As much as I’d love to see little donnie charged with everything in the books…
Putting enforcement under the purview of the branch primarily charged with interpreting the laws gives a rather perverse incentive to see their own prosecutors succeed and as such interpret things to accomplish that goal. It’s bad enough having lifetime scotus appointments by a president extending their influence beyond their term, putting prosecution in that same branch’s watch could secure a dictator-in-abstentia spot pretty quick.
Well, moving it would require either an amendment or a new constitution, so you fix that problem with term limits and greater checks and balances on the Judicial.
The Court has always had a problem with enforcement:
Well that’s the #1 thing we learned last time, the Justice Department serves the executive and will not investigate or indict their boss.
Good argument to move the Justice Department from the executive branch to the Judicial Branch. Give the Supreme Court some teeth.
As much as I’d love to see little donnie charged with everything in the books…
Putting enforcement under the purview of the branch primarily charged with interpreting the laws gives a rather perverse incentive to see their own prosecutors succeed and as such interpret things to accomplish that goal. It’s bad enough having lifetime scotus appointments by a president extending their influence beyond their term, putting prosecution in that same branch’s watch could secure a dictator-in-abstentia spot pretty quick.
Well, moving it would require either an amendment or a new constitution, so you fix that problem with term limits and greater checks and balances on the Judicial.
The Court has always had a problem with enforcement:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia