[westurner]

Shouldn't that require a Constitutional Amendment?

Such a law would bypass Constitutional Separation of Powers (with limited privileges and immunities) i.e. checks and balances.

Why isn't the investigative/prosecutorial branch distinct from the executive and judicial branches though?

[JumpCrisscross]

> Shouldn't that require a Constitutional Amendment?

No, Article III § 1 explicitly vests judicial power “in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish” [1].

> Why isn't the investigative/prosecutorial branch distinct from the executive and judicial branches though?

What do you think executing laws means?

[1] https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-3/#ar...

[westurner]

No, to change the separation of powers they need a constitutional amendment because that's a change to the Constitution, and amendments are the process for changing the Constitution.

To interpret what was meant by Liberty and Equality as values, as a strict constructionist.

[JumpCrisscross]

> to change the separation of powers they need a constitutional amendment because that's a change to the Constitution

The Constitution literally says the Congress has the power to establish inferior courts. Congress setting what is justifiable is highly precedented.

The words “separation of powers” never appear in the Constitution. It’s a phrase used to describe the system that document establishes.

[Gormo]

> The Constitution literally says the Congress has the power to establish inferior courts. Congress setting what is justifiable is highly precedented.

I'm having a great deal of difficulty understanding how you got from "Congress may establish inferior courts" all the way to "Congress has the power to exclude its legislation from judicial review, including that of the Supreme Court itself, at its own prerogative". Could you explain this chain of reasoning?

> The words “separation of powers” never appear in the Constitution. It’s a phrase used to describe the system that document establishes.

Yes, no one argued otherwise. Separation of powers is indeed established by the Constitution, regardless of what specific terminology is used to explain the concept.

[westurner]

Can Congress grant rights? No, because persons have natural rights, inalienable rights; and such enumeration of the rights of persons occurs only in the Declaration, which - along with the Articles of Confederation - frames the intent, spirit, and letter of the Constitution ; which itself very specifically limits the powers of the government and affords a process of amendment wit quorum for changes to such limits of the government in law.

Congress may not delegate right-granting privileges because the legislature hasn't right-granting privileges itself.

The Constitution is very clear that there are to be separate branches; each with limited privileges and immunities, and none with the total immunity of a Tyrant king.

A system of courts to hear offenses per the law determined by the federal and state legislatures with a Federal Constitutional Supremacy Clause, a small federal government, a federal minarchy, and a state divorce from British case law precedent but not common law or Natural Rights.

And so the Constitution limits the powers of each branch of government, and to amend the Constitution requires an amendment.

Why shouldn't we all filibuster court nominations?

Without an independent prosecutor, Can the - e.g. foreign-installed or otherwise fraudulent - executive obstruct DOJ investigations of themselves that conclude prior to the end of their term by terminating a nominated and confirmed director of an executive DOJ department, install justices with with his signature, and then pardon themselves and their associates?

The Court can or will only hear matters of law. Congress can impune and impeach but they're not trained as prosecutors either; so which competent court will hear such charges? Did any escape charges for war crimes, tortre without due process, terror and fear? Whose former counsel on the court now.

What delegations of power, duties, and immunities can occur without constitutional amendment?

Who's acting president today? Where's your birth certificate? You're not even American.

What amendments could we have?

1. You cannot pardon yourself, even as President. Presidents are not granted total immunity (as was recently claimed before the court), they are granted limited Privileges and Immunities.

2. Term limits for legislators, judges, and what about distinguished public/civil servants who pick expensive fights for the rest of us to fight and pay for? You sold us to the banks. Term limits all around.

3. Your plan must specify investment success and failure criteria. (Plan: policy, legislative bill, program, schedule,)

Can Congress just delegate privileges - for example, un-equal right-granting privileges - without an Amendment, because there is to be a system of lower courts?

[alrdyobstructed]

Additional things that the Constitution, written in the 1770s, doesn't quite get, handle, or address:

US contractors operating abroad on behalf of the US government must obey US government laws while operating abroad. This includes "torture interrogation contractors" hired by an illegally-renditioning executive.

The Federal and State governments have contracted personal defense services to a privately-owned firm. Are they best legally positioned to defend, and why are they better funded than the military?

What prevents citizens from running a debtor blackmail-able fool - who is 35 and an American citizen - for president and puppeting them remotely?

Too dangerous to gamble.

Executive security clearance polices are determined by the actual installed executive; standard procedure was: tax return, arrest record, level of foreign debt.

Would a president be immune for slaving or otherwise aggravatedly human trafficking a vengeful, resentful prisoner on release who intentionally increases expenses and cuts revenue?

Did their regional accent change after college?

Can it be proven that nobody was remoting through anybody? No, it cannot.

And what about installs ostensibly to protect children in the past being used misappropriatingly for political harassment, intimidation, and blackmail? How should the court address such a hypothetical "yesterday" capability which could be used to investigate but also to tamper with and obstruct? Why haven't such capabilities been used to defend America from all threats foreign and domestic, why are there no countermeasure programs for such for chambers of justice and lawmaking and healthcare at least.

And what about US Marshalls or other protective services with witness protection reidentification authorization saboteurially "covering" for actual Candidate-elects?

Can a president be witness protected - i.e. someone else assumes their identity and assets - one day before or one day after an election? Are Justices protected from such fraud and identity theft either?

You're not even American.

And what about when persons are assailed while reviewing private, sensitive, confidential, or classified evidence; does such assault exfiltrate evidence to otherwise not-closed-door hearings and investigations?

Which are entitled to a private hearing?

Shouldn't prosecute tortuous obstruction? Or should we weakly refuse writ; and is there thus no competent authority (if nobody prosecutes torture and other war crimes)?

Let's all pay for healthcare for one another! Let's all pay for mental healthcare in the United States. A War on Healthcare!

Are branches of government prohibited from installing into, prosecuting, or investigating other branches of government; are there any specific immunities for any officials in any branch in such regard?

Sorry, it's not your fault either.