The PP says the US is giving 10 Billion to his Board of Peace...

[Diogenes]

BTW it isn't a judges job to tell a President what he can and can't do

separation of powers

where in the Constitution does it authorize judges to tell the Executive Branch what to do? I think you don't understand separation of powers

Does that mean the Executive Branch can tell the Judicial Branch what to do? Like how to rule on a case?

What the Constitution actually says and how it has always been interpreted:

• Article III, Section 2 explicitly gives the federal judiciary power over “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made…” When someone sues claiming a presidential action violates the Constitution or a statute, that is precisely a “case… arising under this Constitution.” Courts therefore have both the authority and the duty to decide it.
  
  
• Judicial review (the power to declare executive or legislative acts unconstitutional or unlawful) is not spelled out in a single “judges may overrule the President” sentence. It is derived from the structure of the document and was firmly established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803). That case (and every one since) has confirmed that courts can review executive actions—including executive orders—when they are challenged in a proper lawsuit.
  
  
• Separation of powers is real, but it is not the “no checks, no interaction” version you describe. The Framers built in checks and balances precisely so no branch becomes all-powerful. The judiciary’s check on the executive is to decide whether an action is legal/constitutional when the case is properly before the court. The executive cannot dictate how judges rule on cases (that would destroy judicial independence), and judges do not “run the government”—they only rule on specific legal questions presented to them.
  
  In short, courts do not roam around proactively ordering presidents around.

They wait for a lawsuit, apply the Constitution and statutes to the facts, and, if a presidential action exceeds a president's legal authority, they can enjoin it.

That is exactly what “ruling on presidential actions” means, and it has been standard constitutional practice for over two centuries.

Your view—that the executive is essentially immune from judicial scrutiny—is a recurring political argument (Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and more recent presidents have all voiced versions of it when a court blocked them).

But it has never been the law.

The Constitution authorizes judges to do exactly what the poster says they cannot: decide whether a president’s actions are lawful.

That is the constitutional duty you are rejecting.

 

[Jarod]

It is all you can handle

Did I say the President can do whatever he wants? No. Stop lying.

If the President is performing his duties under the US Constitution the Court has ZERO say

I know that the courts are where you marxists like to run to in order to get your way because you can't get the people to go along with your bullshit. Of course you don't like the courts if they don't rule your way which is why you talk about packing the courts.

Who can stop the president from performing outside his Constitutional limits if its not the judicary?

 

[Teflon Don]

Who can stop the president from performing outside his Constitutional limits if its not the judicary?

The US Constitution and the Legislative Branch.

Remember impeachment? You guys love it.

You marxists have relied on the courts because you are incapable of convincing the American people of your policies. You are also lazy so you find rogue judges that operate outside for their scope. I have lost count of the number of district court judges that have been slapped down for exceeding their authority. You probably forgot that.

But you don't care about the law. You only care about the 47th Amendment and trying to hamstring this President

 

[Diogenes]

The US Constitution and the Legislative Branch.

Remember impeachment? You guys love it.

You marxists have relied on the courts because you are incapable of convincing the American people of your policies. You are also lazy so you find rogue judges that operate outside for their scope. I have lost count of the number of district court judges that have been slapped down for exceeding their authority. You probably forgot that.

But you don't care about the law. You only care about the 47th Amendment and trying to hamstring this President

Marbury v. Madison (1803). That case (and every one since) has confirmed that courts can review executive actions—including executive orders.

 

[Jarod]

The US Constitution and the Legislative Branch.

Remember impeachment? You guys love it.

You marxists have relied on the courts because you are incapable of convincing the American people of your policies. You are also lazy so you find rogue judges that operate outside for their scope. I have lost count of the number of district court judges that have been slapped down for exceeding their authority. You probably forgot that.

But you don't care about the law. You only care about the 47th Amendment and trying to hamstring this President

So the legislative branch can order the Executive around, glad you learned something today.

You see, in the case that required The PP's other name be scraped off the Kennedy Memorial Center, did it on Constitutional Grounds.

 

[Teflon Don]

So the legislative branch can order the Executive around, glad you learned something today.

You see, in the case that required The PP's other name be scraped off the Kennedy Memorial Center, did it on Constitutional Grounds.

You are such a fucking idiot. No branch can "order" the other around. The legislative branch can pass laws. That is the check and balance.

You really are an insufferable prick.

I think it is time to put you on ignore for a while. You arent' even entertaining anymore. Don't bother responding. I won't see it

 

[Into the Night]

You're repeating the exact same talking point without a single official document, State Department notice, congressional report, or news article to back it up.

USAID was absorbed into the State Department in 2025. It no longer exists as an independent agency; its remaining functions were folded in, most programs canceled, and foreign aid now runs through State. That is not in dispute.

