Discussion about legal topics, centered around United States
We don't need to change the constitution, because executive orders are a thing that is needed to communicate the executive branches intentions.
We need to enforce the separation of powers to stop illegal executive orders from being implemented. We used to do that to some extent.
Nobody has to comply with an executive order.
Nobody is legally required to comply with any order in any situation if they don't think it is moral.or ethical
Hard to not comply when the results are enforced by those with the power to enforce them.
"I'm not complying with this executive order." doesn't work when armed security throws you out of your office and cuts off access to do your job and you don't get paid anymore. Hard to not comply when the police arrest and jail you for not complying. Hard to not comply when ICE arrests and deports you and your family.
Even if you meant the government workers in the executive branch didn't have to comply with the order to fire everyone who is on probation, those that chose not to comply were fired and replaced with someone who would.
Without a court order to stop the order being enforced the executive orders are basically the president writing laws. Congress could impeach him for overreach, but they are complicit.
"I'm not complying with this executive order." doesn't work when armed security throws you out of your office and cuts off access to do your job and you don't get paid anymore. Hard to not comply when the police arrest and jail you for not complying. Hard to not comply when ICE arrests and deports you and your family.
I would agree with you if this had happened yet as a reaction to people in positions of power refusing to comply. Instead they're complicit or step down.
I assume you aren't referring to ICE deportations.
Article Five is the article on amending:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
TLDR there's two ways of proposing an amendment and two ways of ratifying them. Infographic:
But you really would only need to have Congress pass a law to undo one. Or wait for the next President to issue a new contrary order.
First step would require politicians that would actually want to pass such an amendment.
Two ways:
Have your representative introduce a resolution containing the amendment in Congress. Resolution has to pass both chambers with a super majority, then get ratified by 75% of state legislatures.
Have your representative introduce a resolution to call a constitutional convention to draft amendments. The resolution has to pass Congress, then the convention can be called. Any amendments that come out of the convention still need ratification from 75% of states.
Both ways involve lobbying Congress. There's no popular initiative process at the federal level in the US.
by guillotining the SCOTUS/congressional members (need to start with congressional, since they'll approve new scotus members) who are rubber stamping this nonsense.
Seriously , I don’t know what else could be effective. Many of these executive orders are already illegal, but the other branches are not sticking up for their prerogatives. If the system of checks and balances is failing, does it make a difference to fiddle around with what those checks and balances should have prevented?
The strangest part is I would have said it was foolproof. All they need is the self-interest of the other branches to protect their own power. Usually that has more or less worked, even when they’re the same party. So many self-serving, power hungry politicians just giving it all up after all their efforts to gain power. Why is basic human nature, even our worst impulses, not strengthening checks and balances?
because congressional critters are scared of the maga base. why do you think trump is pardoning all the J6ers?