They don’t need to stop them, because they are unconstituit. You can’t make up some bullshit that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and win in court. Any half-assed lawyer can just file the paperwork to get this shit shut down, but that’s really the cruz here in that they are expecting people to not have the access to legal services to make it happen in the event they are challenged.
There will be more specific cases about this specific thing immediately being heard by the lower courts, they’ll rule against Trump, and this will end up in the Supreme Court again in the next session, no doubt on that.
This is a stalling tactic by Trump’s psychos to try and make it look they are able to bend the Constitution to their service, which will not happen because…it’s unconstitutional.
You can’t make up some bullshit that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and win in court.
Sadly, this is not exactly accurate. See:
civil asset forfeiture (blatantly violated the literal wording and any good faith interpretation of the 4th and 6th Amendments)
qualified immunity (was literally invented with no basis in existing law, violates the wording of the law as passed, which was maliciously transcribed to omit a clause explicitly banning immunity, and violates the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial for civil damages exceeding $20)
These are awful things, but again, you yourself mention “good faith interpretation”. This is a procedural problem with lawmaking in general that if you don’t specifically have an action codified in law that says “you cannot do this”, people will find ways to work around it. This is the case with both of the things you’ve mentioned, unfortunately.
Now, if the existing laws specifically had mentioned these things are illegal AND were in the constitution, and then somebody tried to enact them, thats a different story.
Instead these things exist because of bad faith interpretation of laws, and need to to be routed out by very specific wording or rulings.
They don’t need to stop them, because they are unconstituit. You can’t make up some bullshit that is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and win in court. Any half-assed lawyer can just file the paperwork to get this shit shut down, but that’s really the cruz here in that they are expecting people to not have the access to legal services to make it happen in the event they are challenged.
There will be more specific cases about this specific thing immediately being heard by the lower courts, they’ll rule against Trump, and this will end up in the Supreme Court again in the next session, no doubt on that.
This is a stalling tactic by Trump’s psychos to try and make it look they are able to bend the Constitution to their service, which will not happen because…it’s unconstitutional.
Sadly, this is not exactly accurate. See:
These are awful things, but again, you yourself mention “good faith interpretation”. This is a procedural problem with lawmaking in general that if you don’t specifically have an action codified in law that says “you cannot do this”, people will find ways to work around it. This is the case with both of the things you’ve mentioned, unfortunately.
Now, if the existing laws specifically had mentioned these things are illegal AND were in the constitution, and then somebody tried to enact them, thats a different story.
Instead these things exist because of bad faith interpretation of laws, and need to to be routed out by very specific wording or rulings.