Never appropriate. The actions are entirely unconstitutional. If the US decided to disband USAID it would have to be an act of congress, unelected friends of the president don’t come close to being able to make that call.
In a sensu stricto it's illegal, but practically and regrettably they are able to make that call, because though there are rules against it, unless the sergeant at arms of the senate goes out and handcuffs them, nobody is going to stop them. When the executive branch and the judiciary both decide to ignore the legislative branch, what is the legislative branch going to do?
Our legislative branch is unable to even minimally fulfill its Constitutional duties.
We haven't declared war since WWII, but we've waged a number of them.
The Congressional budget process is fundamentally broken and increasingly nondemocratic - the leadership of both parties get "continuing resolutions" passed while they draft a mountainous "omnibus" bill that includes all their pork and graft, then they whip the members of the majority party to pass it without reading it.
The Congressional oversight committees are usually captured by the industries and/or agencies they oversee.
Congressional hearings are not used to inform Congress or the people; they're nakedly partisan acting gigs for committee members.
Congress has unconstitutionally delegated much of its authority to a bureaucracy run by the executive branch, intending to have it operate independently of the president. Now we have a president who is choosing to exercise his authority over the executive branch.
Of course, it is illegal and unconstitutional for the president to eliminate programs that are established by law. But remember the executive branch bureaucracy ONLY exists to allow the president to implement the laws passed by Congress. If the laws aren't explicit or delegate to an executive branch agency HOW they law/program will be implemented, then the president has enormous authority over how to implement it, and there is nothing Constitutionally wrong with that. So if the president says "we don't need 10000 people to implement CFR 1.2.3 section 4, we only need 10", and he can implement the law/program as passed by Congress with 10 people, then he's allowed to do that.
The big problem is that Congress MUST depend on the executive branch to, er, execute. Whatever is required to implement the law, that isn't specified in the law, is up to the executive branch, and the President is the head of that branch.
And all this BS about "classification" again only exists to enable the president to do his job. If the president says someone can have access to something, that is non-negotiable, as two USAID folks found out over the weekend. The bureaucracy has for decades used classification to make a currency out of secrets and to try to avoid oversight. Looks like that ride has ended.
So, America has been dovetailing towards being a monarchy because Congress won’t do their jobs, and it was inevitable that a President would eventually arrive who would wield that power? If nobody is willing to enforce the law, and the majority willingly hand the keys to the democracy to a single individual with dubious intentions, is it best to just accept this as the “natural order of things”? The institutions that my generation was raised to respect as the foundations of the democracy seem to hold no weight or value, so it seems like the only thing left to do is just stand by to see what happens. I preemptively left the country last year and won’t be back anytime soon, so as sad as I am to see this day, I’m also strategically working to insulate myself from as much of the fallout as I can.
Yep. When push comes to shove, I suspect more of them will side with the authoritarian since that's kind of the personality type that tends to get involved in these kinds of occupations.
The electoral college was created to prevent a majority from doing such things, but having the electoral college override the will of the people creates all sorts of problems (and possible tit-for-tat in future elections).
Well, it would have been pretty damn nice to see it “activate” when a candidate with 34 felonies and two impeachments won the election, but that didn’t happen, so any supposed utility is immaterial now. I disagree with the entire concept in principle and do believe that the democratic vote should choose the candidate (even now). I just don’t think most folks actually know what they bargained for.
What does it mean for it to be illegal? If they cast faithless votes, would those votes stand, but then they open themselves up for prosecution? or would the votes not stand at all.
Yeah, the one useful feature I ever thought it might have would be as a check against a crazy-unqualified demagogue, and since then I have seen it fail spectacularly, twice.
That was the original intent. It’s like a half way to a parliamentary system where the legislature elects a PM except here it is a separate one time use assembly.
The electoral college was created in the time before the Internet, computers, television, radio, telephone, telegraph, electricity, the automobile, the airplane, and the train. It was logistically impossible to have a national popular vote at the time. Even the gap between the election and inauguration was based on the time it would take a man on horseback to reach DC from the farthest point out in the country.
Go where you have friends, family, or some clear reason to be. The fact that you are open to suggestions implies this is an aimless/distracting way to waste years of your life. Perhaps you have the type of trouble you can't run away from ? I am speaking from experience and hoping you don't give up on the US assuming your roots are here. Take a long vacation abroad as an alternative.
>The institutions that my generation was raised to respect as the foundations of the democracy seem to hold no weight or value, so it seems like the only thing left to do is just stand by to see what happens
What generation was raised to respect those institutions? Because the boomers were against them and their policies, and Gen X was cynical about them...
Millennials, I'd argue. During the 90s, culture at large painted a picture of stability and progress, all made possible by democracy. See Francis Fukuyama's The End of History for the kind of tone that permeated the time.
As we Millenials have gotten older, we too have seen through the veil and realized the system isn't perfect. More importantly, perhaps, we've seen the wide range of ways people react to this imperfect system. Some have chosen to undermine its very foundations to get their way, leaving many to wonder what we're left with if -- to loosely quote Whose Line Is It Anyway -- the rules are made up and the points don't matter.
The late 70s through the 90s were kind of our last stable period (the 60s & early 70s were tumultuous with Viet Nam and Watergate, and the 30s & 40s were dominated by Depression and World War). That all starts to unravel with 9/11 and the response to it (starting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that cost us $Trillions and didn't really help stabilize the region and ironically began the destabilization of the US).
Much as we like to kvetch about Clinton (and I've certainly done my share of it, and certainly much of the criticism has merit), if there was a "golden age" of America in recent memory, the Clinton era was it.
America is not moving toward a monarchy. The idea that no one is willing to enforce the law is not true. There have been many criminals that have just been removed from the country and many more are in the process of being removed. I'm not sure what "handing the keys to democracy" means, if this is about the United States then that country is a constitutional republic. I'm not sure what leaving the country served, if it makes you happy great, but there is so much hyperbole on the left. The funny thing is that people at the highest levels of the left that pushed insane hyperbole, clearly don't even believe their own nonsense about Trump and the administration, with their sheepish smiles.
As far as the article, Musk is a mixed bag. On the one hand, I think it is a good idea to have an entity concern itself with improving the efficiency and reducing the bloat of the bureaucracy of the federal government and Musk is not a dummy, he is the richest person in the world and runs some quite high-profile companies. On the other hand, it is hard to deny Musk is a little bit of a buffoon: fighting with Asmongold on X over his clear lies about video games is sort of unbelievable, telling Americans to "F [themselves] in the FACE" if they don't want all high-skilled jobs in this country to go to H-1Bs, and various other sort of juvenile things. Having these kids that Musk has hired to run-around the federal government is probably not the best thing but I think this doomsday stuff is completely silly.
He also just pardoned a bunch of criminals who physically assaulted police, desecrated Congress, because… they were on his side? That’s simply unprecedented. I don’t need a “party leader” to tell me that’s wrong.
It's silly but some of it is true. Curtis Yarvin is a monarchist and believes countries should be run as a company with a tech CEO as king, ska dark enlightenment. Peter Thiel believe in his ideas, he funded JD Vances career. Musk seems to be onboard, if not just to enrich himself and achieve his Mars goals. Other tech billionaires are as well.
Their goal seems to be to dismantle the federal government and buy up assets and land. Then form micro countries like above with themselves as king/CEO.
This concept (Congress failing) gets repeatedly stated in many contexts without sufficient pushback. It should be considered whether perhaps for organization so large its functioning quite reasonably. Much of the current outrage has been manufactured via a long game of propaganda since at least the Reagan era but probably longer.
> We haven't declared war since WWII, but we've waged a number of them
Which Congress authorized and funded.
Congress, historically, has made formal declarations of war only at the request of the President. No President has asked for one in decades nor are they required to make war.
They aren't the same thing at all. We've had Presidents ask for authorization without asking for a declaration since the 18th century - the Quasi War was the first I believe.
The precedent is well understood. The President may ask for authorization for any extended war and for a formal declaration, if desired. Then, and only then, will Congress act. Congress will not issue a declaration absent being asked by Commander of the military, for obvious reasons.
