Donald Trump is directing US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth to pay military personnel despite the federal government shutdown.
The president said on Saturday that Hegseth must make sure troops do not miss out on their regular paycheque, scheduled for Wednesday. The directive comes as other government employees have already had some pay withheld and others are being laid off.
“I will not allow the Democrats to hold our Military, and the entire Security of our Nation, HOSTAGE, with their dangerous Government Shutdown,” Trump posted on his Truth Social platform.
In America the president has nearly god status and can seemingly do whatever he/she pleases. Not much the opposition can do against.
Sort of. The Founders gave specific powers to the President, and specific other powers to Congress and the Courts. They envisioned that ambitious people would aim to keep their powers, and not give them up willingly.
The wide-ranging powers of the Presidency are meant to be held in check by the other branches. The Founders did not anticipate a Congress and Supreme Court that would let the President break laws with impunity, just because that President aimed to hurt people they all hated
That’s such a load of bullshit. Your Founders barely bothered to outline what the Supreme Court is and what it can do. It was in 1789 that Congress actually determined the details of that and most of the powers of the Supreme Court were determined during John Marshall’s tenure as Chief Justice.
This is also doubly funny because it has happened before when President Andrew Jackson refused to respect the Supreme Court Decision in Worcester v. Georgia and the Supreme Court did nothing because the State of Georgia and the President aimed to hurt people they all hated (Native Americans) and it eventually led to the Trail of Tears.
I swear Americans don’t know their own history.
Actually, this illustrates my point entirely. Article III (which describes the Judiciary) explicitly defines a single Supreme Court but leaves the structure of the rest of the Judiciary to the Congress. So this interplay between Congress and the Court is exactly what they were looking for. The Courts have wide latitude to judge cases, but it has to be within the structure that Congress creates.
They didn’t get into specifics, on purpose, because they felt that in a well-functioning government, ambitious people would keep each other in check.
Because the SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism for what you described. Even just for Worcester v. Georgia, what is the USMS supposed to do against the state of Georgia without support from the Executive? Jackson literally wrote in 1832: “the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate.” Jackson did eventually threaten enforcement as part of what became known as the nullification crisis.
But either way, Worcester v. Georgia wasn’t directly about the 1830 Indian Removal Act or 1835’s Treaty of New Echota; it was about the freeing of Worcester etc., which did eventually go through. The Treaty of New Echota should’ve been illegal on the basis of *Georgia v. Worcester", but again, the SCOTUS doesn’t just go around enforcing cases it didn’t rule on unless it gets back to their court to rule on that separate case; that’s the Executive’s job.
“The Supreme Court did nothing because they hate Indian Americans” is such unfounded bullshit that you just made up because it sounded right. You can correctly argue all you want that this shows separation of powers is just an illusion because one single person has to agree to enforce laws and can only be removed (theoretically) with a supermajority of Congress if they fail to do so.
You can just say “they,” such as, “do whatever they please.”
ETA: oof, downvotes? Seriously? It’s just English, people. It’s easier to write. It’s easier to read. It’s how the language has referred to a single person of unknown or irrelevant gender for about as long as it’s been a language. See #3.
When someone goes out of their way to be inclusive why would you think it’s appropriate to rain on their parade??
Be nice. And if you can’t do that then at least abstain from being rude.
What makes you think I was raining on their parade? “They” is no less inclusive than “he/she.” It is however easier to write, easier to read, and it’s completely common English that every native speaker just naturally uses and understands on a daily basis. There’s no reason to go out of your way to make your message harder to write and read, for absolutely no gain.
ETA: My intent was not to be rude. My intent was to help someone out. For all either of us know, the person I responded to isn’t a native English speaker and genuinely found it helpful.
In the US we are supposed to have “checks and balances” where Congress-Courts-Executive powers are balanced. President can veto, Congress can override with a majority, courts can claim legislation unconstitutional. Etc etc.
Over time, these checks have been eroded from the executive branch through Congress and the court’s own doing. For example, the current Supreme Court is using the shadow docket and ignoring legal precedent to give Trump whatever he wants. Only this week did the senate finally vote to close the Iraq war powers act. Etc etc.
Part of this is due to having one party control all three branches. Part of it is due to the opposing party being ineffectual dumbasses most of the time.