The power to rule any EO, judicial injunction, or law unconstitutional is unenumerated in the Constitution. That makes it a 10th amendment power: each State decides whether to recognize it, in accordance with its own state constitution OR is retained by the people directly.

You can't solve the problem of judicial overreach through the judiciary. In practice, it requires an agreement of the other two branches.

@SidneyPowell1 @OcrazioCornPop @PamBondi @EagleEdMartin I think that's a bad move. The Senate is too politically divided to convict, in which case the perception of the judiciary's authority to arbitrate the matter would be implicitly affirmed.

@steve_vladeck But your logic cuts both ways: it's up to the executive to decide *whether* an injunction (an act of state) ordered by a judge (the person undertaking it) is to be enforced, or is even enforceable. And the "point" of unelected judges is nowhere found in the constitution.

@JusticeMBeaver @JDVance And any future injunctions in the same case would trigger prior restraint (i.e., of no effect) until confirmed.

@JusticeMBeaver @JDVance That would bring the issue to an immediate head while he has the political momentum behind him. The longer this goes on, the worse it gets.

@JusticeMBeaver @JDVance If I was the president, I'd consider calling an emergency session of Congress after shutting down the whole Treasury. That would hang the problem around Congress's neck, (hopefully) forcing them to remove the DC circuit's jurisdiction.

@JusticeMBeaver @JDVance Looking at the order, I'm not sure that Trump/Bessent could comply with it even if they wanted to. It's just too broad. The only way it could be done is if the entire Treasury department was shut down, in which case no check could be written or sent out.

@TheLastRefuge2 You seem to imply that Trump will threaten the use of nuclear weapons. The conventional military's effectiveness has suffered from waste and fraud no less than any other part of government.

@JusticeMBeaver @JDVance Judgments can be ignored, force cannot be. That's the difference between judicial and executive powers.

@Guru2000Lego @JDVance The constitution only says that one (1) power, the judiciary power, resides in the Supreme Court (and the inferior courts established by Congress). Nothing about "broad powers" (plural).

@dbg8492 @KanDeegan @PhilHollowayEsq @DOGE @realDonaldTrump @POTUS @USTreasury I'd settle for people taking the time just to read the constitution closely. Would save everyone a lot of grief.

@SidneyPowell1 @Sargasmica @PamBondi @EagleEdMartin What happens if the petition is rejected? That's the danger.

So, about five or six courts OUT OF 94 total US district courts will be making the decisions as to whether the president is acting constitutionally--only in the states where he lost. How, exactly, does that happen?

@SidneyPowell1 After all, the state AGs, bar associations, and any future Democratic administration will go after them first.

@SidneyPowell1 If the legislation is defeated and he ignores the order going forward, it will appear that PT is defying the other two branches (not just one judge). Better to leave it unadjudicated, shuffle things around in the most minimal way, appeal, and in the meantime keep auditing.