Trump signs order declaring only president and AG can interpret US law for executive branch

[TCC]

Trump signs order declaring only president and AG can interpret US law for executive branch

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday stating that only the 'President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch...

www.jurist.org

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday stating that only the “President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch.” The order covers all federal employees and agencies, including independent agencies operating under the executive branch of the US government. Historically, independent agencies exist outside the executive branch and are largely free of presidential control.

The Trump administration stated the purpose of the order was to “ensur[e] that all federal agencies are accountable to the American people, as required by the Constitution.” According to the administration, Article II of the US Constitution vests this power in the president. They pointed to Article II, Clause 1, which states, “executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” to support this interpretation.

However, Article II does not expressly state that the president or any other person in the executive branch has the power to interpret laws. The article states that the president is required to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Jurisdiction to interpret laws and determine constitutionality belongs to the judicial branch under Article III. The framers of the Constitution designed the separation of duties to prevent any single branch of government from becoming too powerful.

. . . . .

Well this should get interesting ... lol

 

[Tall Timbers]

However, Article II does not expressly state that the president or any other person in the executive branch has the power to interpret laws. The article states that the president is required to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

In order to do the quoted the President must understand or interpret the law. Executive orders then tell the various agencies in the executive branch how to apply/enforce the law.

The judicial branch, of course, is the final interpreter should there be a concern that ends up in court.

 

[Hol]

The Trump administration stated the purpose of the order was to “ensur[e] that all federal agencies are accountable to the American people, as required by the Constitution.” According to the administration, Article II of the US Constitution vests this power in the president. They pointed to Article II, Clause 1, which states, “executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” to support this interpretation.

However, Article II does not expressly state that the president or any other person in the executive branch has the power to interpret laws. The article states that the president is required to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

This may be overreach, but it may hamper lower courts that are attempting to usurp Executive Orders. Lower courts are acting like they have the SCOTUS level of authority to interpret the Constitution

 

[1LoverofGod]

Trump signs order declaring only president and AG can interpret US law for executive branch

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday stating that only the 'President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch...

www.jurist.org

US President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Tuesday stating that only the “President and the Attorney General shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch.” The order covers all federal employees and agencies, including independent agencies operating under the executive branch of the US government. Historically, independent agencies exist outside the executive branch and are largely free of presidential control.

The Trump administration stated the purpose of the order was to “ensur[e] that all federal agencies are accountable to the American people, as required by the Constitution.” According to the administration, Article II of the US Constitution vests this power in the president. They pointed to Article II, Clause 1, which states, “executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America,” to support this interpretation.

However, Article II does not expressly state that the president or any other person in the executive branch has the power to interpret laws. The article states that the president is required to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Jurisdiction to interpret laws and determine constitutionality belongs to the judicial branch under Article III. The framers of the Constitution designed the separation of duties to prevent any single branch of government from becoming too powerful.

. . . . .

Well this should get interesting ... lol

He is overstepping his boundaries in the Separation of Powers to do this.
The Executive Branch, The President, can enforce laws but cannot change or make laws

The Judicial Branch interprets laws based on the Constitution. Ultimately the highest Court being the SCOTUS.

Congress makes laws, and can make amendments to laws. They are the Lawmakers.

Sorry but The President of the US has no authority to give himself the right to change laws or make them especially in regards to himself.

The Framers of the Constitution designed the 3 Branches of Government to prevent Monarchy which the founders escaped from when they came to America.

Separation of Powers​

The U.S. Constitution establishes three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The President leads the executive branch, enforcing laws, commanding the military, and conducting foreign policy. The legislative branch, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate, makes up Congress.

Congress creates laws, declares war, raises and collects taxes, and performs other key functions. The judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court, interprets the laws and ensures they align with the Constitution through judicial review.

How Checks and Balances Protect Our Liberty - U.S. Constitution.net

Separation of Powers The U.S. Constitution establishes three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The President leads the executive branch, enforcing laws, commanding the military, and conducting foreign policy. The legislative branch, composed of the House of...

www.usconstitution.net

 

[TCC]

In order to do the quoted the President must understand or interpret the law. Executive orders then tell the various agencies in the executive branch how to apply/enforce the law.

The judicial branch, of course, is the final interpreter should there be a concern that ends up in court.

I believe it demonstrates an interpretive Expresso mode not normally associated with the executive branch...but seemingly just laying there for the taking should anyone stick their nose into the constitution and ask, "Hey, can we do this?" lol.

