Week of 1/15/18: Judicial Rulings Impact Trump’s Agenda

Site-Wide Activity Forums Weekly News Week of 1/15/18: Judicial Rulings Impact Trump’s Agenda

This topic contains 3 replies, has 3 voices, and was last updated by  Dylan 1 year ago.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
  • Author
  • #2111

    Elan Isaacson

    This week’s articles are “A DACA Question: Should Judges Use Local Cases to Halt National Orders?” by Katie Benner and “The Dangerous Precedent Set by Judicial Attacks on Trump’s Travel Ban” by David Frum. These articles discuss a new developing theme in American Judicial rulings, where judges are stopping major national executive orders made by President Trump. What are your thoughts on the the arguments of the articles? Do you think the judges are justified in their rulings? Come discuss on our forums with other HP MUNC members.

    Please keep all discussion civil.



    I am pretty sure that the supremacy clause has some sort of relevance when it comes to talking about the power of local officials and federal rulings. Whether or not the judge finds the law just, it is his duty to judge according to that law. It doesn’t really matter what a local judge thinks about a federal decision, that is not his job. If he wanted to have power over those decisions, then he should have run for Congressional or Presidential offices. Conversely, don’t get a job you aren’t prepared to do. It would be like having a cop who refuses to arrest people because he thinks that the state of arrest is an unconstitutional form of slavery.


    Adam Liebell-McLean

    Okay, Dylan, your stance is both correct and incorrect at the same time. You are correct that judges are required to follow the laws of the land. That is in the Supremacy Clause. However, the assumption that a police officer is also subject to restriction under the same clause is false. The Supremacy Clause reads, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Public officials who are not judges are never mentioned. Police officers are not technically bound by the constitution. So your comparison breaks down there. However, you’re correct that judges are bound by the law. Yet, I would argue that a local judge who halts a federal decision on a legal basis is doing their duty in a democracy. By putting a temporary stop to a controversial federal decision a judge creates more opportunity for educated discussion about the topic.



    Not what I was trying to say. I was making a comparison of how it would be inappropriate to have someone fulfill that job despite being unable to perform a key function due to their beliefs. I’m not saying that the police have to exactly hold perfectly to the Constitution, although they kind of do. Also, a minor pet peeve of mine, America never has and hopefully never will be a democracy. That would be bad. America is a Constitutional Republic, although Reddit says it’s a Corporate Oligarchy. Anyway, under the principles of a Constitutional Republic, the public officials are bound to listen not to what the people want, but what the Constitution calls them to oblige by. A judge or really any official that refuses to do this is thus incapable of continuing to be a judge.

Viewing 4 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.