Computer says: The passage makes several assertions that are historically and legally debatable: Judicial Review's Origins: The claim that judicial review “is not in The US Constitution” and was solely “carved out by Chief Justice John Marshall” oversimplifies the issue. While it's true that the Constitution does not explicitly state judicial review, most legal scholars agree that the practice is an inherent part of the constitutional system. Marbury v. Madison established judicial review as a principle, but it wasn’t simply a partisan takeover—rather, it was a necessary development to ensure that no branch exceeded its constitutional authority. Powers of Lower Courts: The assertion that “Fed district judges have no power to place injunctions on any policy implementation acts of any president” isn’t entirely accurate. While there are limits on when courts can intervene in executive actions (often hinging on doctrines like the political question or separation of powers), district courts do sometimes issue injunctions in cases involving policy actions when constitutional or statutory rights are at stake. Role of the Three Branches: The claim that “all 3 branches of government have a say in what's constitutional” is a contentious oversimplification. In practice, judicial review means that the Judicial Branch (specifically the Supreme Court and, by extension, lower courts) is the primary arbiter of constitutionality. The Executive and Legislative branches participate indirectly—through the nomination and confirmation of judges or through the drafting and amendment of laws—but they do not have a formal vote in judicial determinations of constitutionality. Overall, it reflects a particular ideological interpretation of constitutional history and the separation of powers that many scholars and legal practitioners might disagree with.
Reader----Another item of note from Article II of The US Constitution---The executive Power shall be vested in A President of the United States of America.
Article II doesn't say that The executive power shall be vested in a president and lower court judges.
A Fed district judge has no power within the executive branch and the allowance of Fed district judges to impose injunctions against executive actions by any president of any party serves to negate the power of that executive. This cannot be allowed to continue. SCOTUS is the only court that a president should pay attention to.
This move by Trump with the tariffs is a tremendous long term strategy to get manufacturing and jobs back to The US. We cannot have a country without a robust manufacturing sector. This is what we have been waiting for----A president that gets it and puts America and Americans first.
Oh, sure, strict adherence to the Constitution—except when it’s inconvenient, right? I mean, who needs to worry about things like, oh, the President flat-out saying he’d run for a third term, which, last time I checked, is kinda unconstitutional??? But hey, let’s just ignore that little detail and keep pretending we’re all about those good ol' constitutional values. Hypocrisy, anyone? But nah, that’s just part of the modern conservative playbook.
The next President will remove the tariffs their first day in office.Trump is destroying the economy for nothing.
Ah yes, "long-term strategy". And there's nothing like slapping tariffs on everything and hoping it magically works out in the long run. I mean, hell, who cares about the thousands of jobs that might get wiped out in the process or the massive price hikes for consumers? As long as it’s "Americans first," right? Forget the fact that this whole "robust manufacturing sector" thing takes YEARS to rebuild. Just put your faith in a move that’s got all the subtlety of a wrecking ball.