Can somebody help me understand: say I have a research grant and my cap on how much university can take for its operations is 15%. Does it mean that from my 85% I can not buy/rent necessary equipment/facilities previously provided by university anymore?
You get 100% of the grant in both cases, as the total sum paid is 100% + overhead. You are not allowed to use that money on major expenses you didn't mention in the grant application. If the university gets less overhead and can't find alternate funding sources, it may kick you out of your lab, because nobody is paying for it anymore.
The problem is that, through the pardon power combined with immunity from prosecution, the president can shield the entire executive branch from any obligation to execute on the laws that congress writes. It effectively neuters congress and prevents it from making any permanently effective law. Enforcement is instead left to the whims of the current congress and president at any time (who could be highly partisan Dem…
The constitutional remedy for abuse of pardon power is impeachment. In the model where any two branches can check the 3rd if two are of the same mind then there's nothing to do.
Are you sure the legislative branch could physically remove this president from office? Given it's unlikely he'd accept any impeachment.
I don’t see the value in your contribution here. There is an objective truth I think everyone participating in the discussion agrees on: Trump lied in campaign speeches and the reality was clear to those in possession of all the facts. Events post election have indeed confirmed that he was lying. So what is “my propaganda” you’re referring to? There’s just a truth that some people weren’t made aware of.
I see lying as institutional laziness on the decade scale. The propaganda is pervasive enough to not realize its there at all. You shouldn't accuse others of being in their own informational bubble without realizing you're in your own. The desire to disenfranchise is also an extreme authoritarian impulse.
I ask again: in the context of this discussion, what is my propaganda? What am I saying that is untrue? You’re using a lot of vague lofty statements. Be specific.
> The desire to disenfranchise is also an extreme authoritarian impulse.
> Practically speaking, when the majority of people who decided to vote voted for the person applying these policies, what mitigations are left? Impeachment. In a functioning government. Because the elected person campaigned on not doing any of these things.
He campaigned on doing exactly these things
He did not. In fact he promised the opposite.
Do I think anyone not drinking the koolade could see this coming? Sure. But that wasn’t the question, the question is what could be done. There are exactly two things, only one of which is legal, which is impeachment.
The constitutional remedy for abuse of pardon power is impeachment. In the model where any two branches can check the 3rd if two are of the same mind then there's nothing to do.
Are you sure the legislative branch could physically remove this president from office? Given it's unlikely he'd accept any impeachment.
South Korea’s President tried to do that a few months ago and the military had to arrest them.
If the President violates the law, and Congress impeaches and convicts them, and they don’t peacefully step down, and the military/police does not remove them from office/sides with the President, we effectively have a coup and the United States as outlined in the Constitution ceases to exist.
The country is gripped by a fever, with 47.9% of the population basking in the heat. These individuals are indifferent to anything that doesn’t directly impact them. In fact, they quietly relish others’ complaints, seeing them as a sign that they’re somehow gaining the upper hand.
> quietly relish others’ complaints, seeing them as a sign that they’re somehow gaining the upper hand.
Quietly? "Owning the libs" is their whole identity.
Are you sure the legislative branch could physically remove this president from office? Given it's unlikely he'd accept any impeachment.
South Korea’s President tried to do that a few months ago and the military had to arrest them. If the President violates the law, and Congress impeaches and convicts them, and they don’t peacefully step down, and the military/police does not remove them from office/sides with the President, we effectively have a coup and the United States as outlined in the Constitution ceases to exist.
> the United States as outlined in the Constitution ceases to exist.
As the risk of deflating your apparently boundless optimism, that ship has sailed. The idea you have of a country operating under the rule of law is not congruent with reality.
> I give it 50/50 they do that. Do they even need to, though? If the president cannot be prosecuted for any official acts, and has the power to pardon any subordinate for ignoring the law, and to fire (and then prosecute) anyone who insists on following the law, what does the law matter?
For one thing, the Supreme Court are the ones that ruled that the president has some form of immunity in the first place, and it wouldn't be that unprecedented for them to rein that in a bit if it comes to them again; see the follow-up to Bruen in Rahimi where basically all of them other than Thomas seemed to want to walk back their previous ruling a bit. Although it's hard for me to imagine how they could have been…
There is also the possibility, however unlikely, that some secret service member would decide their oath to the Constitution outweighs their oath to protect the president and unilaterally solves the problem. I expect that's a low probability outcome currently, but that might change depending on circumstances.
But the people who did vote for him explicitly voted for all the stuff he's doing right now. Nothing that he's currently doing is surprising , except maybe for the fact that a politician actually followed through on so many campaign promises.
He repeatedly stated he knew nothing about Project 2025. So arguably he's not following through on his campaign promises. Some of his voters I'm sure saw through his bullshit, but many were conned. It's a far stretch to say that this is what the majority of his voters wanted. Certainly many Republican voters have seemed very upset about this stupid blitzkrieg dismantling of core services.
People love being conned. And he has been conning people a long time, and is very good at it. I expect most of the money he and Melania made on their meme coins were from his followers.