• Every single credible report on the Board of Peace funding—including the $1.25 billion actually reprogrammed in March 2026—explicitly calls it State Department action:
  • $1 billion from international disaster assistance
  • $200 million from peacekeeping operations
  • $50 million from international organizations/programs
• The full $10 billion pledge Trump announced in February 2026 has not been disbursed. The official World Bank-managed Board of Peace fund still sits at zero dollars. The State Department has said it intends to manage any U.S. allocations itself (not hand them over to the Board) and is still reviewing oversight mechanisms.

You've now posted multiple times with zero primary sources—just insults and the lone AI summary quoted earlier. That summary correctly notes the 2025 absorption but does not say the Board of Peace money “comes from USAID” or that State Department aid is still “called USAID.”

The evidence shows that you are wrong.

Exclusive: State Department sends $1.25B from other programs to Board of Peace

The administration is drawing on funds used for international disasters and peacekeeping to fund Trump’s Gaza effort.

www.semafor.com

P

You're repeating the exact same talking point without a single official document, State Department notice, congressional report, or news article to back it up.

USAID was absorbed into the State Department in 2025. It no longer exists as an independent agency; its remaining functions were folded in, most programs canceled, and foreign aid now runs through State. That is not in dispute.

• Every single credible report on the Board of Peace funding—including the $1.25 billion actually reprogrammed in March 2026—explicitly calls it State Department action:
  • $1 billion from international disaster assistance
  • $200 million from peacekeeping operations
  • $50 million from international organizations/programs
• The full $10 billion pledge Trump announced in February 2026 has not been disbursed. The official World Bank-managed Board of Peace fund still sits at zero dollars. The State Department has said it intends to manage any U.S. allocations itself (not hand them over to the Board) and is still reviewing oversight mechanisms.

You've now posted multiple times with zero primary sources—just insults and the lone AI summary quoted earlier. That summary correctly notes the 2025 absorption but does not say the Board of Peace money “comes from USAID” or that State Department aid is still “called USAID.”

The evidence shows that you are wrong.

Exclusive: State Department sends $1.25B from other programs to Board of Peace

The administration is drawing on funds used for international disasters and peacekeeping to fund Trump’s Gaza effort.

www.semafor.com

Propaganda isn't evidence. False authority fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

^ Ironic projection

Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

They believe he is a King, they do not care about or understand the United States Constitution, they are ignorant and uneducated for the most part.

You are describing yourself again, Pretender.

@Teflon Don

How dare a mere Judge tell him what he can and cant do.

A judge is not God, Pretender. He doesn't have to listen to any judge exceeding their authority.

 

[Into the Night]

It is a judges job to tell the executive when he has exceeded his authority, otherwise who would be able to stop a tyrant? Dumbshit.

What tyranny?? Void argument fallacy.

The Executive Branch executes the laws passed by Congress.

And that is what Trump is doing.

A short Primer:

Three branches, the Executive, the Legislative and the Jurical.

The Executive executive carries out the business of the United States within the laws and Constitution.
The Legislative creates the laws setting out the rules and budget.
The Judicial decides what those laws mean and the limits the constitution puts on the power of the Government.

Three co-equal branches.

The judicial branch has NO authority over any constitution, Pretender.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong, so in your mind the President can do anything he wants? Nothing to stop him?

RQAA. Go back and read it again, Pretender.

There is a dispute btw when someone says the president can’t do something and he does it…. That’s a dispute.

No. It's whining.

Are you dumb or just pretending?

Mantra 1a.

 

[IBDaMann]

I thought Congress had to appropriate all expenditures?

You were mistaken. Does Congress appropriate your expenditures?

More particularly the process must be started by the House of Representatives.

Do you wait every time for the House of Representatives to start the appropriation process for you to buy groceries?

 

[Into the Night]

So the legislative branch can order the Executive around, glad you learned something today.

You see, in the case that required The PP's other name be scraped off the Kennedy Memorial Center, did it on Constitutional Grounds.

Who is 'PP'?? There is no user here by that name.
Why would he have his name on the Kennedy Memorial Center??

There in the Constitution does it describe what name can be on the Kennedy Memorial Center sign??

 

[Into the Night]

What the Constitution actually says and how it has always been interpreted:

• Article III, Section 2 explicitly gives the federal judiciary power over “all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made…” When someone sues claiming a presidential action violates the Constitution or a statute, that is precisely a “case… arising under this Constitution.” Courts therefore have both the authority and the duty to decide it.
  
  
• Judicial review (the power to declare executive or legislative acts unconstitutional or unlawful) is not spelled out in a single “judges may overrule the President” sentence. It is derived from the structure of the document and was firmly established by the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison (1803). That case (and every one since) has confirmed that courts can review executive actions—including executive orders—when they are challenged in a proper lawsuit.
  