This idea that Congress is somehow not doing its job because it's not issuing a formal declaration that were not requested nor required, is simply nonsense.
Frankly, if requesting authorization was the same thing as requesting a declaration, then one could just as easily argue Congressional approval of funding for a war is a declaration.
A declaration of war or an authorization of force are both Congressional approvals for use of military force against an enemy of the state. I get that's inconvenient for your argument, but they're the same.
And the president doesn't have the authority to declare war on his or her own accord, full stop, because the constitution explicitly gives that right to Congress (and no other branch).
Any convoluted timelines around requests are immaterial to those facts.
If the president uses the military to attack an enemy of the state, without Congressional approval, that's outside of his or her authority.
Didn't the Supreme Court judge that the president can't be prosecuted for crimes relating to his official duties? The only recourse is impeachment, and that requires the cooperation of his own party. The president can also pardon all the rest of his associates as required.
And yet all of the inefficiency of Congress and the Courts is better than the alternative, which is dictatorship with no guardrails. We've seen what this looks like in many countries, and nothing you say, do, or own will be safe.
Right, the crusty 236 year old government is showing it’s age and has problems but has also resulted in an exceptionally successful country, so the logical solution would be to incrementally improve it, but instead, the voting populace just decided to burn it to ash; although, many are too politically ignorant to even understand the consequences of their decision.
> the logical solution would be to incrementally improve it
You can't, though. It's ossified too much. The constitution was always meant to be a living document, but now it's a sacred text for which new amendments are practically inconceivable.
It will take a long time to go through the courts, the courts may not care, and even if they do, you can usually appeal and drag your feet long enough that it doesn't matter. Oh, and bonus here, if you become president again you get another reset. It's illegal, but there's no recourse for action.
It's a DDoS on the legal system and he's got all three branches by the balls. The courts can intervene in some of the cases some of the time, but it won't intervene in all of the cases all of the time.
The only way forward here is if everybody in the federal government either does the same thing, or that they become so ineffective and unreliable at _their_ jobs that everything is slowed down enough for the courts to intervene.
... right up until they pretend they're not and never were when the political winds shift again. Though, maybe the winds no longer shift in these parts ...
He got just under 50% of the vote. He won by 1.5%, a tiny margin, fourth smallest since 1900. That does not sound like a mandate to me. I also suspect many people who voted for him did not specifically consider what he would actually do.
> I also suspect many people who voted for him did not specifically consider what he would actually do.
So far he has more or less adhered to the plans he and the rest of the crew that coalesced around his campaign over the summer and undoubtedly led to his election said they would do. I would argue that the campaign’s plans were the most accessible of any campaign so far - dozens of hours of discussion on podcasts and the like by him and potential cabinet members, and video addresses for specific policy plans on the agenda 47 website.
For example, Musk made it very clear that the intention with DOGE was to move fast and break things, saying (perhaps ignorantly) that if it turns out something was necessary, you just put it back.
You're saying they're doing the plan they said they would do, but Trump explicitly said he never heard of the plan they're now doing: "I have nothing to do with Project 2025.... That’s out there. I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it, purposely. I’m not going to read it."
Judging by some of the surprised Pikachu responses from his voters I'm seeing, I think people took him at his word when he said he had nothing to do with it and never read it. Because he lied about his intentions to voters, you can't not say he has a mandate.
Why do you think it's illegal? USAID was established by an executive order by JFK, not by Congress; Congress only mandated that some agency for aid should exist, not that it specifically be USAID. Closing it and not replacing it with anything would be illegal, but closing it doesn't seem obviously illegal.
Edit: not only that, but they didn't close USAID entirely: they just closed the USAID headquarters, and installed Marco Rubio as the new head of USAID. While this may or may not be desirable, I don't see how this is actually illegal. The specific organization of USAID was established by executive order; this is one of the many consequences of the Republicans winning control of the executive branch of government.
> Congress only mandated that some agency for aid should exist, not that it specifically be USAID
That was true in 1961, but not in the 63 years since then. The Foreign Assistance Act has been amended many times with specific requirements since written for the by then already existing United States Agency for International Development[1]
Nothing in that bill says that USAID needs a specific headquarters to be open, or that it can't be run by Marco Rubio. How is closing the HQ and assigning Marco Rubio to run USAID illegal?
> How is closing the HQ and assigning Marco Rubio to run USAID illegal?
This framing seems disingenuous given the already far reaching effects of the frozen funding, the layoffs, the shut down of communications, the shuttered offices, and, apparently, giving non government employees unfettered access to its computer systems.
But yes, shutting down the USAID or trying to muddy the waters by saying it'll totally still exist, they'll just somehow run it out of the state department and not fund anything should indeed not be possible without an act of congress.
According to USC 6601 — which is the current law — the President literally has the power to abolish USAID entirely, and only has to submit a report about it to do it. [1] Saying that closing the HQ and assigning a Republican as the head of USAID is "illegal" or "should not be possible without an act of Congress" doesn't make sense. Congress already passed an act allowing the President to terminate USAID. Congress does not mandate that USAID exists forever, and does not prevent the President from terminating it or streamlining it.
I’m pretty sure it’s now 2025, which is more than 60 days after Oct 21, 1998. Therefore, the president does not have power to abolish USAID. Please try again.
Ah, my read of that was that as of October 21, 1998, the President would have to submit a report to close USAID (whereas previously the President did not have to submit a report). However, your reading makes more sense.
Uh, that obviously cannot be executing a power that expired 60 days after October 21, 1998.
(It was actually delegating power to revise the USAID reorganization plan—which was not a abolition—and to set the effective date of then part of the reorg that was not transfer of mandatory functions to the Secretary of State.)
That's not correct. Acts of congress specifically created the agency after JFK's XO.
Regardless, the agency is a party to contracts which it is currently breaking. The actions of DOGE are causing the US to break contracts, which is illegal.
Interesting take. I think it applies to every agency? Shutter NASA, and any congressional act merely specifies an agency for aeronautics and space, not necessarily this exact one? As long as it’s eventually reconstituted, no foul.
I’m suspicious, but I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised we’ve hit the “one simple trick” era of governing.
No, NASA was specifically created by the "National Aeronautics and Space Act" [1], not by an executive order. USAID was created by executive order by JFK. [2]
The bill you link to specifically allows the President to abolish USAID: as it states,
Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. [1]
And here's the text of section 6601, which explains how to abolish USAID:
(a) Submission of plan and report
Not later than 60 days after October 21, 1998, the President shall transmit to the appropriate congressional committees a reorganization plan and report regarding-
(1) the abolition of the United States Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the United States Information Agency, and the United States International Development Cooperation Agency in accordance with this chapter;
(2) with respect to the Agency for International Development, the consolidation and streamlining of the Agency and the transfer of certain functions of the Agency to the Department in accordance with section 6581 of this title;
(3) the termination of functions of each covered agency as may be necessary to effectuate the reorganization under this chapter, and the termination of the affairs of each agency abolished under this chapter;
(4) the transfer to the Department of the functions and personnel of each covered agency consistent with the provisions of this chapter; and
(5) the consolidation, reorganization, and streamlining of the Department in connection with the transfer of such functions and personnel in order to carry out such functions.
The President can abolish USAID, or can streamline it, or terminate functions within it, according to your own provided links, and only has to submit a report about it.
Fair enough; my initial read was that this meant that as of October 21, 1998 reports would be required (whereas previously they weren't), but honestly I think that was the wrong read and you're right.
This seems like a stretch. If I close Wal-Mart headquarters does Walmart still exist? For a little while, maybe. Warehouses will probably run on autopilot, people will still get paid for a bit, etc, but the company is walking dead. What they've done is effectively decapitate an agency without the consent of the legislature.
That's even more clearly illegal. The Executive doesn't determine where money goes.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 1:
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States
I mean you could impeach him again. But that's doesn't really do anything other than wave a finger at him and says "Naughty naughty".
Hell, the guy is able to re-run and win the elected office again after being impeached a few times during his previous administration. Congress needs to affirm his impeachment to force him out of office and that requires a supermajority, which will never happen. Trump could kill someone on national TV and he would maybe get impeached, but he'd have enough friends in congress defending his actions that he would still be president. I mean he's already a convicted criminal.
That's why he just doesn't care anymore and is going crazy as if no laws exist. Laws mean nothing to him. At worst they are an annoyance or noise to him, but he already proved that nothing can stop him.
Our elected officials don't have any direct power over government agencies (ministerstyre), they create laws that the agencies need to follow. Then we have independent bodies that can investigate and remove bureaucrats that don't follow the law.
Now are there any cracks in this system? Probably. But we dont have a president with unlimited power than can only be checked by congress at this point.
Eh, they've already seen that with the balkans and eastern bloc countries in the 80-90s. You're gonna get a bunch of Orbàn-like small time dictators on every state that once on a while have to bow to the requests of a central-government more interested in its own political intrigues than governing anything.
US Doomers are expecting something similar to the Civil War movie in the next few years, the reality will be more similar to "The Lives Of Others".
And I say that as a fellow US citizen that has born witness to the abuses of the current bureaucracy.
Good luck with that.
By flagrantly violating the laws and constitution they are doing more than dismantle the bureaucracy. They are removing the very protections that exist to protect you from the petty bureaucrats that you disdain. A government as large as ours cannot function without a bureaucracy, and there is no guarantee the current one's replacement will be as free from corruption, sycophancy, and pettiness as our current one (despite its flaws).
In fact there is ample evidence the new bureaucracy they are creating has just one goal - to do whatever their dear leader asks of them. Try to criticize Nazi rhetoric on X and see how long you last. Now imagine the apparatus of government with the same bent. Only when governments "ban" you they have ways of making you disappear.
You think yourself safe. But everyone is guilty of something. And under a government unrestrained by the rule of law there is nothing to protect you should someone in power take offense. And someone will take offense eventually. Maybe you cut some official's ex-wife's former roommate's cousin in traffic. Or maybe you just say something one day that contradicts what the dear leader says the next.
What does a mixed-truth Snopes article about a dumb law proposed in Tennessee have to do with anything? The law sounds dumb and I would be wary of anyone proposing or voting for such a law, but I’m not a citizen of Tennessee so ???
I likely disagree with a lot of your political opinions, but I want nothing bad to happen to you. If you were my coworker or we encountered each other in public, I would treat you with respect unless you disrespected me.
I see lots of changes to the extent that we will no longer “celebrate” or subsidize LGTBQ+ or DEI issues with public funds. That seems fair to me, I don’t expect public funds to be used to celebrate my lifestyle and sexual preferences. I think that flying an LGTBQ flag over an US Embassy in another country where the citizens overwhelmingly oppose such ideas, does not further any American interest. It just makes working with such countries more difficult.
I also don’t believe in equity in the sense of discriminating against people now for wrongs of the past. I believe strongly in equality and in merit based opportunity that is not in any way tied to immutable characteristics.
I do not see any action that the government has taken as endangering anyone. I would vocally oppose any policy that I thought would harm someone (except I don’t think ending a benefit is a harm in this context).
> I do not see any action that the government has taken as endangering anyone
I’m curious how you view the executive order that moves transgender women into men’s prisons. To me those prisoners are now in a danger they were not previously.
But female prisoners are now at less risk, because they're no longer being forcibly incarcerated with male prisoners, thanks to this executive order. In federal prisons at least.
The process of hosting a transgender woman with a violent prisoner is called v-coding, and it's done in order both to punish the transgender woman and reward the violent prisoner. This has been an unofficial policy on many levels of corrections for decades, and is not new. Firing a few wardens won't fix it, and often complaints are ignored and/or swept under the rug.
If this is something you didn't know, Google it. Don't take my word for it.
I don't doubt this is true. We see many law enforcement abuses of this sort[1] and I want any such abuses investigated and the perpetrators severely punished.
But you are implying that because that might happen, the transgender woman should be left in the women's prison. But that carries its own risks[2] which ALWAYS get left out of these discussions. I do not automatically believe in the sincerity of men, especially those with a history of violence against women, when they arrive at prison and only afterwards declare that they are trans.
The solution to the problem is separate. The executive order could have included language about protecting prisoners from violence but it does not. Can you agree that the executive order increases the danger that person is in?
The executive order could have included all sorts of "remember to do your job" directives to prisons.
I don't agree with the framing of the question. Men's prisons are typically more violent than women's prisons. So from that perspective, statistically the person is in more danger. However if we only look at that, we would transfer everyone to women's prisons.
You are implying but not stating that there is some extraordinary targeting of trans women by prisoners in men's prisons. I don't know if that is true or not but it seems plausible. My argument is that since prisoners are intentionally kept in a defenseless state, that it is the job and moral duty of prison staff to keep prisoners safe from each other, regardless of who the prisoner is. If a specific prisoner is at unusual risk of violence (like a convicted police officer, for example), then I expect that prisons have processes in place for that.
You’re still talking around the issue. You said that you’d object to anything that puts people in danger. You admit this order puts people in danger but immediately pivot to talk about where the responsibility ought to lie for mitigating that danger rather than follow through with your original pledge to OP.
It just makes your original statement look dishonest. You do not object to the order that places people in danger. You and I both know that prisons are terrible for protecting vulnerable populations. “They should, though” is both correct and meaningless to the person being transferred.
I am not talking around the issue; I am just not accepting your framing that moving these people into men's prisons puts them in any danger over and above the danger of being in a prison.
I agree that there are dangers in prisons. But I don't think that prevents us from routine transfers of people between prisons.
I do think that prison officials are responsible for the safety of their prisoners and want them held accountable when they fail to do that, or worse, when they intentionally endanger prisoners.
I can't be more clear than that. I reject your framing.
> I don’t expect public funds to be used to celebrate my lifestyle and sexual preferences
End the child tax credit and extra tax exemptions for being (straight) married then or shut the fuck up because the amount of money going to subsidizing that is much, much, MUCH more than what is spent on LGBTQ+/"woke"/DEI stuff. If you care about the deficit, go for those first.
It's a terrible opinion and free speech means people can call out harmful beliefs and behavior. Society is all about establishing social norms, so it's almost an obligation. You are free to be wrong and ostracized.
Most immediately, all the people and services directly impacted. Then second order effects like the continued collapse of rule of law and related operational aspects like the systematic stripping of cybersecurity layers. Magnified by all this happening in one of the largest countries in the world + with most other countries and their process/people. Ex: Halt of congressionally-approved funding of hospitals, schools, and cyber defense teams, and mass layoffs around the same.
It might be amusing when you are personally comfortable and do not consider the people and processes involved, but basic digging reveals this stuff. I happen to work with people like doctors, first-responders, cyber teams, military, scientists, etc whose communities are in a tailspin. It's quite vivid, and I am confused how this is even a question. The ability of people to get life-saving care is literally being removed as perishable supplies are running out and staff are working pro-bono.
A top misinformation tactic is asymmetric trolling: Ask a simple question to force the responder to spend all their time. It's hard to tell if your question is from naivete, privilege, apathy, a broken media diet, trolling, or what.
Thank you for taking time to write a response in good faith.
I was not trolling; I sincerely believe what I wrote.
I do not believe that anything the federal government does that is time sensitive (social security payments, etc) is being affected.
I believe that termination of programs will require Congressional action.
However I believe that there is a lot that the President is Constitutionally authorized to do, that will limit what agencies do and control how they do it, and that the courts will not be shy to step in if the administration even has the appearance of acting unconstitutionally.
I do not think that we are in any way at risk of dictatorship; I think we are quickly moving away from that since Biden left office.
I respect your opinion, but I disagree in good faith, and my disagreement is neither trolling nor uninformed parroting of social media; it’s informed by my understanding of the Constitution and the structure of government it created.
I hope I am right in my predictions and you are wrong, because I don’t want the outcome that you fear may happen.
You are already wrong - hospital care is impacted, schools are/were shutdown, etc. I think you should ask yourself why you are so wrong and unaware on such basic things, and why you do not value them as much as the people reliant on them.
Please name a school that was shut down as a direct result of any Trump administration executive order. I see lots of hyperbolic news articles speculating about such shutdowns, but I do not see any actual closure.