 

[TCC]

This may be overreach, but it may hamper lower courts that are attempting to usurp Executive Orders. Lower courts are acting like they have the SCOTUS level of authority to interpret the Constitution

It would seem so. Yes. I think its just like saying, "Hey unless the supreme court overrules the executive branch, the executive branch should have enough common sense to practice executive action over its realm of supervision." That is kind of a no brainer. But if someone like Biden would have that power, that would kind of suck. My guess would be that there had not been an interest to empower the executive branch due to globalist desires to control that office from several different vantage points. The net result being that we all just traveled through history together allowing the executive branch to omit traits of discernment and discretion it could and should (as an "executive" branch) have.

One thing about Trump I have noticed over the years is that he is pretty good at placing a vantriliquiest dummy of himself on his lap and puppetting his image before the globalists bias -- that Trump is a caveman. There is plenty of evidence to see Trump bloviate, or sound like he knows what he is talking about and it be actually kind of goofy and bafoon like. In some cases, being human, I imagine those are real moments. But he is very skilled at championing many of them (that are not real moments) to feed the ignorance of his opponents a false sense of -- Trump is an idiot. We are the smart ones (Sun Tzu like).

I understand the ideology that Trump plays 4D chess is out there. And in that some make excuses for Trump. I have seen him be a bone head legitimately. But I have also seen him toy with Dems on Twitter during the days of 45. And it was amazing to see his ability to do that. Trump probably has some jugheadedness in him for sure. But I remember one clip I played over and over and over in order to get clarity. During the days of 45 there was a clip of him boasting about the numbers showing up to his rallies. He said something in the area of 50k. Which back then was an exaggerated number for sure. You could look at that, scratch your head, and think..."Oh yeah, Trump is too vain for his own good and kind of looks dumb doing that." Or you could see in that clip a smirk in such a way in the right places that he knew the number was not 50k. But the power to distort his opponents perspective of him was mood altering. And to me it was clear he did that on purpose with intent for effect.

Rewinding back to what I see as the granddaddy version of this all, is the 2016 election. When Ann Coulter announced Trump would likely be the candidate for pres she was laughed at publically. And taunts from the left wanted him to run. Hillary wanted him to run. Fast forward to the final days, republicans were bailing on Trump support left and right over his stance on the trustworthyness of the election process in America. To which when asked again about this just days before the election, he responded: "I promise I won't call for a recount...if I win." When he said that in the face of the tone of those days I though for sure he would lose. That was too in your face for the country's comfort level. But he knew something, didn't he?

“Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.”~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War.

That is what seems to be the stage of the world today, to me. Blessings.

 

[mattfivefour]

He is overstepping his boundaries in the Separation of Powers to do this.
The Executive Branch, The President, can enforce laws but cannot change or make laws

The Judicial Branch interprets laws based on the Constitution. Ultimately the highest Court being the SCOTUS.

Congress makes laws, and can make amendments to laws. They are the Lawmakers.

Sorry but The President of the US has no authority to give himself the right to change laws or make them especially in regards to himself.

The Framers of the Constitution designed the 3 Branches of Government to prevent Monarchy which the founders escaped from when they came to America.

Separation of Powers​

The U.S. Constitution establishes three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The President leads the executive branch, enforcing laws, commanding the military, and conducting foreign policy. The legislative branch, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate, makes up Congress.

Congress creates laws, declares war, raises and collects taxes, and performs other key functions. The judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court, interprets the laws and ensures they align with the Constitution through judicial review.

How Checks and Balances Protect Our Liberty - U.S. Constitution.net

Separation of Powers The U.S. Constitution establishes three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The President leads the executive branch, enforcing laws, commanding the military, and conducting foreign policy. The legislative branch, composed of the House of...

www.usconstitution.net

I agree with you 100%, Rose. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom created the clearly delineated separation of powers in order to prevent the rise of any dictatorship. Therefore I hope that what President Trump is attempting to do with this EO is simply to ensure that the members of his administration do not begin to engage in interpretations that are at variance with the policies of his administration. In other words, as far as his cabinet and officials are concerned, the way he interprets the law and, therefore, acts must be the standard to which they hold, without variance. I am inclined to this reading because President Trump has often stated plainly that it is the judicial branch --ultimately the Supreme Court-- that will decide what is constitutional or not and he will abide by their ultimate rulings. Thus, I do not think that this EO is an attempt to usurp the power of Congress to make law or of the Supreme Court to interpret it. So, that's the way I read this document and I hope I'm not mistaken.

 

[1LoverofGod]

I agree with you 100%, Rose. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom created the clearly delineated separation of powers in order to prevent the rise of any dictatorship. Therefore I hope that what President Trump is attempting to do with this EO is simply to ensure that the members of his administration do not begin to engage in interpretations that are at variance with the policies of his administration. In other words, as far as his cabinet and officials are concerned, the way he interprets the law and, therefore, acts must be the standard to which they hold, without variance. I am inclined to this reading because President Trump has often stated plainly that it is the judicial branch --ultimately the Supreme Court-- that will decide what is constitutional or not and he will abide by their ultimate rulings. Thus, I do not think that this EO is an attempt to usurp the power of Congress to make law or of the Supreme Court to interpret it. So, that's the way I read this document and I hope I'm not mistaken.

