Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Today's Q and A, what would happen if President Trump
ignored federal cord orders? Yeah, So, as we take a
look at today's QNA, brought to you as always by
listen ashes check mark collections. Each day I feature a
listener question sent by one of these methods. You may
email me Brian Mudd at iHeartMedia dot com, hit me
(00:23):
up on social at Brian Mud Radio. They also use
the iHeart Radio talk back feature. We would love it
if you would go inside of the iHeartRadio app and
make w JNO or you're a patriot your number one preset.
That way, you have us on demand everywhere you go
for free. And likewise, if you'd make the Brian Mud
(00:43):
Show podcast my podcast, you're number two preset awesome sauce.
And while you're doing that, you look for a little
microphone button you see that you tap it, you may
lay down a message right there, maybe a topic or
question for a future Q and A, just like this one.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
When you say that the lower court judge and have
the authority to override the president deporting you with immigrants,
why is he conforming to the order and not continue to.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Deport Ooh so this is good, right? It is super tempting.
It is super tempting when there appears to be judicial overreach,
something that is clear judicial overreach, to say, you know what, screw.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
It, we're just going to do it. We're going to
go forward. We're going to do our thing.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
When it's your preferred politician, when it's a policy position
you agree with, it's tempting. Now, the term constitutional crisis
overuse and abuse these days. However, what is risked by
this train of thinking is what a real constitutional crisis
(01:47):
would look like.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
So there's a better than not chance.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
You are fully aware of the different branches of government.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Joel has some meth ready executive, legislative, and judicial. Almost
like you've been practicing. Don't get it wrong, don't get
it wrong. Now you've got it. You got it, and
look I know it.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
I get it that we understand legislative, executive, judicial. But
let's hit the reset button real quick. Just got to
walk through this dynamic. So the legislative branch is Congress
makes the laws, rights, debates passes.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
All that legislation.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
They controlled the budget, the purse strings. They have powers
to declare war. President does not declare war. Congresses right,
President controls foreign policy. They also can impeach officials.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
So you have the executive branch you have led by
the president and enforces laws, implements legislation, manages foreign policy, commands,
the military convene to the laws or issue executive orders.
And your judicial branch, which is headed by the Supreme Court,
interprets laws, reviews laws and actions for constitutionality, resolves disputes,
(03:08):
ensures laws align.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
With the constitution. Okay, So this kind of takes it.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
To that next level where they're all intertwined. The checks
and balances. So the president, for example, can veto laws,
but Congress can even override a presidential veto.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
With two thirds of the vote.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
The Supreme Court can strike down laws, but then again,
Congress can just amend the constitution. Congress approves budgets, but
the president executes spending.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
All intertwined intentionally.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
So that takes us to what would happen if President
Trump just ignored court orders. Doing so would trigger an
actual constitutional crisis, as the executive branch to find the
judiciary undermines the separation of powers. In response, you probably
get a judiciary that would issue contempt rulinings if that
already happened, law enforcement would be directed under the Department
(04:07):
of Justice to carry out the enforcement action, but would they.
In President Trump order pressure, the DOJ. Congress would have
the ability to respond with impeachment proceedings because ignoring court
orders would be deemed a high crime and misdemeanor.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
But would they.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
So the bottom line is it's just not an outcome
that we should hope to see or or root for,
regardless of one's political preferences, because the story doesn't end
well no matter where it goes, it's not a good ending,
and certainly the time will come where there's a politician
that would be involved in that that you would not
if the Republic would survive it, that would abuse it
(04:48):
in ways that you would not like. So there is
one example in US history that most closely tested the
balance of powers. Happened pretty early on, and it actually
coincides with one of the lowest point in American history
and the eighteen thirties. President Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme
Court's ruling in Worcester versus the State of Georgia. This
(05:10):
was in eighteen thirty two. In that Supreme Court ruling,
it declared that Georgia's laws seeking to take over Cherokee
lands were unconstitutional, that only the federal government had authority
over Native American tribes. So the Court, led by Chief
Justice John Marshall, ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a
sovereign entity in George's attempts to seize their land violated
(05:36):
federal treaties.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Now, Jackson.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Happened to support Indian Removal, and he's alleged to have
said John Marshall has made his decision, now let him
enforce it. In other words, Supreme Court can rule what
it wants to rule, but my administration is not going
to be enforcing it. So, in other words, he did
not use federal authority to stop Georgia from taking kind
(06:09):
of like next steps in this whole deal, and instead
he continued to push for the removal of Cherokee and
other tribes under the Indian Removal Act and the force
relocation known as the Trailer of Tears. So the only
reason that a constitutional crisis was avoided in that instance
(06:31):
was because the result of the defiance was in action.
Remember this was a case involving Georgia, not the federal government,
so specifically, so he just chose not to enforce the law.
And this would be analogous to Biden right for four years,
like open border and we have all.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
These immigration laws.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Enforce the laws. This is not right, and it wasn't right.
But that was the thing, was the Biden administration just
chose not to enforce the law. That would be like
what Jackson did with the Native tribes. There are no
historical examples of federal court rulings that have been ignored
by continued action just kind of like you know, of
(07:15):
course said we have to stop this, we're going to
keep doing it. That's never occurred, and it would be
best that it remains that way. The answer to judicial
activism is what's happening right now, which includes the Supreme
Court taking up the administration's challenge to lower federal court
authority and then also winning elections and just appointing constitutionalists
as judges as opposed to activists to the bench.
Today's Q and A, what would happen if President Trump
ignored federal cord orders? Yeah, So, as we take a
look at today's QNA, brought to you as always by
listen ashes check mark collections. Each day I feature a
listener question sent by one of these methods. You may
email me Brian Mudd at iHeartMedia dot com, hit me
(00:23):
up on social at Brian Mud Radio. They also use
the iHeart Radio talk back feature. We would love it
if you would go inside of the iHeartRadio app and
make w JNO or you're a patriot your number one preset.
