Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nevilledog

(51,064 posts)
Tue Sep 14, 2021, 04:16 PM Sep 2021

I expect this to be a new talking point: governors' orders will supersede the president's orders



Tweet text:
Sarah Reese Jones
@PoliticusSarah
Greg Abbott claims governors' orders supersede presidential orders, "I believe that the governors' orders will supersede the president's orders because the president does not have the authority to impose this."

The Constitution disagrees.


8:20 AM · Sep 14, 2021
11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I expect this to be a new talking point: governors' orders will supersede the president's orders (Original Post) Nevilledog Sep 2021 OP
"The Constitution disagrees." dchill Sep 2021 #1
T***p losing REALLY gut punched these seditious clowns. nt Baked Potato Sep 2021 #2
Wait a minute, I thought county sherrifs were the law of the land. yonder Sep 2021 #3
I know we are in a battle for our country and democracy, but Biophilic Sep 2021 #4
But, but, but Trump said the President's authority is absolute. rsdsharp Sep 2021 #5
hmmm...dig up George Wallace and ask him Glorfindel Sep 2021 #6
Insurgent Republicans are trying to start Civil War II meow2u3 Sep 2021 #7
Yes, very 1850's. roamer65 Sep 2021 #10
Kind of a simplistic and meaningless analysis Effete Snob Sep 2021 #8
It's all fun and games till the federalized National Guard shows up. roamer65 Sep 2021 #9
Who the fuck does Abbott think he is, TFG? rickyhall Sep 2021 #11

yonder

(9,663 posts)
3. Wait a minute, I thought county sherrifs were the law of the land.
Tue Sep 14, 2021, 04:43 PM
Sep 2021

According to those kooky 1st amendment auditor types, they are.

Biophilic

(3,645 posts)
4. I know we are in a battle for our country and democracy, but
Tue Sep 14, 2021, 04:43 PM
Sep 2021

every day I sigh, breathe, and tell myself, yes, we really ARE in a battle for our country and democracy. I wasn't looking for this in my "Silver/or is it golden at this point." Could have used a peaceful retirement. The repugs continue to tick me off. Well, they do more than that, but I'm trying not to swear so much. But they make that goal really, really HARD.

Glorfindel

(9,726 posts)
6. hmmm...dig up George Wallace and ask him
Tue Sep 14, 2021, 04:50 PM
Sep 2021

how trying to supersede a president's orders worked out in his case.

meow2u3

(24,761 posts)
7. Insurgent Republicans are trying to start Civil War II
Tue Sep 14, 2021, 04:57 PM
Sep 2021

Nullification of Federal law is the first sign that rogue governors are in a state of rebellion and/or insurrection.

 

Effete Snob

(8,387 posts)
8. Kind of a simplistic and meaningless analysis
Tue Sep 14, 2021, 05:22 PM
Sep 2021

Whether a "governor's orders" supersede a "president's orders" depends on what subject matter we're talking about.

In the first place, neither the federal nor state constitutions vest a whole lot of direct authority in either governors or the president.

But if we are talking about something like "What color should the State Police vehicles be painted?" the US president would have utterly zero authority, relative to the governor of the state in question (if the power were assigned to that governor), on that question.

We have independent and sometimes overlapping systems of government in this country. Which one supersedes the other on any particular question depends on the question.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I expect this to be a new...