Should each branch of our government have an independent way to enforce its decisions?

Should each branch of our government have an independent way to enforce its decisions?

  • Yes

    Votes: 1 33.3%
  • No

    Votes: 2 66.7%

  • Total voters
    3

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
72,653
30,652
Florida
Right now all rely on the Executive Branch to enforce its decisions.
When a president disagrees and won't enforce the orders of the other branches.......Then what?

Why not a small team of LEO's who answer only to the congress and/or the SCOTUS.
 

Ian Jeffrey

Council Hall
Mar 2013
77,341
46,758
Vulcan, down the street from Darth Vader
Well, U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, gives all federal law enforcement powers to the executive branch (just like Congress gets all the legislative power and the federal courts all the judicial power). We would need a constitutional amendment to change that, and we are not going to get one. Nor should we. This is a political problem to be solved by an election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bajisima

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
72,653
30,652
Florida
Well, U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, gives all federal law enforcement powers to the executive branch (just like Congress gets all the legislative power and the federal courts all the judicial power). We would need a constitutional amendment to change that, and we are not going to get one. Nor should we. This is a political problem to be solved by an election.
Process is a 17th century one that is way to slow and cumbersome.
We can't be hogtied by a 300 year old document.

We need to think outside the box here.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2012
58,884
40,352
New Hampshire
Process is a 17th century one that is way to slow and cumbersome.
We can't be hogtied by a 300 year old document.

We need to think outside the box here.
Not going to happen. It was meant to not be easy and why we have elections. The process is there. Its not the Constitutions fault if the voters arent serious about voting.
 

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
72,653
30,652
Florida
Not going to happen. It was meant to not be easy and why we have elections. The process is there. Its not the Constitutions fault if the voters arent serious about voting.
Trying to apply 17th Century concepts to 21st Century life is a losing proposition......especially when some cling to literal interpretations.

Example: Does anyone think the founding fathers would have agreed with the SCOTUS "Heller" opinion if assault weapons were available in 1776? (No...they were sane back then)
 
Mar 2012
58,884
40,352
New Hampshire
Trying to apply 17th Century concepts to 21st Century life is a losing proposition......especially when some cling to literal interpretations.
That may be so but in order to change it, people need to vote. Seriously. Many dont. I have to think it wasnt always this way. I recall my parents laying out papers and comparing candidates. Today we decide our leaders by "who would we rather have a beer with."
 

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
72,653
30,652
Florida
Fleshing out my topic question.....here's what I had in mind:

1.Each Branch has it's own small force available to quickly confront intransigence from the Executive.
2. Legal protocols put in place to limit the Executive's use of force until all branches agree on a solution.
3. Resistance to any Branch SWAT team is a captial offense.
4. Armed conflict between branches should be legislated against in very strong terms.

More ideas?
 

Devil505

Former Staff
Jan 2008
72,653
30,652
Florida
Fleshing out my topic question.....here's what I had in mind:

1.Each Branch has it's own small force available to quickly confront intransigence from the Executive.
2. Legal protocols put in place to limit the Executive's use of force until all branches agree on a solution.
3. Resistance to any Branch SWAT team is a captial offense.
4. Armed conflict between branches should be legislated against in very strong terms.
5. Each branch SWAT team has arrest authority and detainment facilities.
6.No DOJ opinions are binding any longer.

More ideas?