If his EO is to assure the powers of the Executive Branch that's Constitutional, otherwise to enact laws that gives more Power to the Point executive branch is unconstitutional.

 

[TCC]

He is overstepping his boundaries in the Separation of Powers to do this.
The Executive Branch, The President, can enforce laws but cannot change or make laws

The Judicial Branch interprets laws based on the Constitution. Ultimately the highest Court being the SCOTUS.

Congress makes laws, and can make amendments to laws. They are the Lawmakers.

Sorry but The President of the US has no authority to give himself the right to change laws or make them especially in regards to himself.

The Framers of the Constitution designed the 3 Branches of Government to prevent Monarchy which the founders escaped from when they came to America.

Separation of Powers​

The U.S. Constitution establishes three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The President leads the executive branch, enforcing laws, commanding the military, and conducting foreign policy. The legislative branch, composed of the House of Representatives and the Senate, makes up Congress.

Congress creates laws, declares war, raises and collects taxes, and performs other key functions. The judicial branch, headed by the Supreme Court, interprets the laws and ensures they align with the Constitution through judicial review.

How Checks and Balances Protect Our Liberty - U.S. Constitution.net

Separation of Powers The U.S. Constitution establishes three branches of government: executive, legislative, and judicial. The President leads the executive branch, enforcing laws, commanding the military, and conducting foreign policy. The legislative branch, composed of the House of...

www.usconstitution.net

One thing we can be sure of, whatever this executive order is really about, the click bait of the president having interpretative power over laws will play out in the globalist controlled media in America. I understand how this sounds on its face. To me, it's vintage Trump. I think he likes being seen as a dictator...lol.

I'm sure dear sister there will be our different views on this. But please permit this one arena of clarification....

Ok so this is the executive order:

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Reins in Independent Agencies to Restore a Government that Answers to the American People

RESTORING DEMOCRACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order ensuring that all federal agencies are

www.whitehouse.gov

In looking that over, the problem area seems to be in what authority the executive branch has in interpreting laws in relation what it is tasked to oversee:

REINING IN INDEPENDENT AGENCIES: So-called independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have exercised enormous power over the American people without Presidential oversight.

And I would see the epicentric concern to be the following clause:

The President and the Attorney General (subject to the President’s supervision and control) will interpret the law for the executive branch, instead of having separate agencies adopt conflicting interpretations.

If that clause just mentioned above is accurate, that agencies adopt conflicting interpretations for themselves, then this to me (if I had to guess) is a plea for the Supreme Court of US to rule on. Because what it is saying is that agencies can interpret their own laws but the president can't have oversight over them doing that? And that is a very strange political animal to exists in the country. So to me what this really looks like is how laws filter in the government hierarchy. So far, if the above is accurate (which seeing how our country has gone...would very likely be the case), then we have agencies telling the executive branch what to believe about them. So my guess would be that the supreme court would rule that the executive branch does have a say and weigh-in "more so" where agencies have their own conflicting interpretations of laws for themselves. Because the gray matter seems to be this:

"laws regarding agencies that have enough gray interpretation in them to where diverse agencies can spin those laws for themselves in different directions." Where that condition exists, it would make sense that the executive branch apply a more universal standard in how the laws that are interpreted differently by differing agencies comply "more so" with the executive branch's ability to manage those agencies.

Its business 101 I believe. It's just like what seems to be going on with agencies is that they have become too autonomous where concerned. I don't really see this any different than a corporation having a right to hold the different departments in that corporation to account under one theme of how things are reported and how things are then determined by the president of that corporation. I just think its Trump interested in looking like a dictator, to me. That does seem to be a part of his game theory.

Blessings.

 

[TCC]

I agree with you 100%, Rose. The Founding Fathers in their wisdom created the clearly delineated separation of powers in order to prevent the rise of any dictatorship. Therefore I hope that what President Trump is attempting to do with this EO is simply to ensure that the members of his administration do not begin to engage in interpretations that are at variance with the policies of his administration. In other words, as far as his cabinet and officials are concerned, the way he interprets the law and, therefore, acts must be the standard to which they hold, without variance. I am inclined to this reading because President Trump has often stated plainly that it is the judicial branch --ultimately the Supreme Court-- that will decide what is constitutional or not and he will abide by their ultimate rulings. Thus, I do not think that this EO is an attempt to usurp the power of Congress to make law or of the Supreme Court to interpret it. So, that's the way I read this document and I hope I'm not mistaken.

