Stephen Miller ‘Plenary Authority’ Remark Sparks Controversy
time.com
The Trump aide sparked suspicion when he stopped speaking after he mentioned the President’s “plenary authority,” though CNN blamed a technical issue.

cross-posted from: https://piefed.world/post/533816

…

CNN asked Miller whether the Trump Administration will abide by a district judge’s order blocking the Guard’s deployment in Oregon. “Well, the Administration filed an appeal this morning with the Ninth Circuit,” Miller began. “I would note the Administration won an identical case in the Ninth Circuit just a few months ago with respect to the federalizing of the California National Guard.”

Then, Miller said: “Under Title 10 of the U.S. Code, the President has plenary authority, has—” before making an abrupt stop. Miller blinked several times, with anchor Boris Sanchez calling out his name, though he still did not respond.

…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plenary_power

A plenary power or plenary authority is a complete and absolute power to take action on a particular issue, with no limitations.

  • orclev@lemmy.world
    148·
    1 day ago

    So I looked it up and title 10 is all the rules that govern the US armed forces. The president of the United States can trivially be shown to not have plenary authority by the simple fact that the constitution exists. That is in fact the entire point of the constitution, it ensures nobody in the United States has plenary authority. Even title 10 disproves that as it sets out the rules that US armed forces must operate under.

    • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
      571·
      1 day ago

      Didn’t you get the news last week? Clarence Thomas issued a new ruling that declared the constitution unconstitutional. Apparently they didn’t have the right to write it so he nullified it.

    • Juice@midwest.social
      252·
      23 hours ago

      The constitution is a social contract. Since such a contract can serve as the basis for all society, then the legitimacy of all contractual obligations are linked to the legitimacy of this one, that ensure we have rights and freedom in order to enter into contractual obligations.

      Since the representatives of the state founded on the constitution have broken the social contract, then all contracts are null and void.

          • survirtual@lemmy.world
            1·
            1 hour ago

            Law is a human invented word in the English language. It can describe many things. One is natural law or the laws of physics. These laws have nothing to do with a social contract.

            We can formulate socially governing laws derived from natural laws confirmed by mathematics. Those laws would be more reliable.

            Ultimately, any laws governing human society are reliant on people subscribing to said laws. If a cohort decides not to follow those laws, then they cannot expect to benefit from them.

            That sort of relationship has yet to be properly formalized and has a significant lag time.