change my mind

  Read a rather long posting on the constitution. This was written by someone claiming to be a constitutional scholar. I take that with a grain here on Facebook and didn't embark on some intensive investigation to determine his qualifications. So I read what he had to say and he did explain the separation of powers and the roles of each branch in government. I didn't read anything that I wasn't already aware of and I have to say, I'm no constitutional scholar by any stretch of the imagination. What I read was a lesson in basic civics, about the tenth grade or so. 

  Now I question this notion that you are "teaching" the constitution. I can read quite well and know what the words are. Yes some of them aren't used everyday and are a bit archaic but we have google, dictionaries and plenty of means to obtain a definition. It's my feeling any teaching you are doing is simply sharing your opinion of what those words mean. There are a little over 4500 words in that document. It isn't all that long really. The typical novel falls between 70,000 and 100,00 words. We can each read and interpret the constitution and a novel and come away with a different understanding. 

 It is the function of the supreme court to decide and issue an opinion on the constitutionality of proposed legislation or existing legislation. The opinion does change occasionally. But that is what precedent is all about. It is accepting the decision made in the past as justification for the decision being made today. The law of judicial precedent. Just because the precedent was set doesn't mean it remains in effect forever and can't be changed. There are two kinds of precedents. There are binding and persuasive precedents. Binding precedents are created by a higher court than the court that established that precedent. In other words, the only real binding precedent is set by the supreme court, it being the court of last appeal. You don't have to be a constitutional scholar to understand that. And even then it requires congress to agree with that opinion and set that precedent. That's the separation of powers thing. 

  A constitutional scholar is an expert in constitutional law. That is what they study and offer their opinions and insight upon. Mostly I view that as, this what it says, but this is what it means. You won the argument. That's what you do before the supreme court, argue with them. Your objective being to convince them that your opinion is the correct opinion. That's why precedent is so important, it always helps when you can say, well, so and so said so, this judge agreed, and that must be right, been that way for years now. It's like when you were  kid, everyone was doing it. 

  Now this scholar that had posted was arguing that a federal judge has the authority to overrule an executive order. It was in regard to the deportation of those illegals sent to El Salvador. The president did so using a legal precedent, the Alien enemies act to protect the United States of America. Seems to me it would take the supreme court and congress to revoke that power. That power was established in 1798, approved by congress. It would take the supreme court and congress to overturn it. That's just how it works, like it or not. Until that happens, the law remains in effect. Don't need a constitutional scholar or a law degree to understand that, it's just civics 101. 

 It is at this point the argument should begin. Regardless of your feelings about that power and Trump using it, in order to change, modify or revoke it, it takes the supreme court and congress to do so. A federal judge does not have that authority. The rule of judicial precedent applies. That federal judge is a lower court than the supreme court. That's just a simple fact. The authority presently rests with the president of the united states. That's the precedent here. The supreme court and congress said so, in 1798. Now it is up to you to change their mind should you not agree. It's like trying to change your mothers mind when you really want that toy, you may convince her, but then there is dad. The court may change their opinion but congress has to agree with that too.