Also, you’re going to have to be more specific about what hospital care was affected and how it was affected.
If a hospital happens to have a research wing and processing a grant proposal for researchers associated with the hospital takes a little longer than usual, I hardly consider that a crisis.
If you've ever been involved in operating small businesses or NGOs, or even harder, making one, you understand how fragile things are for someone to abruptly rugpull on even a small number of pay periods:
The Head Start schools are pretty hard to miss as having been on blast in the media around notifying layoff notices, closures, etc being only paused last minute due to court orders
A lot of basic domestic + intl'l social programs & safety nets run on state + federal grants, and ironically, that is especially true of the Republican/MAGA preferences of non-gov religious, community chartered, etc independent charities & non-profits. A lot are on shoestring budgets - stressing these further is a terrible idea.
RE:Telework, core operational areas like cybersecurity, especially with the COVID flip 4 years ago, is now telework, and those contracts are canceled. Likewise, more qualified positions are often by special renewing appointments, so those are now failing to renew too. Most American families cannot handle multiple missing payperiods, and thus cannot afford to play chicken with the rich or apathetic on this: they're told they're fired, so even if they haven't resigned, they have to interview. With the purse strings coming into the control of those who the courts are disagreeing with, rent wins: that's part of the point. It's already hard to staff these positions given they're underpaid to beginwith, especially when regional, so this is another self-inflicted wound.
This stuff is not hard to search. Systems are more fragile then they may seem from a comfortable techie background in affluent and otherwise self-sufficient regions. I think it's a fair position to want the US to have little power in the international stage, not use its wealth to save lives, etc, and that's something to vote etc on. But rugpulling essential services in illegal ways and unilaterally breaking society is a different thing, and again, not seeing that is pretty terrible and worth calling out.
My 'deja vu' here is when COVID broke out, and while my extended network was working long hours in labs trying to sequence the virus... others were encouraging people to go to restaurants. I'm actually disinterested in the politics. I just want society to avoid breaking from stupid unforced errors. Pulling the cord on people and processes en masse sounds fun if you do not understand operations and sociopathic if you do.
Do you consider all taxes to be theft? Then yes, your money is being stolen from you. Maybe you should move to a country with no taxes.
On the other hand, most people accept that taxes are necessary in order for the government to provide services. The disagreement is fundamentally over which services are necessary. In considering this, know that keeping other Americans able to work, live, get health care, life in safety, etc, is beneficial for everyone, even you.
I should only move to another country in the same capacity as you for being upset about the size of the government being reduced right now. We all have our political opinions and “you should just move” is a lazy and stupid non-argument to make.
> . We all have our political opinions and “you should just move” is a lazy and stupid non-argument to make.
No, these are not the same, because your position is untenable. I disagree with decisions being made right now; my preferred policy solutions can be accomplished with moderate taxes and legislative solutions.
On the other hand, your preferred solution involves no taxes at all, because you believe that tax is theft, so you want to eliminate all taxes, and that's not how countries work. My response to your unrealistic preferences is an unrealistic proposal; that seems entirely fair to me.
It is, instead, your naive ideas about how to run the government that are lazy and stupid; it's like you haven't studied history or government at all and are clinging to some 13 year old Ayn Rand fan's ideas of libertarian utopia.
Oh, sorry. When I asked "do you think all taxes are theft" and theb you said "yes", I foolishly assumed that you consider taxes to be theft. How irrational of me!
But sure, enjoy your performative intellectual superiority. I'm sure lots of people are impressed.
Ok so now it is getting explicit. So some things you dislike are getting cut, and because that is without due process and at illegal levels, causing excess harm that is serious & irreparable, eg, even deadly in some cases. You approve.
Next: People don't know what they are destroying and what other damage that will cause. Operations are fragile even without mass rug pulling. So that is another level of sociopathy to accept.
These come back to either being unaware or apathetic, which get back to social norms and ostracism.
Just remember how they "ostracized" you for being "wrong" now, keep silent when in enemy territory, and smile when you vote against them next election.
But I will not ostracize you for having a different opinion than me, nor will I downvote you, nor will I attempt to dox you, nor will I demand your posts be censored as “misinformation”, no matter how much I disagree.
I might screenshot something you say and make a meme out of it though :-) And you are free to do the same.
It's worse to be a US citizen? Then why are so many people coming in the US and why are so many people upset about removing the ones that come here illegally? It seems like people should be happy the federal government is giving them free rides away from here if it is so bad ...
Giving up the power to do the one thing you are constitutionally permitted to do, just because it doesn’t work for one particularly teflon-coated individual, is incredibly short-sighted.
Yes the reality of the situation is bleak. But to give up on impeachment would cede even more power to the executive branch.
He'll wear an impeachment as a badge of honor. The rule of law is a mostly self-supporting system. When nearly the entire edifice of government stops being concerned with it, the system breaks irreparably. We're looking at nothing less than the fall of the Roman empire in speed run, in my opinion.
I think you are assuming too much love for the guy exists in the Congress which he is effectively obviating.
As the economy crashes, proletariat sentiments will change. If trump is unable to get a war going, or it doesn't develop how he expects, the economy will be the obvious narrative. And if they get trump out before midterms, his endorsement isn't the same thing.
> I think you are assuming too much love for the guy exists in the Congress which he is effectively obviating.
You're assuming that the founders were actually correct about a power rivalry between the branches producing a system of checks and balances between them.
As it turns out, when the whole team is rowing in the same direction, congress doesn't actually care that they've abdicated power or all responsibility to check the executive. Their personal comfort is not threatened by it, and this particular congress doesn't care about governing well.
Sure, the republic will be destroyed, but in the meantime, they'll extract a lot of value for their paymasters.
Congressmen that had a spine, and refused to do that all got primaried out.
Which is why the less Trumpy republicans should have supported the anti gerrymandering acts at the start of Bidens term. The primary problem only exists because of gerrymandering.
The Senate didn't find guilt last time. If they do find guilt, the office is stripped. I don't think it's happening anytime soon, but the failed impeachment doesn't really speak to the consequences of a successful one.
That's not true, most just relied on him being a former president at the time of impeachment.
McConnell:
> “Former President Trump’s actions that preceded the riot were a disgraceful, disgraceful dereliction of duty…There’s no question — none — that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day… There is no limiting principle in the constitutional text that would empower the Senate to convict and disqualify former officers that would not also let them convict and disqualify any private citizen. ...The Senate’s decision today does not condone anything that happened on or before that terrible day.”
They'll 25th him before they consider impeachment. Right now Trump is just a useful idiot being puppeteered by the Silicon Valley elite. They got "Just Dance" Vance as VP, so they have a good backup.
All they would really need to do is take the existing Trump "speeches" and present them as the.word salad they are too prove him incapable of serving. That story would viewership so the media would be all over it 24-7. That's one reason Trump is rubber-stamping everything Elon says or does - he knows they have him by the balls.
Good luck with that. He is in for the next four years and will finish his term.
Impeachment and removing him from office means the dems will need to control congress. Which can’t happen until 2027. Then, those dems will need convince at least a double digit count of GOP senators to vote to remove him and not care about facing the wrath of the MAGA base…just to get him out a couple of years before term limits do?
I kinda imagine the next 4 years will work hard towards the singular goal of eliminating those. Or he might just ignore them with a whole lot more preparation than the badly organized insurrection of last time.
He wanted the national guard there. What you’re saying isn’t any better than someone parroting some Newsmax theory about depopulation. There’s no real substance behind your claim, just mischaracterizations and innuendo repeated ad nauseam so people view it as fact.
He did. But I think Republicans in general (and Trump in particular) are being incredibly disingenuous about the National Guard thing and trying to blame {not even calling it a riot anymore} Jan 6 on Pelosi.
Why wouldn't Pelosi want the National Guard there?
Putting a bunch of moderately trained military in a chaotic situation with angry civilians is a recipe for disaster.
And if they'd opened fire on the crowd? Do you really think Trump and the Republicans would have backed that use for force?
After how they treated the United States Capitol Police officer who shot Ashli Babbitt for climbing through a broken window into the Speaker's lobby, after ignoring multiple orders to stop?