I understand you point here pastor. It does look like a symptom of something. What if Congress passed an act that the executive branch could not hold federal agencies accountable who interpret laws governing their federal sector differently than how other fed agencies do? That would suggest that federal agencies have the executive branch submit to how they run things. Would that be constitutional even if passed by Congress? So in light of that sort of thing, it just seems to me that Trump is seeing these agencies runamuck and since no one is doing anything about it, issues an executive order. In the leanest of effect, if no one does anything, there would be an authoritative echo effect fed agencies would seemingly have to more or less comply with under what abilities are exended to executive order. But utlimately it would seem to be something SCOTUS can choose to pick up and rule on. Which would be a kind of fast track I imagine. There does seem to be interpretative room in how to understand the authority of this EO. So to me it looks like something likely to be ruled by them. Blessings.

 

[1LoverofGod]

One thing we can be sure of, whatever this executive order is really about, the click bait of the president having interpretative power over laws will play out in the globalist controlled media in America. I understand how this sounds on its face. To me, it's vintage Trump. I think he likes being seen as a dictator...lol.

I'm sure dear sister there will be our different views on this. But please permit this one arena of clarification....

Ok so this is the executive order:

Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Reins in Independent Agencies to Restore a Government that Answers to the American People

RESTORING DEMOCRACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY IN GOVERNMENT: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order ensuring that all federal agencies are

www.whitehouse.gov

In looking that over, the problem area seems to be in what authority the executive branch has in interpreting laws in relation what it is tasked to oversee:

REINING IN INDEPENDENT AGENCIES: So-called independent agencies like the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) have exercised enormous power over the American people without Presidential oversight.

And I would see the epicentric concern to be the following clause:

The President and the Attorney General (subject to the President’s supervision and control) will interpret the law for the executive branch, instead of having separate agencies adopt conflicting interpretations.

If that clause just mentioned above is accurate, that agencies adopt conflicting interpretations for themselves, then this to me (if I had to guess) is a plea for the Supreme Court of US to rule on. Because what it is saying is that agencies can interpret their own laws but the president can't have oversight over them doing that? And that is a very strange political animal to exists in the country. So to me what this really looks like is how laws filter in the government hierarchy. So far, if the above is accurate (which seeing how our country has gone...would very likely be the case), then we have agencies telling the executive branch what to believe about them. So my guess would be that the supreme court would rule that the executive branch does have a say and weigh-in "more so" where agencies have their own conflicting interpretations of laws for themselves. Because the gray matter seems to be this:

"laws regarding agencies that have enough gray interpretation in them to where diverse agencies can spin those laws for themselves in different directions." Where that condition exists, it would make sense that the executive branch apply a more universal standard in how the laws that are interpreted differently by differing agencies comply "more so" with the executive branch's ability to manage those agencies.

Its business 101 I believe. It's just like what seems to be going on with agencies is that they have become too autonomous where concerned. I don't really see this any different than a corporation having a right to hold the different departments in that corporation to account under one theme of how things are reported and how things are then determined by the president of that corporation. I just think its Trump interested in looking like a dictator, to me. That does seem to be a part of his game theory.

Blessings.

He does tend to speak in round about ways at times but no one can get into his mind or heart, except God, to really know what his intentions are when he's saying things that are not clear.
Discernment is always a necessity, especially for the Believer.
I'm not saying that he hasn't done some things for the good, but scripture is clear in saying not to place our trust in Princes (leaders) nor in the son of man, who cannot save. Psalm 146:3

We can just watch what is done and not so much what is said. Time will always tell.

And we can only pray for our leaders as admonished in
1 Timothy 2:2 that they are doing the will of God, because again as scripture says...

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan"
Proverbs 29:2

I can't emphasize enough that for anything good we have, All the Praise and Glory goes to God, and not man because we are told by The Word of God

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning"
James 1:17

 

[TCC]

He does tend to speak in round about ways at times but no one can get into his mind or heart, except God, to really know what his intentions are when he's saying things that are not clear.
Discernment is always a necessity, especially for the Believer.
I'm not saying that he hasn't done some things for the good, but scripture is clear in saying not to place our trust in Princes (leaders) nor in the son of man, who cannot save. Psalm 146:3

We can just watch what is done and not so much what is said. Time will always tell.

And we can only pray for our leaders as admonished in
1 Timothy 2:2 that they are doing the will of God, because again as scripture says...

