The problem goes beyond the political leanings of judges to the speed of change and the administration’s apparent willingness to ignore court rulings it dislikes.
The founders didn’t even want to give the country a standing army. What precedent is there, contemporary or modern, where the judicial has its own direct enforcement arm?
In theory, police fill this role…it’s kind of in the name “law enforcement.” But in practice they are something else, they can be captured and corrupted like anyone else.
In theory, the military swears an oath to defend the Constitution. The Secretary of the Navy could decide, for instance, to order a military coup, storm the White House with Marines, and arrest Trump, Musk, et al. But this is extremely risky, both in tactical terms and in public image. At the end of the day, The People elected Trump, and they would be dishonoring that essential choice. Unless Trump does something like send B-52s to carpet bomb Los Angeles, the military will be determined to stay apolitical.
You’re all looking for some play-by-play guidebook or ruleset in breaking the rules. You will not find one, it is an oxymoron. The founders risked arrest and death by hanging by setting this country in motion, they were not following the rules either. I obviously won’t extol their moral character in whole, but they knew that the divine right of kings was wrong and that representative government was the future, and they acted upon these beliefs.
Maybe just put the US Marshals under the judiciary. It seems obvious that a Marshal who refuses to execute a warrant because his boss said not to should in turn be subject to contempt and arrested by a law-abiding Marshal. But in reality we’ll end up with the same issue that Congress has: no jail to hold people in.
Saw it phrased best by some opinion piece: “Because the courts don’t have a standing army to enforce orders, they have no recourse.”
Which is fucking terrifying. Something that I’ve not really considered before I suppose.
Founders should’ve given the courts an army
The founders didn’t even want to give the country a standing army. What precedent is there, contemporary or modern, where the judicial has its own direct enforcement arm?
In theory, police fill this role…it’s kind of in the name “law enforcement.” But in practice they are something else, they can be captured and corrupted like anyone else.
In theory, the military swears an oath to defend the Constitution. The Secretary of the Navy could decide, for instance, to order a military coup, storm the White House with Marines, and arrest Trump, Musk, et al. But this is extremely risky, both in tactical terms and in public image. At the end of the day, The People elected Trump, and they would be dishonoring that essential choice. Unless Trump does something like send B-52s to carpet bomb Los Angeles, the military will be determined to stay apolitical.
You’re all looking for some play-by-play guidebook or ruleset in breaking the rules. You will not find one, it is an oxymoron. The founders risked arrest and death by hanging by setting this country in motion, they were not following the rules either. I obviously won’t extol their moral character in whole, but they knew that the divine right of kings was wrong and that representative government was the future, and they acted upon these beliefs.
Quench the Tree of Liberty.
The tree, it yearns for blood. We should acquiesce.
There’s no joy in it, but it most likely is going to be the only way…
In theory, this is what the “unorganized militia” is for. A.k.a. you and me and every other able-bodied adult male.
Maybe just put the US Marshals under the judiciary. It seems obvious that a Marshal who refuses to execute a warrant because his boss said not to should in turn be subject to contempt and arrested by a law-abiding Marshal. But in reality we’ll end up with the same issue that Congress has: no jail to hold people in.