Arizona UFO Tours @ArizonaUFOTours@brighteon.social

It Doesn't Take A Missile Engineer... (01)

APPLE SHOULD GET RID OF DEI RULES, NOT JUST MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THEM. DEI WAS A HOAX THAT HAS BEEN VERY BAD FOR OUR COUNTRY. DEI IS GONE!!!
DJT

Government's Constitutional separation of Powers.

Many people realize that there is a separation of powers but haven't given it much thought. The thought to share today is with what happens if a Federal District Judge files an order requiring the Executive Branch to resume funding a USAID project (as an example) that the Executive Branch doesn't believe they are legally required to fund?

The answer gets back to the separation of powers in which a federal judge may sign such an order and if that order was against one of us as a citizen and we ignored it then we would likely find ourselves locked up on a contempt of court charge. However in this case, a federal judge cannot "enforce" a contempt charge against anyone in the Executive Branch (without their approval) as doing so requires an action from the Justice Department (DOJ) which the Judicial Branch has no authority over. Also keep in mind that a federal district judge is not above the President and in fact all three branches of the gov are equal in power. (I am not speaking of any individual in any branch and instead those that make the final decisions for each branch).

While there is certainly more to consider and each scenario would be different, but what would likely occur is that the Executive Branch would review such an order and abide by it while appealing it to the Supreme Court unless they had a very strong reason not to do so. On the other hand they may not abide by it and still appeal. Generally speaking once the Supreme Court reviews the case, they will rule one way or the other and let's suppose they rule against the Executive Branch, then almost always the Executive Branch abides by such a ruling.

However, what happens if the Supreme Court one day rules against another Branch and in particular with an unconstitutional ruling? This certainly could happen one day as there are some Supreme Court Justices who have openly stated that the Constitution is a "living" document and is to be interpreted differently today than it was originally written seeing how it is outdated (in some cases significantly different). This is a very dangerous understanding to have and that gets back to the separation of powers, if the Supreme Court did make a decision that was unconstitutional then the Executive Branch would be obligated to not abide by such a ruling and seeing how the Judicial Branch has no enforcement ability then it becomes a bit easier to understand why the founders of our gov separated these powers. Of course this could lead us into a "Constitutional Crisis" so to speak, and if it wasn't resolved peacefully then the 2nd amendment would become more important to understand.

In short, even a citizen is not required to obey an unconstitutional law, but be careful with that action as if you do violate a law, even one that is not constitutional, then you may be locked up for a very long time and the associated legals expenses may be so high that you will be unable to fund your legal costs while the gov just prints more money to go after you.

Remember all those "sealed indictments" we heard about?
Q1: Were they only for use as coercion/blackmail material?
Q2: Did the statute of limitations run out on any of them?

Remember "We caught them all..."?
Q1: Why haven't any of them gone to prison (now, 8 years later)?

Watching a number of things, and I'm beginning to believe we've been had.