That way, you have us on demand everywhere you go
for free. And likewise, if you'd make the Brian Mud
(00:43):
Show podcast my podcast, you're number two preset awesome sauce.
And while you're doing that, you look for a little
microphone button you see that you tap it, you may
lay down a message right there, maybe a topic or
question for a future Q and A, just like this one.
Speaker 2 (00:57):
When you say that the lower court judge and have
the authority to override the president deporting you with immigrants,
why is he conforming to the order and not continue to.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
Deport Ooh so this is good, right? It is super tempting.
It is super tempting when there appears to be judicial overreach,
something that is clear judicial overreach, to say, you know what, screw.
Speaker 3 (01:21):
It, we're just going to do it. We're going to
go forward. We're going to do our thing.
Speaker 1 (01:26):
When it's your preferred politician, when it's a policy position
you agree with, it's tempting. Now, the term constitutional crisis
overuse and abuse these days. However, what is risked by
this train of thinking is what a real constitutional crisis
(01:47):
would look like.
Speaker 3 (01:48):
So there's a better than not chance.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
You are fully aware of the different branches of government.
Speaker 3 (01:55):
Joel has some meth ready executive, legislative, and judicial. Almost
like you've been practicing. Don't get it wrong, don't get
it wrong. Now you've got it. You got it, and
look I know it.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
I get it that we understand legislative, executive, judicial. But
let's hit the reset button real quick. Just got to
walk through this dynamic. So the legislative branch is Congress
makes the laws, rights, debates passes.
Speaker 3 (02:27):
All that legislation.
Speaker 1 (02:28):
They controlled the budget, the purse strings. They have powers
to declare war. President does not declare war. Congresses right,
President controls foreign policy. They also can impeach officials.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Okay.
Speaker 1 (02:45):
So you have the executive branch you have led by
the president and enforces laws, implements legislation, manages foreign policy, commands,
the military convene to the laws or issue executive orders.
And your judicial branch, which is headed by the Supreme Court,
interprets laws, reviews laws and actions for constitutionality, resolves disputes,
(03:08):
ensures laws align.
Speaker 3 (03:09):
With the constitution. Okay, So this kind of takes it.
Speaker 1 (03:12):
To that next level where they're all intertwined. The checks
and balances. So the president, for example, can veto laws,
but Congress can even override a presidential veto.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
With two thirds of the vote.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
The Supreme Court can strike down laws, but then again,
Congress can just amend the constitution. Congress approves budgets, but
the president executes spending.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
All intertwined intentionally.
Speaker 1 (03:44):
So that takes us to what would happen if President
Trump just ignored court orders. Doing so would trigger an
actual constitutional crisis, as the executive branch to find the
judiciary undermines the separation of powers. In response, you probably
get a judiciary that would issue contempt rulinings if that
already happened, law enforcement would be directed under the Department
(04:07):
of Justice to carry out the enforcement action, but would they.
In President Trump order pressure, the DOJ. Congress would have
the ability to respond with impeachment proceedings because ignoring court
orders would be deemed a high crime and misdemeanor.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
But would they.
Speaker 1 (04:25):
So the bottom line is it's just not an outcome
that we should hope to see or or root for,
regardless of one's political preferences, because the story doesn't end
well no matter where it goes, it's not a good ending,
and certainly the time will come where there's a politician
that would be involved in that that you would not
if the Republic would survive it, that would abuse it
(04:48):
in ways that you would not like. So there is
one example in US history that most closely tested the
balance of powers. Happened pretty early on, and it actually
coincides with one of the lowest point in American history
and the eighteen thirties. President Andrew Jackson defied the Supreme
Court's ruling in Worcester versus the State of Georgia. This
(05:10):
was in eighteen thirty two. In that Supreme Court ruling,
it declared that Georgia's laws seeking to take over Cherokee
lands were unconstitutional, that only the federal government had authority
over Native American tribes. So the Court, led by Chief
Justice John Marshall, ruled that the Cherokee Nation was a
sovereign entity in George's attempts to seize their land violated
(05:36):
federal treaties.
Speaker 3 (05:38):
Now, Jackson.
Speaker 1 (05:40):
Happened to support Indian Removal, and he's alleged to have
said John Marshall has made his decision, now let him
enforce it. In other words, Supreme Court can rule what
it wants to rule, but my administration is not going
to be enforcing it. So, in other words, he did
not use federal authority to stop Georgia from taking kind
(06:09):
of like next steps in this whole deal, and instead
he continued to push for the removal of Cherokee and
other tribes under the Indian Removal Act and the force
relocation known as the Trailer of Tears. So the only
reason that a constitutional crisis was avoided in that instance
(06:31):
was because the result of the defiance was in action.
Remember this was a case involving Georgia, not the federal government,
so specifically, so he just chose not to enforce the law.
And this would be analogous to Biden right for four years,
like open border and we have all.
Speaker 3 (06:52):
These immigration laws.
Speaker 1 (06:53):
Enforce the laws. This is not right, and it wasn't right.
But that was the thing, was the Biden administration just
chose not to enforce the law. That would be like
what Jackson did with the Native tribes. There are no
historical examples of federal court rulings that have been ignored
by continued action just kind of like you know, of
(07:15):
course said we have to stop this, we're going to
keep doing it. That's never occurred, and it would be
best that it remains that way. The answer to judicial
activism is what's happening right now, which includes the Supreme
Court taking up the administration's challenge to lower federal court
authority and then also winning elections and just appointing constitutionalists
as judges as opposed to activists to the bench.
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!