It's also an "included process" of legislative power and executive power. I suggest you read Marbury v. Madison again or for the first time.
-
-
You are talking as if the Branches can nullify laws they independently determine are unconstitutional. That seems v dubious ground to me.
-
It's how our system works. LB makes laws. EB executes laws. JB resolves cases under law. Each branch interprets Const'n w/r/t its functions.
-
The executive discretion is narrow. otherwise Rule of law is at the whim of the person in power.
-
Under your view, if Congress passed Japanese internment law, then president would have to execute unless and until SCOTUS holds otherwise.
-
Under your View 'The Purge' could be made real at any time by Executive Fiat/Order.
-
In both views, there would be court challenge. But my view is more consistent w/ constitutional structure, sep'n of powers, and basic logic.
-
And the situation would remain until judicial review? which basically means until a new whim strikes. There is no check on power there.
-
Situation you describe is possible under either view. Tyrants don't care about laws. But your view requires a good pres to violate Const'n.
- 33 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
or start judicial review via AG (Executive) not engage in nullification. Nullification isn't a power they have. Delay , yes to a point.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
But they don't have arbitrary power to ignore COTUS or the law . The are supposed to correct the legislation ( Congress )
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
... True .. sort of... they don't have final say, of course they have to execute law in accordance with their understanding of COTUS.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.