Do you care to elaborate on this last bit? In what circumstances might pronouncements by the press secretary (or some other government official, in the case that you don’t believe this statement applies to the press secretary) be a violation of the Constitution?
So, it is your understanding that the administration’s official position is that members of the military, 4-star general and up, should not be questioned?
That is what she said, and our back and forth was whether or not it was expressed as only her personal opinion, or expressed as part of her duties as spokesperson for the white house.
I don’t know that taking delight in trying to undermine one of the primary checks against tyranny is such a noble thing, but at least I now know that you understand that that is the admin’s position, not just sander’s opinion.
She is a public servant. She works for us. Using taxpayer money to gaslight the public isn’t exactly a noble act in line with our country’s principles and values. The complaint is not that it is illegal, just that it is despicable and indefensible.
If trump signs an EO that says that CNN is in open rebellion, what’s the check on that? He’s laying the groundwork. He calls them liars, says that they are bad for the country. At some point, I do not see why he cannot transfer one of his tweets to an EO, and shut down the voices that he does not like. I am not saying this is inevitable, but I am saying that I do not see any obstacle to prevent it. I’ve asked several times in a few thread as to what would stop him from doing so, and the closest to an answer I’ve gotten was, “he wouldn’t do that”. If you are aware of what is in the constitution that would be an obstacle, please, enlighten me. No snark, I really want to know that there is a check against this potential outcome.
I didn’t say the constitution authorized the president to shut down the media, I just said that I don’t see anywhere that prohibits it. The authorization would come from his own executive power, unless checked by one of the other branches.
Wouldn’t that be considered a direct assault on the First Amendment and therefore a Constitutional violation by the Executive Branch? I would expect that the other two branches would immediately step in to block such an attempt.
What’s the first amendment say? Does it say anything at all about limiting the power of the executive branch as it pertains to limiting speech?
The first time I asked this question, I think months ago, I was expecting to see laws, case laws, maybe an amendment that I missed that explained the fetters put upon the exec branch, but not so much. I expected someone to point out to me how obvious it was that limited that power. As yet, I have only become more concerned that this is a more and more distinct possibility, as the only check against it that has been offered as of yet is that he wouldn’t do that.
The other branches may be able to act as a check against the exec branch, but they have to actually do that, and they havne’t been much of a check recently.
Probably that is because Trump has never done anything even remotely similar to shutting down CNN.
Does it appear to you that the legislative and judicial branches of the federal government have tamely gone along with everything Trump has done so far? And that Congress wouldn’t impeach even if Trump signed an executive order shutting down CNN?
Come on now.
Regards,
Shodan
And your apparent idea that nothing can be done about an executive order is incorrect.
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
That is an interesting question. Just because two branches can check the power of the third, does it mean they are required by law to do so? One would presume that at the very least, an injured party (ex. CNN) would bring a legal challenge against the Executive branch via the Judicial branch. Begging the question: What if the Judicial branch refused to hear the complaint, or ruled against the First Amendment in such a case?
Are you sure you didn’t march for Huey Newton? IIRC it was the very next day I saw a guy who looked a lot like you burning his draft card.
Wait – are you seriously thinking that Presidents can censor free speech, and nobody can stop it?
I think he’s questioning whether the other branches are REQUIRED to stop it.
I’d like to think that such a requirement would not be necessary in theory, because in practice, people of good conscience would rise to the challenge to defend the first amendment.
But the question remains: Does such a requirement exists in constitutional law?
This is what press secretaries DO. It’s not like Trump took this previously apolitical position and politicized it. Press secretaries have always jousted with the media, doing their damndest to spin narratives to their respective administration’s advantage. Obama’s did it, Bush’s did it, and so did Clinton’s.
The Insurrection Act of 1807, Posse Comitatus, and the courts (although if we’re lucky he might sneak in a drone strike or two before the injunction comes down 
<— BTW, that’s a joke in case the smiley wasn’t clear enough).
In the 10 months he’s been in office? Hes got another little bit to go still. And threatening to pull their licenses is actually pretty similar, even if he wa too stupid to know that that isn’t how you shut them down.
For a large part, yeah. I don’t see that much in the way of checks coming from them.
Then show me what stops him.
If is not my “idea” as you so accurately put it, it is my question, my question that I thought would have a simple answer that I was just missing, but apparently does not seem to.
Okay, your quote says the EO can’t defy congressional intent. So?
I wonder if you would even have standing to sue under the first. Would I have standing to sue under the first if my neighbor obstructed me from speaking? (Depending on how he obstructed, there may be other laws and remedies, but not the first, and I don’t see how the first applies any more to the pres. than to my neighbor.)
Starting to. I actually was just asking the question as to what is in place to stop it, but haven’t gotten an answer, so, yeah, I am starting to become convinced that he can. I assume an act of congress could probably stop it, but congress acts slowly. It wouldn’t take much foot dragging, then the act of congress is to sim[ply censure the president for his actions.
A requirement for Congress and the courts to prevent the President from putting down an insurrection? No. In the cases of a lot of rebellions, presumably the courts and Congress agree with the President that it’s a rebellion and should be put down.
Mechanisms for them to act and stop the President if they decide that his judgement on what constitutes an insurrection is incorrect? Yes.
Mechanism, yes. But a requirement/obligation?..
The Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment are broadly understood to be checks on the government’s power, not our neighbors. It says “Congress shall make no law …” not 'your neighbor shall do no action …"
The precise answer for how he gets stopped from shutting down CNN largely depends on the details of the hypothetical situation of how he goes about shutting down CNN. Are you thinking he’s going to order the 101st Airborne to raid their headquarters and detain everyone they find there, shipping them off to Guantanamo? Something else?
No, I answered that in the paragraph before. It would be silly for our government to have a requirement that 2/3 of the branches support an open rebellion, or at least oppose the executive in shutting it down, don’t you think?
Even in the case of an obvious violation of a constitutional amendment?
I don’t know who you’re envisioning will determine that we’re in a case of an “obvious violation of a constitutional amendment”. Who do you think is going to make that determination?
He issues an executive order for CNN to cease and desist all broadcasts from all offices. Then blocks entry to all employees by stationing military/police at the front doors. There is no lack of SOP’s for this kind of thing from the standard issue authoritarian rule handbook.
nm