\
  The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
BackRefresh Options Favorite

Question for lib fed judge fans: what if the judge enjoins something like troop

movements, or some other national security issue clearly out...
"'''''"'""'''"'"'
  03/18/25
The Constitution reserves the power to declare war to Congre...
,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,.
  03/18/25
But my question is, regardless of constitutionality or juris...
"'''''"'""'''"'"'
  03/18/25
depends on the circumstances. if he thinks it’s going ...
,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,.
  03/18/25
you make a lot of good points. what do you make of the fa...
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
  03/18/25
see second sentence
,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,.
  03/18/25
what about the option of first resort of the people i.e. tru...
Cumbutt
  03/18/25
In Schlesinger v. Holtzman (1973) Justice Thurgood Marshall ...
90s | obese | jamaal
  03/18/25


Poast new message in this thread



Reply Favorite

Date: March 18th, 2025 5:51 PM
Author: "'''''"'""'''"'"'

movements, or some other national security issue clearly out of their purview? Is the president supposed to wait for the judicial process to finish, or say lmao and ignore?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696109&forum_id=2:#48759628)



Reply Favorite

Date: March 18th, 2025 5:59 PM
Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,.


The Constitution reserves the power to declare war to Congress. Congress in exercising this power has authorized the use of military force by statute in certain situations. The way it’s supposed to work is if the President does something Congress didn’t authorize, they go to court and get an order requiring him to stop. If he doesn’t, then impeachment is the next opinion. But the GOP is so cucked that it will allow Trump to violate the constitution, statutes, and court orders and not do anything. The framers thought of this and included an option of last resort if all else fails, which is reserved to the people.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696109&forum_id=2:#48759663)



Reply Favorite

Date: March 18th, 2025 6:01 PM
Author: "'''''"'""'''"'"'

But my question is, regardless of constitutionality or jurisdiction, a court grants an injunction like that, should the president wait for the process to finish, or ignore?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696109&forum_id=2:#48759668)



Reply Favorite

Date: March 18th, 2025 6:04 PM
Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,.


depends on the circumstances. if he thinks it’s going to get impeached over it, he might. if his party is a cult and currently holds power, just slide and let do

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696109&forum_id=2:#48759676)



Reply Favorite

Date: March 18th, 2025 6:03 PM
Author: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


you make a lot of good points.

what do you make of the fact that the last time the USA declared war was in the middle of WWII?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696109&forum_id=2:#48759672)



Reply Favorite

Date: March 18th, 2025 6:04 PM
Author: ,.,.,.,.,,.,..,:,,:,,.,:::,.,,.,:.,,.:.,:.,:.::,.


see second sentence

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696109&forum_id=2:#48759677)



Reply Favorite

Date: March 18th, 2025 6:14 PM
Author: Cumbutt (gunneratttt)

what about the option of first resort of the people i.e. trump was elected in november? impeachment subverts the will of the people and was intended as an emergency remedy. perhaps you should have thought about that before impeaching trump 2x in his first term and making it a joke?

also ljl at libs becoming strict constitutionalists. jfc 99% of federal law is unconstitutional via a reasonable reading of it.

you tried to impeach potus, imprison him on bullshit, nominate a candidate undemocratically, etc. and now you've got the temerity to have crocodile tears over MUH CONSTITUTION! get fucked.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696109&forum_id=2:#48759702)



Reply Favorite

Date: March 18th, 2025 6:09 PM
Author: 90s | obese | jamaal

In Schlesinger v. Holtzman (1973) Justice Thurgood Marshall issued an in-chambers opinion declining Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman's request for a court order stopping the military from bombing Cambodia.[42] The Court was in recess for the summer but the Congresswoman reapplied, this time to Douglas.[40] Douglas met with Holtzman's ACLU lawyers at his home in Goose Prairie, Washington, and promised them a hearing the next day.[40] On Friday, August 3, 1973, Douglas held a hearing in the Yakima federal courthouse, where he dismissed the Government's argument that he was causing a "constitutional confrontation" by saying, "we live in a world of confrontations. That's what the whole system is about."[40] On August 4, Douglas ordered the military to stop bombing, reasoning "denial of the application before me would catapult our airmen as well as Cambodian peasants into the death zone."[43] The U.S. military ignored Douglas's order.[42]

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5696109&forum_id=2:#48759686)