New answers tagged

5

I hate being the one always pointing things like this out, but... This EO is not meant to actually provide any actual aid. As best I can tell, the GOP stalled the discussions in Congress specifically so that Trump could write this executive order, because it satisfies all their interests. Trump can give the appearance of caring about the issue and providing ...


4

TLDR Summary The Constitution says electors vote for both President and Vice President 3 U.S. Code § 7 says electors vote for both President and Vice President Some states have "candidates for President and Vice President" in their election laws It's never been done so the above election laws are untested It's never been done so the response of ...


0

Bit of trivia context; Upon founding of US constitution the VP role went to the candidate with second most votes in the general election. Then the 12th amendment of 1804 required to cast a separate vote for president and VP. But until the 1960's VP's were chosen by the candidate and party, not necessarily before election. Therefore in short, the answer is ...


6

"Surrender" is not a power that is explicit in the constitution. A complete surrender, such as occurred at the end of the second world war in Germany would imply the constitution ceasing to function. The de-facto constitution would be "military occupation" followed by a new constitution written by the victors. However surrender can also ...


0

In your first example, where some case affecting the Supreme Court itself came before the Supreme Court then Supreme Court would likely either not hear the case, as most of the grounds you mentioned are invalid and the case would dealt with by lower courts without the need for the Court to get involved, or in the case of a real controversy they would hear ...


5

a land dispute on which the court stands Land disputes are not normally dealt with by the Supreme Court, and anyway the Supreme Court doesn't own the land, it is all Federal land so the dispute would not be between the court and an appellant. SCOTUS and the court system decides to levy a lawsuit against someone due to harm being inflicted on them. The ...


3

Due to Judicial Immunity, judges (including SCOTUS justices) can't be sued for their actions in office. They can however be impeached like a sitting president, and tried by the U.S. Senate.


8

This is a highly speculative question — it lays out scenarios that are well off the beaten path of practice and precedent — but I think I can safely say the following. First, as I understand it, in most legal contexts it is generally left to the judge to determine whether he or she can effectively try a case. When judges receive a case it is their case; an ...


2

Its complicated... the US constitution is a bit vague. The establishment clause permitted (but did not require) creation of a federal district, but it was conditional on states cedeing (relinquishing control) of the land to create it. The constitution doesn't say anything about reversing the process, so the constitutionality of it has been subject to ...


3

Can Congress meet within a state? Congress can meet wherever it wants. Let's start with the relevant excerpt of the Constitution: The Congress shall have Power... To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the ...


1

As the constitution doesn't specify the geographic boundaries (other than max area) of the federal district, I believe there would be little issue reducing the size or even changing the location of the district.


6

Probably not, but this will likely end up in the Supreme Court. Under Article I, Section 8.17, Congress can decide the borders of the District of Columbia, up to 10 miles square (or 100 square miles). At the moment, the District is around 68 square miles, so it's already below the maximum allowed size. Also, under Article IV, Section 3.1, Congress can ...


8

The limits of the House Judiciary Committee are contained in the rules for the House of Representatives, of which, the relevant parts are shown below. Specifically, Congressional oversight is never limited by law, statute, or regulation; or, for that matter, the Constitution; that is to say, oversight, in and of itself, is unrestricted, as it applies to ...


4

No, this is not a power that is given to the house and it was setup so that the house, senate and president all need to agree with the exception that if the president does exercise veto power it can be overridden with a 2/3rd vote in both the house and senate. Something to remember, though not directly related, is that in the 1990's congress tried to give ...


6

No The Constitution is clear that all bills must by passed by the House and the Senate. Here's the relevant excerpt from Article 1, Section 7: Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States Because of the rules of the Senate, a bill that has ...


51

No, the House of Representatives does not have the power to overrule a Senate veto. Article I, Section 7 is quite clear that a bill needs to pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate in order to become law. The two-chamber Congress was designed as a compromise between those founders who wanted every person to have an equal say in American ...


1

Some of the other answers give interesting examples but (in my view) fail to explain the broader reasoning behind term limits. The main reasons I can think of are the following: Without term limits, a leader can gradually consolidate power and manipulate the very institutions that are supposed to guarantee fair elections An incumbent leader almost always ...


-1

I assume the question is about term limits on Presidents and Prime Ministers who get in office through an election as is the case in Western-style "democracies". In spite of what is taught in the civics classes, Western "democracies" are really plutocracies. They are ruled by a tiny group of unelected plutocrats (very wealthy individuals)...


-2

It depends on what the concern is. There are are two avenues for removing a sitting President: 25th Amendment (incapacitation) The Vice President, Cabinet, and Congress can exercise the provision in the 25th Amendment to establish the VP as Active President. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive ...


Top 50 recent answers are included