He's already floating the idea of a third term, and the house is considering a constitutional amendment that would allow it.
Of course, that'll be a moot point if he continues to just ignore the constitution as he has been so far this entire term, and the other two branches continue to just let him.
Do you understand how long and what it takes to ratify an amendment? There a reason why we haven’t done one in 33 years and that one took 202 years. The process is designed to be difficult, it’s much more than a simple majority and bang of a gavel.
We are still working on approving the equal rights amendment. That’s one that started 102 years ago, and we have been trying to get the 3/4 state’s agreement for it for only 53 years.
So no, I seriously doubt with a 50/50 divided electorate in this country that we will repeal the 22nd amendment in the less than 4 years that the US would have to do it before Trump could run again.
The democrats will have to convince enough voters that what they really want is to turn the entire country into California. I'm not sure that will be a winning strategy. Judging by the most recent DNC shenanigans, I don't think they learned very much from the last election.
Okay, another nitpick, but it's not because the majority is _conservative_, is it? If they truly voted from conservative principles, _some_ possible actions of the administration could offend them enough to impeach. It's probably more correct to say that it definitely isn't happening with a loyalist (MAGA) majority?
In the US, "conservative" is synonymous with "Republican" and "Republican" is (so far, at least) synonymous with "MAGA loyalist", so it's really splitting hairs to call out the alleged difference.
I thought one of those synonyms was going to be "spineless". It's amazing how many lines on the sand the fascist has crossed, but despite some Republican noise, in they end they vote to protect their job and its perks (like info about stock movements before they become public, amongst the many other forms of corruption) rather than to defend their principles. But then again, the Vichy Democrats are quiet too, they're too chickenshit to escalate and call out this enemy of the constitution.
I grew up in a "democracy" with rigged elections and decades of one president. From TV we thought "Oh, America is such a better place, the politicians are clean, the cops are honest and can't be bought...". Hah, fucking Hollywood fairytales.
Yep, you're right. When I was a kid during the Obama years, I was even proud of our country. Now I realize that it and the conservatives in it are basically no different to Putin and his followers in Russia, and the liberal opposition party is spineless and feckless at best, complicit at worst. We may well have an autocoup soon, if we haven't already. I hope to be able to leave this country before that point, but until then I can only attend protests, even though they seem ineffective at effecting change. I hate everything.
"Capture" is the basic theme of current US government. MAGA capture of the Republican party, for instance. Regulatory capture by by various industrial sectors.
Republicans in the US have made being culturally regressive and staying on top as a demographic (white straight christian men) a cornerstone of their politics since the civil rights era. That’s what it has meant to be a Republican for generations.
I don’t think so. The Republican Party had some pretty consistent positions for the better part of the last century, until those got in the way during the Obama era. It’s not like it was perfect before but when it came to questions like “is the President above the law?” or “is Canada an ally?” you could predict how most of the party would side. Stuff like granting unappointed people control over multiple agencies, running roughshod over the national security process, trying to impound huge chunks of the budget, etc. wouldn’t have flown even in Trump’s first term before they finished purging non-loyalists from the party.
Dems should bring up articles of impeachment yet again. It will fail in the house and if it doesn't the senate won't convict. But that's really not the point right now. The dems need to get off their asses and actually message that "hey, this isn't right or normal" and make the republicans defend the behavior.
How exactly are Democrats going to do that considering they don't control the House or the Senate? All that's required to block impeachment is a simple majority to kill the resolution. The Republicans control a House majority and can schedule those kill votes whenever they want. They don't need to defend anything, they can just vote to kill the measure.
Not only that, but the impeachment first needs to make it past the House Judiciary Committee, which is controlled by Republicans and chaired by Jim Jordan. Democrats have no tools to impeach. Their best bet is to focus on the midterms.
Democrats can’t force an impeachment, but they can try to find a handful of Republicans who still care about the rule of law. They can continue to make the case all day, every day.
Assuming that a policy can only be achieved if you can ram it down opponents throats is a sad commentary on just how authoritarian the US has become.
America is a democracy, and the Trump won the election, and the Republicans won the majority of elections in the House and the Senate, and by virtue of those elections they also control the Judiciary Committee by a wide margin which can block attempts at impeachment. Trump is not going to be impeached less than a month into his term for doing exactly the kind of things he said he was going to do during his campaign. The best bet for Democrats is to focus on winning the midterms. Impeachment is not a serious option.
A lot of politics is purely performative. I’d wager over 50% of presidential candidates in any given election know full well they have no chance of securing the nomination but run anyway to build up their profile for a cabinet position or a future run.
Making a noise today about impeachment would be similar. It would play into a strategy for winning the midterms. It’d generate more headlines about the blatant illegality occurring under our noses, it’d be a stick to beat rivals with come election season. No, there would be no hope of it actually resulting in an impeachment, but that would be beside the point.
Not the point. The point is to signal (to stand against, to protest) that what the current wankers in charge are doing, shredding up what little decency was left in Washington, is not normal, is wrong, and moving the needle one more small notch towards fascism.
From afar, it's grotesque seeing what's happening over there. Perhaps you're too close to see it.
He's following the Project 2025 playbook and during his campaign he specifically claimed he would not be implementing Project 2025.
Democrats were warning that he was lying about his intentions, and that he would in fact implement Project 2025, but that is not equivalent to him campaigning on Project 2025. I think this is an important distinction.
Yeah. Frankly driving a wedge between Trump and Elon would be the more effective political strategy, since it wouldn't exactly be uncharacteristic of them to spectacularly fall out, and Trump couldn't care less if DOGE exists or not as long as he's getting praise from the right quarters
It's inevitable that the two will break up, but it'll be after trump has used him to do all the deeply unpopular hacking apart of social safety nets that he wants to do. He's a useful idiot. A very rich useful idiot.
What a convenient scapegoat to have when we eventually feel the ruinous effects of these decisions. "I trusted ELLEN and he couldn't get the job done, THATS why I FIRED him"
>The dems need to get off their asses and actually message that "hey, this isn't right or normal"
They have been doing that. The issue is that people just look at it all and think "its all political theater"
The only way anything will change is if the ~200m americans who didn't vote actually start to realize that voting matters. Texas could turn blue if all the people in the liberal areas actually voted, which would basically win the election for Democrats.
Waste of time and really achieves nothing other than theatrics. I don't doubt they'll do it though. Theatrics is really all the Dems ever do these days.
> Theatrics is really all the Dems ever do these days.
They have no power. They can't set the agenda; they can't get legislation to the floor; they can't call investigations. They certainly can't arrest lawbreakers. All they can do is make a case against the ruling party. And if they do it quietly and politely, no one will hear it. So really, it is political malfeasance for them not to be theatrical.
All they can do is make Republicans pay some price for the destruction they are bringing to the country and the world. And this requires theatrics. They have no other levers they can pull.
You really are deluded if you think these moves are for draining the swamp and to make the nation great again... that's the thinly veiled bullshit they're feeding you, and geez, people like you think they're clever and have got it figured out?!?
It's to consolidate power for the foreseeable future for a bunch of elites, so they can even more freely exploit people like you and make tons more money.
But hey, seems like people like to bend over and get MAGAed harder...
Remember you said this if/when it's your life on the line.
I have a feeling that, when that time comes, a lot of people will be changing their tune. "I always knew he'd fuck people over, I just didn't think I'd be one of them!"
I'm not convinced that the democrats (most of them anyway) are actually apposed to what is happening. Both parties seem to have largely the same goals just preferring to use different tactics in order to achieve them.
I love how "both sides are the same" continues to persist, even though Biden did absolutely none of what Trump has done these last two weeks, either in terms of method or outcome. They truly could not be more different and yet people like you are like theyrethesamepicture.jpg.
Lot's of speculation over the decades about what Gödel's Loophole was, but one wonders if it lies in this direction.
"Gödel told Morgenstern about the flaw in the constitution, which, he said, would allow the United States to legally become a fascist state." [1] Unfortunately Morgenstern never completely specified what this flaw was. As pointed out in the wikipedia article speculation is that "The loophole is that Article V's procedures can be applied to Article V itself. It can therefore be altered in a "downward" direction, making it easier to alter the article again in the future." But given how difficult it is to amend the constitution it doesn't seem like the problem lies there.