"When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice; But when a wicked man rules, the people groan"
Proverbs 29:2

I can't emphasize enough that for anything good we have, All the Praise and Glory goes to God, and not man because we are told by The Word of God

"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning"
James 1:17

DISCLAIMER -- Please pardon the length, but to me these are important distinctions along the way." Blessings

Thanks Rose. Very blessed thoughts. You know, when I first heard this kind of comparison of trusting Trump possibly in place of God, I heard it during the days of 45. Where it was kind of known at a church I had attended that statements towards Trump are too affording and a consensus even from some concerned hoped for a Trump defeat by Biden so that church would come back home to its place of worshipping God. I was in literal communication with a lady from that church who had such statements. I understood. I played for her a Scaramucci video statement of his concerns back then of Trump. To offer a sense of commrodary in how displeased with the church as she had been. And for her to speak out like that in such a conservative church could have brought massive blowback. So I know it was sincerely heart felt by her. And understood. And agreed with her. It was sad.

This was back in the day when Jack Hibbs church morphed into a right wing conservative Trump drunk haven. And lost its way for some time. I have family members that went there. They are glad Jack is back on track. So for me in those days, I tended to side greatly with JD Farag's views of the deal of the century. Not Jacks. Back then Jack was almost like a church emissary of Trump. I had more concerns aligning with not dividing Israel up and such. At the same time, some in that conservative church thought something I mentioned made sense on some level. I said, "I think we live in a time so riddled with globalist takeover, it would either take a strong Christian or a complete narcissists to go up against such odds." They could see the logic...Trump being understood as the latter.

Since that time, I don't view the middle east the same. In some ways there seems to be different camps on that. A predominant view in evangelicalism is to see Israel somehow under an Abrahamic covenant with God. And we can tend to view the middle east in such a way. But there are aspects to that that required too Israel's obedience. Which right now is non-existent. So the way I look at that sort of thing now is God's mercy toward them readying them for the 70th week. And the Abraham Accords being instrumental in empowering them for this peace and safety. Because of that, I don't really apply Joel 3:2 division because Isreal is in conditions of how to coexists with Arab neighbors. Decisions in that arena don't seem to easily parlay into dividing Israel for the sake of removing her completely from her land as Joel 3:2 would imply. In that light I would see the middle east now as the grand stage for Ez 38 proper.

I bring that up to just say that as we will have differing views about Israel, division, and the Abraham Accords in evangelicalism we might to some effect too have differences over the Trump factor (I call it). Because yeah I am in no wise in favor of trusting Trump instead of God. Personally the guy gets me mad sometimes lol. I am partial to An0maly on Youtube who often rakes Trump over the goals for good reason. And in as much as there might be differences, I do see as well that the Trump factor will bring its own anomalies. For me, I stand in an awkward place where the church may be concerned on this. We seem to have come to a place where placing too much hope toward a man and government is seen as folly. And I agree. But there is another anomaly.

Just at that same point, I don't see it has to be a choice between Trump or God. Because if God is using Trump providentially, to enjoy how that goes, would be to trust in what God is doing to the extend Trump is of providential use. When Israel calls him Cyrus, the alarm bells come out. And concerns of a false Messiah like figure are what we feel that warns us against. But how was it actually for Israel with Cyrus? Did they trust God instead of him? By this I am not trying to compare Trump to Cyrus. I am just saying the spiritual grammar we seem to have created using Cyrus does not seem actually biblical to me. Because Israel was to honor what God was doing with Cyrus. And that did not mean to worship Cyrus. But to understand the place God had for him.

When it comes to spiritual grammar I think there might be some cognitive dissonance at times on this sort of thing. Do I see Trump as Cyrus? No. But I do see spiritual grammar have a unique place here. I do. Because to me, the fact that that is an issue in our day to me suggests a riddle of sorts. The first one is, in comparing Trump to Cyrus, do we even have a grip of what that meant biblically for Israel? I "never" hear that. Its like we talked about the Cyrus factor in a bubble like our age owns what that means or meant and superimpose it in a way to see Christian Nationalism bad, trusting God instead of whatever happens providentially, good. Now I am not for Christian Nationalism. Nor do I think it can even be a thing. So that is not my focus or concern. But to me there is far far far too much irony in that comparison. Because if we look at the time of Cyrus with Israel it was post exilic. And the over arching book of that period would be the head of the Jewish Megillah. Typifies irony. So where would the Jews pick back up? From the post exilic books. So the theme I would consider is what things might mean to Israel more than they might mean to the gentile world, in order perhaps to get the full impact of spiritual grammar commingling with us today.

Sorry for the length, but I just wanted to say all of that to say, personally, I do believe Trump to be a product of the Providence of God. Not to bring a golden age in where we all join hands and sing kumbuya. But for empowering Israel to have peace and safety in prep for their 70th week. So in that sense, I will be shocked if Trump fails at that, because it would seem (as stated by even some in the watcher world) that Trump is more Israel first than America first. And I don't think that is not only accurate, but actually the point. But watchers can say it, but not see it. Perhaps a blind spot? So the way I would see it is trusting in God's Providence whether Trump is in the mix or not. Amen. BUT, can we say trust God in that He may well use Trump in that way? And if so, I'm going to expect quite a bit out of Trump. And even though, as I have frequented An0maly on Youtube, Trump can disappoint, I believe it is far more likely he won't. Not because I trust Trump or government. But because the spiritual grammar writing on the wall seems to be rather loudly that this at least be something we consider. And I just find it amazing how impossible what I just said here is to hold. I don't think it should be. But understand certainly how it can be.

