law. And of course, before anyone thinks that. That was then. And now, it's an old thing. FDR did. Of course, did the same thing with two Japanese very much. So yeah, I mean that wasn't that long ago, George I gonna mess up his last name to Tahiti the guy who was in Star Trek was in to George Takei was in a US concentration camp. He has nothing but good things to say about it. That's beside the point. He's a person who's alive today. And it's not like he's ninety. He was in a US concentration camp true that that's what they call Stockholm syndrome. But obviously we couldn't do that again today. Right. I mean that law must have been overturned, right? You can't just take Americans because of their national heritage or or their genetic makeup and throw them in a in a cell throw him in a concentration camp. He can't do that today. Right. Yeah. You can. So one would think that a something is horrendous as that is the US jailing people strictly because of the race because their genetic makeup. We couldn't do that today. But that law was challenged. It was challenger went all the way to the supreme court in core Matsu v US, I am astounded as to why the supreme court took that case explain so the supreme there are certain cases that the supreme court has to take and those are cases about technicalities about fought size on federal violence boring stuff to read because they are the court of rights for certain federal issues there the overseer of federal courts for those type of things as far as cases that make the news cases that are either come from a state court or maybe they come from a federal court, but you're arguing a constitutional issue or you're arguing. Broader legal issue, usually your own young and constitutional issue. They can they only have to take those if they feel like they can take your reject any case as they feel like it with or without reason. I mean, the denials of writ, basically, just say it's one sentence. We deny for this case. Right. That's it. And that's it. You have no recourse why they took that case. I've never gotten a good answer from. And I can't think of one myself because they were never they do not like to interfere with for obvious reasons. The kind of core.