re: Can the executive branch sue the legislature for failure to do work?

quote:

---

Traditionally it was looked at as such.

---

I'm going to tell you the same thing I told SFP when he kept arguing that the SAVE Act is unconstitutional even though it clearly says in Article 1, Section 4, that it's not. His argument was, "It's been traditionally conceptualized as such, regardless of what the Constitution says."

My response is that we don't live in a Traditional Republic. We live in a Constitutional Republic. This isn't the Catholic Church, where the organization looks at tradition as being equal with foundational documents.

The Constitution is the law of the land here. Not tradition.

quote:

---

Where is the the X district of ABC mentioned in the Constitution?

---

And if I were making a claim about the X district of ABC, that would be a relevant question to ask. Since I'm not, it's an asinine red herring.

You made a declarative claim about something that the Constitution clearly exists to provide...separation of powers.

If you had said, "The FFers didn't think the SCOTUS would have much to do...they put them in a little back room, in fact," that would have made a lot more sense than what you actually said.

My response would have been, "Yeah, that makes sense in a brand new nation without many laws yet. But that this point there are so many laws and ordinances made by so many legislative bodies that no one even knows how many there are (true story, some think as many as 350,000). They have plenty to do now. Besides, not having much to do is not the same as not being as important."

quote:

---

So with that said, tell me where x district in ABC is in the Constitution, and allowed to hold up the Executive branch?

---

Why do I need to tell you anything about that?

I'm on record as rejecting an argument from silence from a poster on a message board when it comes to making a positive claim about separation of powers.

How does that obligate me to agree that the Supreme Court doesn't often have to settle cases about which there is no specific Constitutional text? That's their job. That's why the branch exists.

They often have no choice but to argue from silence (or rather, to attempt to construct an argue from other legal concepts), and it's their entire reason for existing to decide what the Executive and Legislative branches may or may not do.

Do they overstep that? Sure. The "penumbra" nonsense is well documented. But there's little that anyone can do about it except deal with it and bring it up again later, like Roe v Wade. That's the way the country was designed.