 

[1LoverofGod]

Please understand that I am not speaking through a political lens but rather I am trying to stay focused through the lens of Scripture.
No matter what happens we know where everything will go according to The Prophetic Word of God.

"So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it."
Isaiah 55:11

 

[1LoverofGod]

DISCLAIMER -- Please pardon the length, but to me these are important distinctions along the way." Blessings

Thanks Rose. Very blessed thoughts. You know, when I first heard this kind of comparison of trusting Trump possibly in place of God, I heard it during the days of 45. Where it was kind of known at a church I had attended that statements towards Trump are too affording and a consensus even from some concerned hoped for a Trump defeat by Biden so that church would come back home to its place of worshipping God. I was in literal communication with a lady from that church who had such statements. I understood. I played for her a Scaramucci video statement of his concerns back then of Trump. To offer a sense of commrodary in how displeased with the church as she had been. And for her to speak out like that in such a conservative church could have brought massive blowback. So I know it was sincerely heart felt by her. And understood. And agreed with her. It was sad.

This was back in the day when Jack Hibbs church morphed into a right wing conservative Trump drunk haven. And lost its way for some time. I have family members that went there. They are glad Jack is back on track. So for me in those days, I tended to side greatly with JD Farag's views of the deal of the century. Not Jacks. Back then Jack was almost like a church emissary of Trump. I had more concerns aligning with not dividing Israel up and such. At the same time, some in that conservative church thought something I mentioned made sense on some level. I said, "I think we live in a time so riddled with globalist takeover, it would either take a strong Christian or a complete narcissists to go up against such odds." They could see the logic...Trump being understood as the latter.

Since that time, I don't view the middle east the same. In some ways there seems to be different camps on that. A predominant view in evangelicalism is to see Israel somehow under an Abrahamic covenant with God. And we can tend to view the middle east in such a way. But there are aspects to that that required too Israel's obedience. Which right now is non-existent. So the way I look at that sort of thing now is God's mercy toward them readying them for the 70th week. And the Abraham Accords being instrumental in empowering them for this peace and safety. Because of that, I don't really apply Joel 3:2 division because Isreal is in conditions of how to coexists with Arab neighbors. Decisions in that arena don't seem to easily parlay into dividing Israel for the sake of removing her completely from her land as Joel 3:2 would imply. In that light I would see the middle east now as the grand stage for Ez 38 proper.

I bring that up to just say that as we will have differing views about Israel, division, and the Abraham Accords in evangelicalism we might to some effect to have differences over the Trump factor (I call it). Because yeah I am in no wise in favor of trusting Trump instead of God. Personally the guy gets me mad sometimes lol. I am partial to An0maly on Youtube who often rakes Trump over the goals for good reason. And in as much as there might be differences, I do see as well that the Trump factor will bring its own anomalies. For me, I stand in an awkward place where the church may be concerned on this. We seem to have come to a place where placing too much hope toward a man and government is seen as folly. And I agree. But there is another anomaly.

Just at that same point, I don't see it has to be a choice between Trump or God. Because if God is using Trump providentially, to enjoy how that goes, would be to trust in what God is doing to the extend Trump is of providential use. When Israel calls him Cyrus, the alarm bells come out. And concerns of a false Messiah like figure are what we feel that warns us against. But how was it actually for Israel with Cyrus? Did they trust God instead of Him? By this I am not trying to compare Trump to Cyrus. I am just saying the spiritual grammar we seem to have created using Cyrus does not seem actually biblical to me. Because Israel was to honor what God was doing with Cyrus. And that did not mean to worship Cyrus. But to understand the place God had for Him.

When it comes to spiritual grammar I think there might be some cognitive dissonance at times on this sort of thing. Do I see Trump as Cyrus? No. But I do see spiritual grammar have a unique place here. Because to me, the fact that that is an issue in our day to me suggests a riddle of sorts. The first one is, in comparing Trump to Cyrus, do we even have a grip of what that meant biblically for Israel? I "never" hear that. Its like we talked about the Cyrus factor in a bubble like our age owns what that means or meant and superimpose it in a way to see Christian Nationalism bad, trusting God instead of whatever happens providentially, good. Now I am not for Christian Nationalism. Nor do I think it can even be a thing. So that is not my focus or concern. But to me there is far far far too much irony in that comparison. Because if we look at the time Cyrus with Israel it was post exilic. And the over arching book of that period would be the head of the Jewish Megillah. Typifies irony. So where would the Jews pick back up? From the post exilic books. So the theme I would consider is what things might mean to Israel more than they might mean to the gentile world, in order perhaps to get the full impact of spiritual grammar commingling with us today.

