591–600 of 1001 posts
This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation. This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
This is the problem with people being OK with executive overreach when "their team" is in power. Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further. We should desire that the legislative side actually legislates and each branch of the government holds the other two in check, regardless of partisan control. Further having our judicial branch become open…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The disincentives that have always prevented the executive from blatantly violating the law are still in force and unchanged. We’re just gonna pretend Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) doesn’t exist, are we?
That opinion specifically defers to lower courts to define the precise limits of the President's immunity. I refuse to believe that the collective effort of the judicial branch would construct those limits in a manner that enables dictatorship.
It was a clever but blatant way to give their side immunity without giving it to Biden
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there. This same assumption of good faith was wholly present in peoples' responses to project 2025 prior to the election. They are not acting in good faith. Try restating the problem: Why is this EO being issued? What problem, other than judicial review, does it solve for the executive branch? EDIT: For those who do not think this contributes any…
>Naive interpretations like this one, of bad faith actions is how we get there. Instead of just dismissing things out of hand like this, maybe you could provide a "less naive" interpretation? Your statement is not helpful either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
How do you know he's trying to stop the war and not just looking for personal benefits? His words are worth little.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly, I donate enough money to politicians to make them stand up and take notice when I email or call them and share my thoughts, which leads me to the conclusion that people in the middle and lower class are going to need to find ways to pool money in such a way that they can change their party politics. It's not that all politicians are completely motivated by money, but IMO you unfortunately have to aim at the…
You can only donate $3500 to any politician. (legally, if you do something illegal and are not caught...). There are complex limits notice when you say something. (for a small city that limit will make them listen, but nothing national or even a large city) What you can do is get out votes. People knocking on doors is still one of the largest drivers of votes so if you organize those systems they will listen to you.
I think more people would benefit from forming Super PACs and using that as leverage in pushing political change with parties.
This new administration lays bare what we've known all along - the legislative gridlock and dysfunction in the house of representatives and senate has made them completely incapable of governing -- the least productive in a generation. This is opened up an opportunity for a well funded strongman, and the checks and balances that were intended to protect our democracy are now mere suggestions.
> legislative gridlock and dysfunction Isn't this a direct result of "no compromise" policies on one side of the aisle?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, so how would those checks and balances work if the president refuses to obey the courts? Who's going to enforce those court orders? I suppose you could say that the congress could impeach - but what if the majority of the House sides with the president? And if the House does manage to pass impeachment, it still takes 2/3 of Senators to convict - as we've seen that's a very high bar and very unlikely to happen. Bu…
I never said the checks and balances are working well... but the constitutional checks and balances not working well is a lesser problem than the executive branch just deciding that the president is also able to do the judiciary's job It should be the trigger for country wide protests until the president is overthrown. It won't be of course. But it should.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That sounds pretty obviously unconstitutional. I don't see how a reasonable person could disagree actually. The whole point of the checks and balances is to prevent this.
Ok, so how would those checks and balances work if the president refuses to obey the courts? Who's going to enforce those court orders? I suppose you could say that the congress could impeach - but what if the majority of the House sides with the president? And if the House does manage to pass impeachment, it still takes 2/3 of Senators to convict - as we've seen that's a very high bar and very unlikely to happen. Bu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Eventually, and in fact about 50% of the time - the OTHER team is in power.. and may just push the overreach further. Are you sure this is going to be a fact, in the future? How likely is it, that the next elections will still be (somewhat) fair?
Very. Election officials, across states and across parties, have been faithfully discharging their duties, often under pressure to not do so. This is a responsibility of the states, and not the federal government. If you're concerned, then work as a poll officer on election day. In Virginia, I get to participate an incredibly professional and structured process that makes it easy for everyone who can vote to vote and…
Women who changed thier last name to their husband's.
Naturalized citizens who come from places where the language requires non ascii characters.
Anyone without a passport.
Anyone from a place where the courthouse burned down taking thier original birth certificates with it... Copies don't count.
To name tens of millions. Maybe trump will interpret the law in a way that lets people vote, or maybe he'll decide that correct interpretation is to limit voting to people more likely to vote for his third term.