"unless the sergeant at arms of the senate goes out and handcuffs them"
Capturing the courts is the first step in a fascist takeover. The Republican controlled legislature isn't going to send the sergeant at arms and arrest him.
There is nothing in the way now. "It could happen here."
Not really. Right/Left labeling is silly in general so it's hard to explain in those terms, but Turkish military is and has been anything but Left. You could maybe call them reformist, secular authoritarians, in opposition of religious, populist authoritarians.
Interestingly after 50 years and 2.5 coups, the kind of people they pushed out are the ones running the country for the past 20 years and they're stronger than ever. I take it as a signal that the problem wasn't specific individuals and parties, but they were merely symptoms of deeper problems with the Turkish people.
There was a momentous coup in 1980 that clamped down on the left and nurtured the religious right, to counter communist influence. It was a Carter administration project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Belt_Theory
The left will throw them down even faster. I'm honestly baffled as to why any police bothered stopping January 6th - it predictably got them hated by the right, but they never got any thanks or appreciation from the left either, so it looks like a complete losing move to me.
They got the Congressional Gold Medal award, and every time I heard Nancy Pelosi speaking of them, she sounded personally grateful.
Also, it was their job to keep Congress safe, and there are a lot of people that take their job and their honor seriously. Maybe they don't make the podcasts, but they are out there keeping our society safe.
When someone's in a highly politicised position where it's not obvious what the right call is, I'm baffled that they wouldn't take the route that aligns so heavily with their interests, yes. Much as I'm a fan of personal integrity, there's only so much shitting on my whole profession that I could take.
You're not usually meant to use force to prevent trespass outside of some very narrow circumstances. And whether someone is trespassing or is somewhere they have every right to be is very often unclear.
America as 70s/80s Turkey, just have the military coup the civilian government every time it gets out of line. Not a super stable way to run a country!
This sounds very ignorant. The members of the military very much understand and remember their oath to the constitution and they are acting accordingly currently.
The rule of law is always contingent on the good will of the powerful. RIP USA. They are dismantling the country, not an abstract concept. Godspeed my American friends, I hope you live in a strong state, can get to one, or have a second nationality.
It doesn't take much for a successful coup. Really just the right amount of people to sit on their hands and think that maybe someone else will do something to stop it.
Think something should be illegal? It's probably in there somewhere. Want to do it anyway? It's probably allowed somewhere else. Want to know if you can or can't do something? Well, good luck figuring that out. With enough time spent in lines talking to civil service workers you can get an answer that may be correct. Or maybe not. Probably best to hire a lawyer at hundreds of dollars an hour to tell you whether you can or not. (The lawyer will say "no", because if he says "yes" and is wrong, now he's in trouble, and nobody wants that.)
The system has grown and changed and mutated, and now it's a behemoth that nobody really understands. It's such a mess that people are genuinely hopeful that an AI will ride in and help us all untangle all that we humans did.
And the people that we've put in charge of doing all of this are collectively the most unaccountable folks ever. They routinely skirt, side-step, or ignore the rule of law as they see fit, and they still enjoy a 90%+ re-election rate and an incredibly high barrier to entry for reformers.
Impeach. Subpoena. Then arrest if subpoena ignored. Pass laws (supermajority to bypass veto). Cut funding to executive office. Then go nuclear with things like amendment putting the armed forces under legislative control. Lots options. All require a united front.
Or, massive recalls across the country change the math. My point is that there are totally legal and constitutional options. Nobody need result to silliness.
I disagree. This is the outcome of someone who doesn't believe in the law acting accordingly. If there are no consequences, the law is immaterial. If the law is to remain intact, show up with force and enforce it. Checks and balances within the branches of federal government.
Look at the comments. It's only been two weeks, and people are already tired of members of Congress running to the media after Musk does something illegal. They want these members to force the police to arrest them on behalf of Musk.
I'm in agreement. These people are softer than tissue paper. Where's the energy South Korean representatives had when their President declared martial law?
You cannot practically imprison the richest man in the world. He'd end up running the place like a king, like El Chapo did. The only way forward is to exile him to Mars.
> Musk is a convenient fool for the trump administration.
Exactly this. And he doesn't even see it. There will be no "Elon dismisses Trump". Elon is not a natural born US citizen, Trump is. Trump wins, because if one has been paying attention, the people who put Trump in office don't like immigrants all that much.
The thing about Trump and Musk is that they both believed the other to be a convenient fool. It will definitely be interesting to see who lasts longer.
I'd bet on Musk as he has better connections among the Silicon Valley elite that are propping up this administration. Plus, the way that Trump is rubber-stamping everything Musk does as soon as he hears about it seems to suggest which one is actually in charge.
Time doesn't matter here. Elon can never hold the highest office nor the second highest. The best he can ever do is be their appointed henchman.
The MAGA mobs may only care about a few cherry picked bits from the Constitution, but the requirement of being a natural born citizen (usually meant as born on US soil with 2 US parents, but generally, either one is accepted) is definitely one of them. And he won't be getting meaningful support from anywhere along the other end of the scale anytime soon, so I left them out
You think the Trump administration is going to prosecute the wealthiest person on earth? Attention and wealth are the currencies of Trumpian politics, and I would be shocked to see Trump try to fight someone with such a massive ability to direct attention (via control over twitter and through having hundreds of billions of dollars).
If Trump can make money on it, he will put anyone in jail. Musk is such an easy target, Trump could take him down in a heartbeat , freeze his assets and put ownership of his companies in his control. And let me state this as clear as I can: this would all be perfectly legal “official acts”
The Capitol Police Board oversees and supports the United States Capitol Police in its mission and helps to advance coordination between the Department and the Sergeant at Arms of the House of Representatives and the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate, in their law enforcement capacities, and the Congress. Consistent with this purpose, the Capitol Police Board establishes general goals and objectives covering its major functions and operations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its operations.
The Capitol Police Board consists of the Sergeant at Arms of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Sergeant at Arms and Doorkeeper of the U.S. Senate, and the Architect of the Capitol. The Chief of the United States Capitol Police serves in an ex-officio non-voting capacity. The Chairmanship alternates annually between the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms.
> The United States Capitol Police (USCP) is a federal law enforcement agency in the United States with nationwide jurisdiction charged with protecting the United States Congress within the District of Columbia and throughout the United States and its territories. It answers to the Capitol Police Board and is the only full-service federal law enforcement agency appointed by the legislative branch of the federal government of the United States.
The legislative branch can recall both the president and the judges, but it won't do that because it is happy with what they are doing.
Even a Democrat landslide in two years wouldn't change it, because almost all Democratic politicians are unwilling to cause a fuss (or they are secretly happy with what the other branches are doing).
But the people are getting what they voted for, so is it really ethical to intervene in that?
> they are secretly happy with what the other branches are doing
Knowing people in democratic politics, this isn’t true. The root of the problem is that they don’t understand or prioritize power.
They have overwhelming support for every major issue: abortion, gun control, corporate taxes, HNI taxes, healthcare, social security, climate, gay rights. All of them. And yet they lose. Minority on the Supreme Court, house, senate, presidency.
Think about Obama’s first presidency. Sixty senators. What happens if they:
1. Make DC a state. That’s two senators. I don’t think they could get Puerto Rico.
2. Make Election Day a federal holiday. That spikes turnout, which benefits democrats (see: advantage in every major issue.)
That’s the type of thinking that gives and maintains power. But they don’t think that way until it’s panic time and already over.
> They have overwhelming support for every major issue
The problem is for a lot of these this only becomes apparent when pollsters remove all context and political baggage. For instance, ask people if they like Obamacare/ACA and results are mixed. But go down the line and ask about the constituent pieces of it all and you'll see positive support.
The Democrats have completely and utterly failed at packaging these things up with a message that resonates with the people. Instead they've allowed their opponents to demonize their stances. And that's how we wind up with people holding signs that say things like "Keep government out of Medicare"
1) They create an issue at Fox.
2) Sell it breathlessly
3) congress person brings it up in the legislature, points to news reports as proof
4) pass a new bill, or stall another
5) Refer to these actions on Fox, showing it as proof.
