Supreme Court Questions Whether President Legally Allowed To Improve Americans’ Lives

WASHINGTON—Expressing deep skepticism about the constitutionality of such executive actions, members of the Supreme Court’s conservative majority raised questions during oral arguments Tuesday about whether the president was legally allowed to improve the lives of Americans. “Our founders, in their abundant wisdom, saw fit to restrain the commander-in-chief from benefiting the American people in any discernible way,” said Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who joined the court’s five other Republican appointees in casting doubt on presidential efforts to even slightly lessen the burden of everyday citizens, let alone secure them some measure of peace or happiness. “Indeed, precedent suggests that our Constitution was drawn up with an eye toward maintaining the public’s general misery. Separation-of-powers principles clearly indicate that the president’s job is primarily focused on one duty: giving speeches that nobody watches or cares about.” Roberts expressed enthusiasm, however, for a related case suggesting that the chief executive’s duties could sometimes include compounding the average American’s suffering as much as humanly possible.

The Onion