Anonymous ID: 431215 March 17, 2025, 3 a.m. No.22773382   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

>>22773308

Putin already no troops, not negotiable. The British are in no mood to serve their oppressors. With all the UKR arms on the black market, failed governments and dissident invaders, the EU has worse problems. Whatever replaces them will buy more gas from OPEC.

Doug Macgregor projections

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvbd6HAziaE

Anonymous ID: 431215 March 17, 2025, 3:43 a.m. No.22773467   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>3520 >>3531 >>3572 >>3688 >>4084

>>22773449

Not moldy at all. HSBC was set up by the British crown to orchestrate the Opium Wars campaign against China and they have been laundering most of the drug money in the world ever since.

Carlos Slim and Soros probably run the Mexican cartels. Soros did something similar in Brazil in the 90s

Soros's looting of Ibero-America (there is a lot more)

https://larouchepub.com/eiw/public/1996/eirv23n44-19961101/index.html

Dope, Inc: Britain's Opium War Against the World

amazon .com/Dope-Inc-Britains-Opium-Against/dp/1615772847

Anonymous ID: 431215 March 17, 2025, 4:37 a.m. No.22773639   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun   >>3645 >>3752

>>22773622

Supreme Court 1948: Presidential Powers Unchallenged by Inferior Judges

In a significant ruling by the Supreme Court in 1948, the judicial body upheld a law that imposed strict limitations on federal courts regarding their ability to review presidential actions. This landmark decision reinforced the idea that the judiciary, particularly lower courts, does not have the authority to challenge or overturn the powers vested in the presidency. The implications of this ruling continue to resonate in contemporary discussions about the separation of powers and the authority of unelected judges.

Anonymous ID: 431215 March 17, 2025, 4:43 a.m. No.22773668   ๐Ÿ—„๏ธ.is ๐Ÿ”—kun

Grok: cite an instance where executive took a supreme court ruling under advisement and did not comply with it in order to execute the duties of the executive

 

Here ia one historical instances where the executive branch took a Supreme Court ruling under advisement but did not fully comply with it, arguably to execute its perceived duties. These examples reflect situations where presidents prioritized their constitutional roles or political imperatives over strict adherence to judicial mandates:

Ex parte Merryman (1861) and Lincolnโ€™s Suspension of Habeas Corpus

During the Civil War, in Ex parte Merryman (1861), Chief Justice Roger Taney, sitting as a circuit judge, ruled that President Abraham Lincolnโ€™s unilateral suspension of habeas corpus was unconstitutional, asserting that only Congress could authorize such a suspension. Lincoln, facing rebellion and the need to maintain order, disregarded Taneyโ€™s ruling. He continued to suspend habeas corpus to detain suspected Confederate sympathizers, arguing that his duty as Commander-in-Chief under Article II required extraordinary measures to preserve the Union. Lincoln later sought congressional approval, but his initial noncompliance stemmed from his interpretation of executive responsibility during a national emergency, overriding the Courtโ€™s directive.

 

In this case, the executive interpreted its constitutional duties-be it national security, federal policy execution, or wartime leadership-as superseding immediate compliance with the Courtโ€™s ruling. This instance highlights the tension between branches when presidents prioritize their perceived mandates over judicial authority.