6) go to the polls after creating the arena you want to fight in.
Add in the internet and the media advertising incentives, and you have escalating sensationalism and extremism.
Post watergate, the Republican strategists decided to win at all costs. There is no messaging that is “nice”, and if dems are aggressive they get penalized for it. Because many people didn’t believe this was true. It was too outlandish.
I understand why things are the way they are. And the dems are pretty fucked now. Whining about it doesn't help though, and it won't get them out of this mess. But neither will just saying "we have better ideas".
They need to come up with a solution that'll actually work. Instead they seem to keep punching themselves in the face.
> Whining about it doesn't help though, and it won't get them out of this mess.
Are we sure? Them keeping quiet while fascists run rampage gives me the feeling of "not saying anything means you're consenting". A gruesome analogy that doesn't fit, because it's the nation getting raped (or since it's Trump, do we want to call it sexual assault), and it seems the Dems were supposed to be another guardian of the nation...
I didn't say they shouldn't do anything. I said that them whining about the situation won't help. To be honest I have no clue what they *should* do, as I said before it seems they're pretty well fucked for now. They could steal the GOP playbook and start a multi-decade effort to take over all media sources and influence people's internal metaphors. But that's going to take some time.
But I hope someone smarter than I figures out a better path.
There’s no solving a problem if theres no ability to look at it in the first place.
This is the other magic trick that happens in America that I can’t figure out fully.
I’ve had the chance to talk to people across stripes in America, including people with significant seniority. I’ve made this point in more refiner points for YEARS now, well before Trump.
It’s not a point that people like to acknowledge. Like here ! It’s a massive issue, one that deserves its own conversation, and it’s reduced to a “whining about it”.
Step up for gods sake.
Here! this is a simple way to move forward, this is how I started to resolve it - why does free speech matter? In layman’s terms, it matters because it’s in support of a market place of ideas. In that case is it ok if you have a market place which has a monopoly? What happens if it’s ok for say… junk food and cigarettes to be sold by the same people who certify it as healthy?
How do you address the issue of advertising incentives that drive part of the escalation in rhetoric.
What do you do to throw a spanner in the free money glitch? Here, and everywhere in the world that is learning to replicate this?
We’re originally meant to be on Hacker news. It’s become VC unicorn hopeful land. Asking these questions, and finding an interest in providing if it’s wrong, or right is part of the most basic flame wars we indulge in.
To be fair, the Democrats message extensively about things like the Affordable Care Act, but most people don't see those messages because the liberal media only wants to talk about migrant caravans, egg prices (sometimes), and immigrants committing crimes.
> They have overwhelming support for every major issue
Obviously not, or they wouldn’t have lost.
From a purely power-based standpoint, Obama probably should have pushed more in 2008. But that’s the only time he could have done it - even passing ACA got the Democrats severely punished in the 2010 Congressional elections.
That doesn't follow. It would be true if everyone voted on a correct and comprehensive understanding of the issues and where candidates actually stood on issues, but a massive proportion of the population just votes on vibes and is completely ignorant of actual policies or issues. Trump is objectively more responsible for the overturning of Roe v Wade than any other person, but ask a swing voter and it's pretty likely they won't know how Trump has anything to do with Roe v Wade and think he's pretty tolerant of abortion.
People don't vote on actual policy. They vote on vibes and other heuristics.
There isn't necessarily a contradiction there; Roe v. Wade was objectively a bad ruling. It was a wild reach to suggest that the US constitution implied anything about abortion; the question is basically whether or not it counts as murder and in the US that is supposed to be resolved by state legislators.
I'm in that camp, I'm extremely tolerant of abortion but the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade was good jurisprudence. Probably not well advised, if they're going to burn political capital there are more important issues.
> Roe v. Wade was objectively a bad ruling. It was a wild reach to suggest that the US constitution implied anything about abortion;
Wrong. The Constitution grants a right to privacy.
* The 3rd amendment secures our privacy in our homes against demand for quarter by soldiers.
* The 4th amendment grants us privacy in our persons, homes, papers, and effects against unreasonable search and seizure. ("The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...")
* The 5th amendment secures our privacy from compulsion to bear witness against ones self and secures our life, liberty, and property against deprivation without due process. ("nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;")
* The 14th amendment explicitly extends that protection to guard against action by States ("No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ")
* And the 9th amendment makes it clear that not all rights are explicitly enumerated in the bill of rights.
It is incoherent to hold that the Constitution doesn't grant us a right of privacy and control over our bodies, and it follows that we have a right to remove things from our bodies. The aforementioned amendments limit the extent of rights when there's a compelling government interest, but our freedom to exercise the right must be balanced against that government interest and the right doesn't exist if the government can't just make it impossible for anyone to exercise the right.
Roe v Wade was an objectively good decision.
> the question is basically whether or not it counts as murder and in the US that is supposed to be resolved by state legislators.
No. Murder is the unlawful and malicious killing of a human being [0]. Not only are abortions not typically done with malice, but US code defines "person" and "human being" [1] (relevant text included below) and fetuses are explicitly not human beings. Further, the 14th amendment explicitly prohibits states from making or enforcing laws that abridge Constitutional privileges.
|§ 8. ‘‘Person’’, ‘‘human being’’, ‘‘child’’, and ‘‘individual’’ as including born-alive infant
| (a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words ‘‘person’’, ‘‘human being’’, ‘‘child’’, and ‘‘individual’’, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
| (b) As used in this section, the term ‘‘born alive’’, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or
definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
you may be undervaluing the effect of conservative billionaires owning every conceivable propaganda outlet and mashing on the fear, racism, and division buttons like they were going out of style.
The major issues [0] included things like the economy, foreign policy, violent crime and immigration. Which generally favour Trump & the right wing. I don't understand the lack of strategic empathy among some on the left for being realistic about what people are focusing on. The election was close to a coin flip, obviously the democrats didn't have a big advantage.
Climate change might not even be a major issue any more, people are cooling to it.
>I do not believe US policy makers and thought leaders think FGM is a good thing in the US
This may not occur to you, you assume other people are like yourself. That they work in an office and perform a similar job as your own. Given that scenario, if the turnout of Democrats is lower than you expect, the only reasonable conclusion is that some bosses are less reasonable than your own, and ducking out for 40 minutes to go vote at 2pm just isn't allowed! And therefor if it was a federal holiday, their office jobs would just call it off for that whole day, they'd vote, and the Republicans would never win an election ever again.
However, the people who would vote for Democrats don't have such jobs. The jobs they have are menial, they are working all hours of the day and night, someone has to cover that shift on election day, and if somehow one or another of them does have an office job, there's no guarantee that it will be a paid holiday at that employer. My own employer ignores several federal holidays and instead gives us off days for Easter (Good Friday) and some other Christian holidays.
Your political opponents would hoof it through a warzone to cast their ballot. Having to vote early (or late, or apply for a mail-in) isn't why your numbers are down.
> They have overwhelming support for every major issue: abortion, gun control, corporate taxes, HNI taxes, healthcare, social security, climate, gay rights. All of them. And yet they lose.
The dems spent this last election cycle distancing, downplaying, and reversing each of these issues. Is it any wonder why they are losing? Rather than play to their strengths and party positions they endlessly and relentlessly try and shift right.
Do dems actually support abortion rights? Kamala didn't really campaign on that. How about gun control? Kamala was all too happy to talk about how she's a proud gun owner.
The Kamala/Biden campaign took painstaking measures to try and quash every single one of these issues rather than centering it in the discussion. Instead, they wasted an entire campaign talking about how much Liz Cheney loves them.
Even now, Schumer is saying "let's just sit back and let people watch what's happening" rather than pressing his advantage and Jeffries is saying "It's not great, but God is in control".
Dems desperately hate their base. That's why they lose. They simply transparent in the fact that the only thing that matters is corporate campaign contributions.
> Do dems actually support abortion rights? Kamala didn't really campaign on that. How about gun control? Kamala was all too happy to talk about how she's a proud gun owner.