Sorry for the length, but I just wanted to say all of that to say, personally, I do believe Trump to be a product of the Providence of God. Not to bring a golden age in where we all join hands and sing kumbuya. But for empowering Israel to have peace and safety in prep for their 70th week. So in that sense, I will be shocked if Trump fails at that, because it would seem (as stated by even some in the watcher world) that Trump is more Israel first than America first. And I don't think that is not only accurate, but actually the point. But watchers can say it, but not see it. Perhaps a blind spot? So the way I would see it is trusting in God's Providence whether Trump is in the mix or not. Amen. BUT, can we say trust God in that He may well use Trump in that way? And if so, I'm going to expect quite a bit out of Trump. And even though, as I have frequented An0maly on Youtude, Trump can disappoint, I believe it is far more likely he won't. Not because I trust Trump or government. But because the spiritual grammar writing on the wall seems to be rather loudly that this at least be something we consider. And I just find it amazing how impossible what I just said here is to hold. I don't think it should be. But understand certainly how it can be.

Just so you know where I stand, to me it's not a Trump issue. When we stay within scripture, our trust should not fall on any leader.
I'm not against voting because it's helpful in our Republic to have a say in who leads us. However, we are so close to Jesus return that all of our energy in our ultimate faithful and true King should be focused on Jesus, and I am not saying Trump is trying to act like a king, while we be about The Father's Business and be Salt and Light, meaning being examples of who we are in Christ, in this fallen world.
Just because some things will look good to us doesn't change the fact that God's Prophetic Word continues to move forward according to His Will and Purpose.
Our minds should stay on God and not allow ourselves to be caught up in all the good coming from men. Only God gives us the most satisfying and reliable Good that Only He can give.
If I'm scripturally out of bounds in saying this then I have to answer to God.
I'm done trying to defend God's Word when it's being pushed back on.
I believe in The Word of God and I plan to stick to it.

 

[TCC]

Just so you know where I stand, to me it's not a Trump issue. When we stay within scripture, our trust should not fall on any leader.
I'm not against voting because it's helpful in our Republic to have a say in who leads us. However, we are so close to Jesus return that all of our energy in our ultimate faithful and true King should be focused on Jesus, and I am not saying Trump is trying to act like a king, while we be about The Father's Business and be Salt and Light, meaning being examples of who we are in Christ, in this fallen world.
Just because some things will look good to us doesn't change the fact that God's Prophetic Word continues to move forward according to His Will and Purpose.
Our minds should stay on God and not allow ourselves to be caught up in all the good coming from men. Only God gives us the most satisfying and reliable Good that Only He can give.
If I'm scripturally out of bounds in saying this then I have to answer to God

No I don't think you are scripturally out of bounds in saying that at all. Thanks for reading all of that. I come from a stoic church background. Where the kind human touch be considered idolatry. Just sit there suffer for God's glory. To think God might send Timothy, or anyone to calm your heart is to hope in people. Yet, as you have done it to the least of these my brethren...seems to imply humanity as an expression of His love. Not to replace it. But I kind of have a Taliban Christian upbringing. lol. So to me, to notice the good God might permit humanity to be about is not owned by the new age or by what evangelicalism might label it. To me, it could even be that God commands government to actually do good on our way out. This fits no-ones eschatology. That would not be without human error and fallen nature sin in our faces. Amen. But just like we see the character of God in how He holds those that don't even know His word or ever heard His name accountable by creation itself testifying of God's glory and nature...if that is enough to hold someone accountable before a Holy God, it's also potentially enough to see Him too. It would have to.

Not that I rely on human kindness to teach me about God, or there is no God. But I would not rule out God using creation to express His heart louder than most ages, if He wills. Because I have a doctorate in how to only see God in my ideas of Him. And that was not helpful to me. But I understand. Just saying, maybe a cup of water, some clothes, some food, and what is needed in the moment...that kind of thing...just might be...God...too

 

[1LoverofGod]

No I don't think you are scripturally out of bounds in saying that at all. Thanks for reading all of that. I come from a stoic church background. Where the kind human touch be considered idolatry. Just sit there suffer for God's glory. To think God might send Timothy, or anyone to calm your heart is to hope in people. Yet, as you have done it to the least of these my brethren...seems to imply humanity as an expression of His love. Not to replace it. But I kind of have a Taliban Christian upbringing. lol. So to me, to notice the good God might permit humanity to be about is not owned by the new age or by what evangelicalism might label it. To me, it could even be that God commands government to actually do good on our way out. This fits no-ones eschatology. That would not be without human error and fallen nature sin in our faces. Amen. But just like we see the character of God in how He holds those that don't even know His word or ever heard His name accountable by creation itself testifying of God's glory and nature...if that is enough to hold someone accountable before a Holy God, it's also potentially enough to see Him too. It would have to.

