FB_IMG_1747020370338

TIME FOR A CHANGE...THE PRESIDENT IS THE ONLY NATIONALLY ELECTED REPRESENTATIVE OF "WE THE PROPLE" IF ANYONE CAN BLOCK HIS FULFILMENT OF PROMISES MADE TO VOTERS...THEN WHO RUNS OUR COUNTRY? TIME TO FIND OUT...THE CONSTITUTION IS THE LAW...NOTHING ELSE IS...THE PRESIDENT HAS SPECIAL POWERS ABOVE ALL OTHER BRANCHES IN NATIONAL EMERGENCIES...USE THEM...MAKE CONGRESS DENY THAT EVEN LAWS THEY PASSED...THE SCOTUS FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL...AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH MUST FOLLOW...CAN BE STOPPED BY A LOWER COURT JUDGE. WITH THE SUPPORT OF " WE THE PEOPLE" I BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT WILL WIN THIS COMBAT! THERE IS PRECEDENT OF PRESIDENTS REFUSING SCOTUS DECISIONS. PLEASE RESEARCH. , the Supreme Court cannot directly arrest the President. While the court can issue orders, it does not have the power to enforce its orders through arrest, especially against the head of the executive branch. The President is subject to criminal prosecution, but only after being impeached and convicted by Congress. Here's a more detailed explanation: Presidential Immunity: The Constitution and the judiciary generally recognize a level of protection for the President, including immunity from criminal prosecution while in office, according to the University of Virginia School of Law. This immunity is primarily aimed at preserving the President's ability to function effectively, says the Supreme Court. Impeachment and Trial: The Constitution outlines a process for removing a President through impeachment and trial by the Senate, according to the U.S. Senate. This is the sole mechanism for potentially holding a President accountable for misconduct while in office. Enforcement of Court Orders: While the Supreme Court has the power to issue rulings that may affect the President's actions, it does not have the authority to directly enforce its orders through arrest or other law enforcement measures against the President, as detailed by Congress.gov. Judicial Review: The Supreme Court does have the power of judicial review, meaning it can declare laws or executive actions unconstitutional. However, this power does not include the ability to directly arrest the President. Supreme Court's Role in Presidential Immunity: The Supreme Court has addressed the issue of presidential immunity in several cases, including Trump v. United States, but the specific question of whether the Supreme Court can arrest the President has not been definitively answered, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. While there isn't a precise number of times presidents have outright refused to enforce Supreme Court decisions, there are notable instances where presidents did not act in accordance with the Court's rulings. In these cases, the executive branch often took actions that effectively circumvented or ignored the Court's decisions. Here's a more detailed look: Executive Branch Actions: The executive branch has several ways to influence the implementation of court decisions. These include: Non-enforcement: Not taking any action to enforce a ruling, essentially ignoring it. Limited Enforcement: Enforcing a ruling in a way that is not in line with the Court's intent or scope. Challenging the Ruling: The executive branch can challenge the ruling in court, either directly or through a related lawsuit. Working with Congress: The executive branch can work with Congress to pass legislation that could contradict the Court's ruling or limit its impact. Using Executive Orders: The president can issue executive orders to take actions that are not explicitly mandated by law, potentially circumventing a court ruling. Examples of Non-Enforcement: Worcester v. Georgia (1832): President Andrew Jackson refused to enforce the Supreme Court's decision in this case, which had found that the state of Georgia could not interfere with the Cherokee nation. Ex parte Merryman (1861): President Abraham Lincoln did not fully enforce the Supreme Court's ruling in this case, which had challenged Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Other Examples: Brown v. Board of Education (1954): While the ruling itself was generally upheld, the desegregation of schools was a complex process, and some states resisted the implementation of the ruling. Korematsu v. United States (1944): While the Supreme Court upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the decision was later viewed as having been wrongly decided. In summary, while presidents may not directly refuse to enforce court decisions, they can use various means to influence the implementation of those decisions, sometimes in ways that effectively circumvent the court's rulings. uscourts gov usconstitution gov federaljudicialcenter gov ucb edu scotus gov aclu com