Trump mental stability crisis raises urgent constitutional questions
Trump mental stability crisis raises urgent questions about impeachment and the 25th Amendment after reports of erratic behavior during a military emergencyhttps://thedemocracyadvocate.com/news-to-know/trump-watch/trump-mental-stability-crisis/
MAMDANI Act dangerous unconstitutional overreach threatens civil liberties
MAMDANI Act dangerous unconstitutional overreach threatens free speech and due process by targeting ideology and stripping court reviewhttps://thedemocracyadvocate.com/news-to-know/u-s-politics/mamdani-act/
A constitution written in 1972 is going to be different to one written in 1787.
All of that stuff mentioned that is in the #Montana constitution but not in the U.S.A. constitution is classic learned-from-the-mistakes stuff. The Basic Law of #Germany has a human dignity clause, too. It's actually the very first article. The two constitutions also put the list of rights first.
And of course Congress passed the ERA in 1972, so that's going to be in there.
Those convictions were the result of a jury and the evidence was overwhelming regarding their guilt in committing the crime. To have their convictions overturned is MORALLY wrong and Trump is lecturing the Pope regarding morality?
Plus while Trump can pardon them, overturning their convictions is the duty of the Judicial Branch. I am not so sure that the DOJ would not be violating the separation of powers" by doing so.
"... this government has not been doing this reluctantly, narrowly, or transparently....It has treated the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the Bill of Rights Act as obstacles to be circumnavigated rather than as structural elements of the constitutional order it is supposed to uphold.
The cumulative record is damning."
https://thejackalman.blogspot.com/2026/04/luxons-twelve-acts-of-constitutional.html
# law #ConstitutionalLaw
Is there anyone LAWYER, LAW PROFESSOR or otherwise that can answer this question?
Law, especially Constitutional Law, is troubling. It's not because it is unclear but because it's simplicity begs interpretation or ruling beyond it's written meaning.
For instance, Article 2 Section 3, the "take care clause", gives the President the SOLE responsibility for Federal Law enforcement. It doesn't say Attorney General and it's never been changed to reflect the Congressional creation of the DOJ in 1870.
The actual responsibility for Federal Law enforcement still lies at the feet of the President. The DOJ was created to assist the President with his Constitutional duties. He appoints the Attorney General, with Senate approval, and the AG reports directly to the President. The President can fire the AG at will! The DOJ was made a part of the Executive Branch to be controlled by the President!
Now the question:
I have researched the issue and find that there are past practices and fear regarding political influence of the DOJ by the President. However, nowhere is there any documentation that relieves the President from his constitutional duty to ENFORCE FEDERAL LAW nor lead the Department of Justice!
Is Trump correct in stating that the President is the nations Chief Law Enforcement Officer?
Please!
Tricky, tricky.
But the judge is not fooled.
Federal judge finds #DefSec's team is violating his Mar 20 court order to restore access to journos w/rules expelling reporters from the Pentagon unless guided by escorts.
The Democracy Advocate
Follow GOLF
JdeBP
PerryM โ
Marsden
Waldorf
GinaInTheBurg โ๐๐บ๐ฆ๐
Gina Intheburg ๐บ๐ฆ ๐ป ๐ฅฅ๐ด
Citizens' Impeachment