Not that I rely on human kindness to teach me about God, or there is no God. But I would not rule out God using creation to express His heart louder than most ages, if He wills. Because I have a doctorate in how to only see God in my ideas of Him. And that was not helpful to me. But I understand. Just saying, maybe a cup of water, some clothes, some food, and what is needing in the moment...that kind of thing...just might be...God...too

I'm sorry but your comment doesn't reflect on anything I have said.

The Bible tells us there is no one good, no not one.
Our works should reflect our faith otherwise good works mean nothing and is why nobody can be saved by good works. Yes we are to do good towards others, to the Glory of God.

"Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, But to Your name give glory, Because of Your mercy, Because of Your truth"
Psalm 115:1

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven"
Matthew 5:16

I apologize that the points I've made and how I'm attempting to keep focus on God are not understandable.

 

[TCC]

I'm sorry but your comment doesn't reflect on anything I have said.

The Bible tells us there is no one good, no not one.
Our works should reflect our faith otherwise good works mean nothing and is why nobody can be saved by good works. Yes we are to do good towards others, to the Glory of God.

"Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, But to Your name give glory, Because of Your mercy, Because of Your truth"
Psalm 115:1

"Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven"
Matthew 5:16

I apologize that the points I've made and how I'm attempting to keep focus on God are not understandable.

Thanks for sharing your heart Rose. I believe in what i am addressing has more to do with how we might understand God in eschatology. In how God relates to a lost world in end times. My comments are meant to address making sense of eschatological road maps. By saying that God can use fallen people for good purposes to me is not the same as saying that that person is good as God because of how God uses them. Or that good that a person does saves them. Cyrus was Zoroastrian and worshipped many gods. Yet God called Cyrus His shepherd and would use Cyrus to liberate Israel from Babylon. That does not make Cyrus good. That makes his use in God's providence because of God, good. In seeing God's character in this way, for me, i never stopped focusing on God. No worries. Blessings.

 

[Tall Timbers]

The President owns everything within the Executive Branch. Telling all his heads that only he and his AG shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch is good because we won't have Department heads deviating from Trump's Executive Orders. He is well within his authority to direct that compliance.

 

[1LoverofGod]

The President owns everything within the Executive Branch. Telling all his heads that only he and his AG shall provide authoritative interpretations of the law for the executive branch is good because we won't have Department heads deviating from Trump's Executive Orders. He is well within his authority to direct that compliance.

Well said, clear and to the point.

 

[TCC]

Please understand that I am not speaking through a political lens but rather I am trying to stay focused through the lens of Scripture.
No matter what happens we know where everything will go according to The Prophetic Word of God.

"So shall My word be that goes forth from My mouth;
It shall not return to Me void,
But it shall accomplish what I please,
And it shall prosper in the thing for which I sent it."
Isaiah 55:11

I believe your approach is sincere dear sister. Even in our forum there will be different ways that is understood though. For example, would we be seeing the 10 nation confederacy before the rapture? I believe most would say yes. But if we are to rapture soon, one answer in that could be, no. I'm of that camp. But open to see differently. There will be variations of how we might see certain aspects, for example, of Revelation. Outside of this forum, a preterist would agree with you. And they would not be looking at things politically but also strictly through the word of God. Giving it their understanding of it.

In regards to strict biblical construction of events, we could notice Ez 38 forming without politics at all. That is one way to look at it. Or some might look at with political trends included, like what might or might not happen with Saudi Arabia. And yes, the bottom line is Ez 38 will come to pass. But how Ez 38 and Revelation interact seems to present somewhat of a quagmire in eschatology today.

Most prophecy watch influences still see America having to collapse or lose signifant influence in order for Ez 38 to happen. I guess this is the biggest example where I would differ. In watchers doing that, there of course would have to be some politic sense attached as to why or how this might happen in their life times (that America decreases in world influence). What is more common today is to look at the Abraham Accords and presume them to be that which the AC strengthens. While omitting its potential with Ez 38. So in cases like that, they too would see themselves believing what they do based on purely what God's word says. To them. And make it a blanket eschatology. Which may leave politics out, but I don't believe this generic approach though helps best in understanding what it is to look purely upon the word. As it would seem our own viewpoints carry weight in how we understand the meaning of the word. If that makes sense? Blessings.