  
• Separation of powers is real, but it is not the “no checks, no interaction” version you describe. The Framers built in checks and balances precisely so no branch becomes all-powerful. The judiciary’s check on the executive is to decide whether an action is legal/constitutional when the case is properly before the court. The executive cannot dictate how judges rule on cases (that would destroy judicial independence), and judges do not “run the government”—they only rule on specific legal questions presented to them.
  
  In short, courts do not roam around proactively ordering presidents around.

They wait for a lawsuit, apply the Constitution and statutes to the facts, and, if a presidential action exceeds a president's legal authority, they can enjoin it.

That is exactly what “ruling on presidential actions” means, and it has been standard constitutional practice for over two centuries.

Your view—that the executive is essentially immune from judicial scrutiny—is a recurring political argument (Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, FDR, and more recent presidents have all voiced versions of it when a court blocked them).

But it has never been the law.

The Constitution authorizes judges to do exactly what the poster says they cannot: decide whether a president’s actions are lawful.

That is the constitutional duty you are rejecting.

No court has the authority to overrule the authority of the President.
No court has the authority to overrule, change, or interpret the Constitution of the United States or any other constitution.
No court has the authority to usurp power.

 

[IBDaMann]

It is a judges job to tell the executive when he has exceeded his authority, otherwise who would be able to stop a tyrant?

Nope. A judge's job is to decide cases based on law. You have never demonstrated any knowledge of US government.

 

[Diogenes]

Marbury v. Madison (1803) is the foundational Supreme Court case that established the principle of judicial review—the power of courts to declare acts of Congress (and, by extension, executive actions) unconstitutional and therefore void.

This case directly counters JustPlainPolitics posters claims that judges have no constitutional role in checking the Executive: the Court did review (and condemn) an executive official’s refusal to act, while simultaneously asserting its own limits.

Marshall concluded that the Constitution is the supreme law. Any act “repugnant to the constitution is void.”

Courts must follow the Constitution.

Marshall’s Opinion: “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” “A law repugnant to the constitution is void.”

The Constitution is written precisely so its limits “may not be mistaken, or forgotten.” If Congress or the Executive could ignore it, “the distinction between a government with limited and unlimited powers” would be abolished.

Significance and Connection to Separation of Powers: Established judicial review: It confirmed that courts—not Congress or the President—have the final say on constitutional meaning. This set the precedent that the judiciary polices the other branches without “running the government.” Judicial review is now a cornerstone of American constitutional law. It applies to both legislative and executive acts. Without it, the view that the Executive is immune from judicial scrutiny would prevail—but the Framers rejected that.

Courts can and do review presidential/executive actions for legality.

In short, Marbury v. Madison is the definitive answer: yes, the Constitution authorizes judges to tell the Executive Branch when it has overstepped legal bounds. That power flows directly from Article III and the supremacy of the written Constitution.

 

[Jarod]

You are such a fucking idiot. No branch can "order" the other around. The legislative branch can pass laws. That is the check and balance.

You really are an insufferable prick.

I think it is time to put you on ignore for a while. You arent' even entertaining anymore. Don't bother responding. I won't see it

So you do not believe that if someone complains to a court that the Executive is violating the Constitution that if the Court agrees they could order the executive to stop?

 

[Jarod]

The US Constitution and the Legislative Branch.

Remember impeachment? You guys love it.

You marxists have relied on the courts because you are incapable of convincing the American people of your policies. You are also lazy so you find rogue judges that operate outside for their scope. I have lost count of the number of district court judges that have been slapped down for exceeding their authority. You probably forgot that.

But you don't care about the law. You only care about the 47th Amendment and trying to hamstring this President

SO the Judicial branch can order the Executive branch to do or not do things? Right?

 

[Jarod]

Nope. A judge's job is to decide cases based on law. You have never demonstrated any knowledge of US government.

So what is to stop the Executive from taking over and violating the Constutution?

 

[Diogenes]

So you do not believe that if someone complains to a court that the Executive is violating the Constitution that if the Court agrees they could order the executive to stop?

Since Marbury v. Madison established judicial review in 1803, federal courts—including the Supreme Court—have possessed the authority to strike down presidential actions, executive orders, proclamations, or related agency directives when they exceed statutory authority, violate the Constitution, or infringe on separation of powers.

Circuit rulings like Ex parte Merryman in 1861 against Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus and the Supreme Court’s decision in Ex parte Milligan in 1866 striking down military trials of civilians where civilian courts functioned.

During the New Deal, the Court invalidated several Roosevelt-era orders in 1935 for improper congressional delegation of legislative power.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer in 1952 ruled against Truman’s steel-mill seizure.

In recent years, courts have blocked or limited actions—such as certain Trump travel bans, sanctuary-city funding conditions, and Biden’s student-loan forgiveness plan.

Not only that, but as Marbury v. Madison established long ago,the federal courts can step in if legislation violates the Constitution.