Is Separation of Powers Important?

@Shattered: Give me just ONE actual example. That is all I ask, since you WERE paying attention.

@Greathands01: Ok, he granted amnesty to a certain segment of illegal aliens and the court ordered him to cease. And when he ignored the court order two of his flunkies were hauled into court to answer. They supposedly stopped but who really knows. These people seem to think the law or constitution doesn't matter if they don't agree with it. And btw, I'm still paying attention. I highly recommend it no matter who is in the WH.

@Shattered: Thanks for being specific. The SCOTUS decision was 4-4, so it wasn't a unanimous decision, but clearly half the court ruled he exceeded his executive power, showing the importance of separation of powers.

@Laifu1:
Yes, you are right, Laiful. They do not make 'law'. What they create are "regulations" that become part of an administrative code. These adm codes have the weight of "law" in that they are enforceable by a police, impose immediate cessation of business, have the power to penalize by monetary penalties such as in tort law and in some cases criminal such as the Treasury Dept and ATF.

I guess when I take a look at their powers in a simplistic manner it is hard to differentiate what they are doing from a body of duly elected law makers except they don't have to have a potential regulation debated and then voted on for it to be enacted and enforced....by anyone except the authorities who run the department.

Now then. What do you call a body can do these things without citizen input, debate, and capacity to vote?

I'm no savant...but I would hesitate to allude to this as a behavior of a republican democracy. In fact I would be tempted to use a stronger term such as the kind of government run by Mussolini in the 30's

When it comes to regulating the corporations in our behalf, one has only to see the devastation caused by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act by Bill Clinton and then the emasculation of the Dodd-Frank Act led by Hillary via the huge payments Wall Street made to the Clinton administration.

Gad, I gotta get ready for another class or I'd pound the pulpit a little more.

You all have a good day!

@lily88mercy: While I understand your point, I have to disagree a little. These agencies can only make regulations because they were given that power through legislation approved by Congress and the President. Laws typically do not spell out every detail of the process, so the agency has to make rules and regulations to perform the intended function; however, an agency cannot make regulations outside of the charter given them by law. These agencies are bound by law and subject to judicial penalties. In addition, Congress can change the law if they so desire to limit them further.

@Greathands01: Thank you, thank you, Greathands01 for taking the time to make clarifications regarding this important issue. I truly appreciate it!
😺

@halflight: I did answer. Google gives results from both sides. I understand as a company they can manipulate the result for their economic gain, but I do not believe they are ideologically manipulating the results. They have users (customers) from all ideologies, so it is in their economic interests to supply results for all ideologies. You can find both extreme left-wing and right-wing articles and videos using Google.

@halflight: Then their influence obviously isn't very good since she lost.

So tell me where you find your science and witness acts.

Now...I'd love to see somebody try to justify [b]that[/b]---or claim Obama [b]ever[/b] said anything similar. My guess is that we'll be advised that somehow, this [i]too[/i] was "a misquote" or "taken out of context".

Donald Trump attacks a federal judge. Again.

When James Robart, who was appointed by George W. Bush and approved for the bench by a 99-0 vote in the Senate, had the audacity to rule against the Trump Administration's immigration ban, you knew a tweet was coming.

And the President lived up (or down) to expectations:
"The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!"

This reminded me of another statement from a former president who was previously considered our most autocratic and controversial, and who also swept to office on a populist wave - Andrew Jackson. When Chief Justice John Marshall ruled against him in a case involving Native American rights, President Jackson was quoted as quipping - "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!" You can only imagine what Jackson would do on Twitter.

The reality is of course that our courts do not possess an army or law enforcement organization. They gain their power through our legal and democratic traditions. These are under attack. And this is deeply worrisome. Are we going to allow the very basis for our democracy to be threatened in this manner? Every one of us, regardless of political persuasion, must think hard on the answer to that question. Either we step up to defend our judges and courts from this type of intimidation or we do not. This is not the first time Donald Trump has lashed out in this manner and it won't be the last. This is not a matter of policy but the future of our Constitutional form of government.

We have separation of powers for a reason. It is the bedrock of our nation. These attacks are unconscionable, intolerable, and we as a people are in the process of deciding whether or not they will be normalized.

-- Dan Rather

That kinda goes against your last comment about being loyal to the Constitution and not loyal to the party.