Could you point to your source for the claim about the Marshall’s Service falling under the Judicial Branch of the government? My understanding is that his belongs to the DoJ so would fall under the Executive Branch.
Separately, I do wonder if we’re speculating about cases that might be labeled in the gray area of the incomplete contract (Constitution), I wonder what might happen if States claim their right to call out their National Guard and perhaps even the more general malitia (interesting if that could be State draft or purely voluntary—i.e., giving military arms to able bodied men), President calls out military, and then Congress tell all the military their pay is frozen—meaning not only DoD and it’s branches but the service men and any contractors—what might happen.
If Treasury just says go ef’ yourself Congress and cuts the checks not much hope. But what if the banking system refused to honor them given the S.C and Congress’s rulings?
Seems like at this point we’re talking about some serious brinkmanship, and to be honest I would really prefer not to live in such times (like many actually get a choice here) given the potential for escalation to all out civil war. But I do wonder if perhaps the bigger checks here might not be the informal checks and balances. It seems that perhaps in the scenario envisions (as I understand it—a serious breakdown in government processes and checks-balance among the branches) even applying any presumably defined law or division of power is very problematic—which is a bit different from saying the other branches should not try.
But I would also think (as seems true today) you simply don’t get to the situation suggested without the government processes and functions related to checks and balances already having deteriorated to the point of disfunction—which I would suggest is the case and has been developing for many years -- 50? 100? We’ve seen a lot of political structure innovation that is not quite consistent with the Constitution (Congressional delegation of powers, partnership among the branches for efficiency reasons, party domination that serves to eliminate the assumed checks and balances...).
Could you point to your source for the claim about the Marshall’s Service falling under the Judicial Branch of the government? My understanding is that his belongs to the DoJ so would fall under the Executive Branch.
Source: I made it up!
Apparently I was wrong. There is a Marshal under the direct control of the supreme court, but it’s just a single guy, who does control a police force, but the mandate of that police force is to protect the supreme court, not to enforce orders. I’ll try to update the post with my new understanding tonight.
No worries, we all make some mistakes with our assumptions at times and forget to double check every fact. I think it was a minor, and largely trivial error to the larger point. i just wasn’t sure and did a quick google check (so had Gemini answering, but I’ve seen it hallucinate enough to not take it as certian) but that can easily miss some finer points.
I confused the Supreme Court Marshal and the U.S. Marshals. It’s particularly easy to confuse them because the job of the U.S. Marshals is to enforce court orders, it just happens to be under the control of the executive.
Could you point to your source for the claim about the Marshall’s Service falling under the Judicial Branch of the government? My understanding is that his belongs to the DoJ so would fall under the Executive Branch.
I believe this is a minor mistake, see my other comment.
what if the banking system refused to honor them given the S.C and Congress’s rulings?
This is one reason why the independence of the FED is important. The US has a very centralized banking system which is technically governed by the executive branch.
Could you point to your source for the claim about the Marshall’s Service falling under the Judicial Branch of the government? My understanding is that his belongs to the DoJ so would fall under the Executive Branch.
Separately, I do wonder if we’re speculating about cases that might be labeled in the gray area of the incomplete contract (Constitution), I wonder what might happen if States claim their right to call out their National Guard and perhaps even the more general malitia (interesting if that could be State draft or purely voluntary—i.e., giving military arms to able bodied men), President calls out military, and then Congress tell all the military their pay is frozen—meaning not only DoD and it’s branches but the service men and any contractors—what might happen.
If Treasury just says go ef’ yourself Congress and cuts the checks not much hope. But what if the banking system refused to honor them given the S.C and Congress’s rulings?
Seems like at this point we’re talking about some serious brinkmanship, and to be honest I would really prefer not to live in such times (like many actually get a choice here) given the potential for escalation to all out civil war. But I do wonder if perhaps the bigger checks here might not be the informal checks and balances. It seems that perhaps in the scenario envisions (as I understand it—a serious breakdown in government processes and checks-balance among the branches) even applying any presumably defined law or division of power is very problematic—which is a bit different from saying the other branches should not try.
But I would also think (as seems true today) you simply don’t get to the situation suggested without the government processes and functions related to checks and balances already having deteriorated to the point of disfunction—which I would suggest is the case and has been developing for many years -- 50? 100? We’ve seen a lot of political structure innovation that is not quite consistent with the Constitution (Congressional delegation of powers, partnership among the branches for efficiency reasons, party domination that serves to eliminate the assumed checks and balances...).
Source: I made it up!
Apparently I was wrong. There is a Marshal under the direct control of the supreme court, but it’s just a single guy, who does control a police force, but the mandate of that police force is to protect the supreme court, not to enforce orders. I’ll try to update the post with my new understanding tonight.
LOL—HSI hallucinations?
No worries, we all make some mistakes with our assumptions at times and forget to double check every fact. I think it was a minor, and largely trivial error to the larger point. i just wasn’t sure and did a quick google check (so had Gemini answering, but I’ve seen it hallucinate enough to not take it as certian) but that can easily miss some finer points.
I confused the Supreme Court Marshal and the U.S. Marshals. It’s particularly easy to confuse them because the job of the U.S. Marshals is to enforce court orders, it just happens to be under the control of the executive.
I believe this is a minor mistake, see my other comment.
This is one reason why the independence of the FED is important. The US has a very centralized banking system which is technically governed by the executive branch.