Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

FBaggins

(26,721 posts)

4. That actually defeats the argument

Reply to ok_cpu (Reply #2)

Wed Sep 18, 2019, 06:13 PM

Sep 2019

There are three co-equal branches of government... which by extension means that there's also no higher authority than the judiciary AND no higher authority than the executive.

This is why these sorts of things are normally hashed out in negotiations between executive/legislative. If they can't come to an agreement... then the judiciary breaks the tie.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

34 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Acting Director of National Intelligence should not be permitted to defy a subpoena... [View all] kentuck Sep 2019 OP

I would support sending the House Seargent at Arms to detain this guy TheRealNorth Sep 2019 #1

Just heard Digby make a great point ok_cpu Sep 2019 #2

That actually defeats the argument FBaggins Sep 2019 #4

He is violating a statute passed by the Congress and signed by a President... Thomas Hurt Sep 2019 #6

He is... but did Congress have the authority in the first place? FBaggins Sep 2019 #8

On the other hand Congress does have the power of the purse that they can wield and withhold cstanleytech Sep 2019 #12

Could the House withhold salary funds for 'acting' directors until they are confirmed Captain Zero Sep 2019 #28

This is why line item veto isn't actually a thing that exists...because Volaris Sep 2019 #21

The signing statement itself has little effect FBaggins Sep 2019 #22

'You can have this money, but...' Volaris Sep 2019 #23

Congress can only appropriate money... it can't manage the spending of it directly. FBaggins Sep 2019 #24

Well if the Executive has the power to spend the money congress appropriates Volaris Sep 2019 #25

Apologies if I oversimplified it. That isn't what I meant FBaggins Sep 2019 #30

They could however attache a warning to the money that if its used for x or x instead that cstanleytech Sep 2019 #31

They could do something like that verbally or as a memo FBaggins Sep 2019 #32

Either way they do have the ability to apply pressure with the power of the purse but it cstanleytech Sep 2019 #33

I get what you're saying ok_cpu Sep 2019 #7

But the Legislative Branch of the People is "more equal" than the other two. kentuck Sep 2019 #9

Arguably true... but not relevant here FBaggins Sep 2019 #10

They are "co-equal" for the purpose of governing. kentuck Sep 2019 #11

Just the opposite in fact FBaggins Sep 2019 #13

+1 uponit7771 Sep 2019 #18

Yay! Another lawsuit we'll win in 5 or so years. gldstwmn Sep 2019 #16

Probably not in this case because we would likely lose FBaggins Sep 2019 #17

and yet, he has lindysalsagal Sep 2019 #3

He has because they have let him. I am sure there is a politician that can figure out the answer Maraya1969 Sep 2019 #5

the whole "send officers to arrest" seems highly unlikely stopdiggin Sep 2019 #27

No! Because damn it I am so sick of Democrats saying, "This won't work" "You can't do that" Maraya1969 Sep 2019 #29

I like your spirit stopdiggin Sep 2019 #34

And if he refuses to pay the $25,000 a day? What then? Kablooie Sep 2019 #14

It's all the rage now. gldstwmn Sep 2019 #15

Yes malaise Sep 2019 #19

once you have shown a willingness to roll over and over Skittles Sep 2019 #20

These GOPers only care about money and power dawg day Sep 2019 #26