On the contrary, abortion was one of the main issues the Democrats campaigned on. I live in California, and while I didn’t get presidential campaign ads for obvious reasons, down ballot Democrats campaigned hard on a pro-choice message, despite the fact that California is about the last place where pro-choice is under threat. (Gun control a little less, but I still saw it sometimes.)
The issue is that Democrats successfully passed a lot of pro-choice ballot measures in 2022 after Dobbs. In 2024 they couldn’t use this issue much, since the states with heavy abortion restrictions after 2022 are much less sympathetic to the pro-choice cause, particularly because Democrat party messaging has moved a long way from “safe, legal, and rare”. Also, Trump distanced himself from the pro-life cause during the 2024 election, even removing the strongest pro-life language from the Republican party platform.
Without the pro-choice vote that delivered the midterms, and combined with the general incompetence of the Kamala campaign, Democrats really had little to offer, especially since they’re associated with unpopular policies like DEI, open borders, trans advocacy, inflation, etc.
> How about gun control? Kamala was all too happy to talk about how she's a proud gun owner.
On the contrary, they very much want to “control” guns out of existence. But they know during election season they have to tone down the rhetoric in the hopes that people forget everything they’ve said about guns during the last three years.
Having power for the purpose of having power isn't too meaningful. In democracies parties (already questionable concept) should ideally not worry about power, but worry about reaching useful goals.
It's hard to reach a useful goal without power to do so.
Also, think game-theoretically (or practically). If you don't dedicate at least some effort to gain and retain power, you will be displaced by those who do. The first priority of a pilot is to stay in the air, the second is flying in the right direction.
Right, and it's all rather obvious. The problem is better seen when, if you focus on staying in power, you have to spend all your resources on this goal, and you can't reach any other goal. Republican party in USA currently does rather little - they do dismantle government, but the more they do that, the harder it is to them to stay in power, so their resources are self-limiting.
During these elections, Dems lost even the support of the precariate, the least wealthy who traditionally voted for left wing. No wonder actually, because they largely stopped to represent the the interests of these groups. When I see a black worker in a small grocery store wearing a MAGA hat, I understand that Dems have failed miserably. All the DEI boards did not represent interests of that guy.
1. Most US media (especially radio) being conservative allowed Republicans to define Democrats in their terms. Consequently, the "Democrats are all trans rights and DEI" was a Republican choice.
2. The Democrats certainly didn't make it hard for (1) to happen.
Yes, the Democratic party is terrible at avoiding dumb issue traps that are unpopular.
But the public dissemination of these positions is very conservative media driven.
Counterfactual: if progressive media had been as dominant as conservative media is, everyone would have spent the last 4 years hearing about government infrastructure spending and Project 2025.
In reality, you instead heard a relentless drumbeat of easily attackable Democratic positions, with nary a peep about Republican extremes.
So, yes, Democrat fault for having those positions in the first place. But the de facto situation is mostly created by conservative-dominated media being able to repeatedly broadcast those to an uninformed public.
When you ask yourself why the Democratic Party doesn't in fact do things that you think would be obvious ways to further it's goals and purpose, over and over again, for generations, you might want to start pondering this concept:
Dems have not held power in the US since at least Reagan, Full Stop.
"51" senators (when at least two aren't even democrats and one routinely votes against the party for his literal coal lobbyist cronies) isn't Power.
The one time Democrats held some power for about FIFTY DAYS, we got the ACA. We could have gotten medicare for all but a "Democratic" senator refused. Medicare for all has been on and off the Democrat platform since before RFK got got.
That so many "liberals" and "leftists" insist the democratic party hasn't done anything despite fifty years of being explicitly voted away from the reigns of power is part of the problem.
Go look at the coalition FDR had if you want to know what it takes to push Progressive policy in the US system.
> But the people are getting what they voted for, so is it really ethical to intervene in that?
No electoral mandate (and the argument for a clear mandate for all of this is thin or nonexistent) makes unconstitutional/illegal action suddenly legal or constitutional.
Whether anyone with the relevant power chooses to punish these violations, is a different matter. The choice since January 2020 has been to repeatedly do nothing in the face of illegal action, but winning elections doesn't make criminal action magically non-criminal.
> No electoral mandate (and the argument for a clear mandate for all of this is thin or nonexistent) makes unconstitutional/illegal action suddenly legal or constitutional.
Playing devil's advocate - but the people asked for this, right? Isn't it time to amend the constitution then?
The will of people is the ultimate judge, isn't it?
That's only the case in a pure direct democracy, which isn't what the US is.
There's a process for amending the constitution. If they want to amend the constitution, follow the process. Even if they only follow it once to change the constitutional requirements and reduce the threshold going forward.
We are (theoretically) a nation that is governed by laws, with equal protection for all under those laws. This creates stability and predictability, which encourages commerce and development.
When you go all Calvinball with government, you destroy that stability and predictability, and investment drops.
One team follows the rules, the other team doesn't care about rules and doesn't follow them. Guess which one struggles to achieve their goals.
This is the predictable outcome of the last 50 years of US politics, of the subversion of the rule of law and decency. The southern strategy, the 1994 Newt Gingrich legislative session, the failure of the supreme court to allow recounts in Bush V Gore, the teaparty, september 11th. All of it has only served to entrench and reward conservative opposition to the rule of law.
Also the Clinton administration where we were told repeatedly that the private actions of the president, and accusations of sexual misconduct have no bearing on their ability to be president. I’d also say the reaction to the Bush v. Gore election which solidified in the public consciousness the idea both of unreliable elections and that an election could be (and depending on what corner of the political world you were in, was) stolen. Decades of telling voters that if you don’t vote for one of the “lesser of two evils” you’re throwing away your vote. Decades of congress abdicating their responsibility to the executive branch to avoid the electoral consequences. Decades of cheering on executive fiat changing the rule of the land (see Net Neutrality) like it was a good thing (or at least like it is when one’s chosen team is enacting one’s preferred policies). Or happily going along with the president blatantly and openly refusing to enforce the laws as passed by congress (see federal enforcement of drug laws), again at least when one’s own team is the one doing the ignoring.
I used to think that people really just weren’t paying attention to the sort of precedents they’re setting when they do certain things. But the older I get, the more I’m convinced that it’s intentional. Take the dreaded “filibuster” that supposedly prevents congress from anything (except apparently banning Tik Tok). The filibuster in general, and its current form specifically are entirely products of congresses own rules. At any time, congress can decide by simple majority to change the rules of their proceedings and they could do anything from requiring that you actually get on the floor and speak instead of just declaring “filibuster” like some Magic: the Gathering spell. Or they could reduce the vote requirements to override a filibuster. Or they could abolish the thing completely and declare all their laws pass with a simple majority vote. So there must be some reason why they don’t do this, why it’s not the number one agenda item the moment the Democrats get any major it in congress. And the only logical conclusion is the current state of affairs benefits the congressional reps and that’s more important to them than the overall functioning of the system.
Even assuming every state would decide this direct question the same way as they did the Presidency this past election, a Constitutional amendment requires ratification by 38 states.
> The will of people is the ultimate judge, isn't it?
Ultimately it has to be, but not always in the moment. The bar to Constitutional amendment is high for a reason.
Honest question: would the margin have been sufficient if the outcome was reversed? Would you be understanding of their position if Republicans had the same feelings and ideas of resistance if roles were reversed?
32 is less than 38, regardless of the political valence.
On the grounds that I'm, y'know, human I will grant that I'd probably find myself filling in the details of where exactly the constitutional lines are drawn somewhat differently in line with my policy preferences, but the question wasn't whether this is within bounds of the Constitution, but whether we ought to (morally) consider the Constitution amended anyway because of the electoral victory. My answer to that will always be no - both because of the numbers and also because the election conflates a bunch of questions where ratification asks just the one question directly.
The requirements to amend the Constitution are clear: a 2/3 supermajority in each chamber of Congress, followed by 3/4 states ratifying it. Neither chamber comes close to clearing that bar, let alone the state margins.
So this discussion is pretty confusing to me, because the Trump administration objectively does not have the level of support you seem to think they do. Are you saying the incoming administration should get a little amendment as a treat? Are you just not aware of the procedure? Where’s the disconnect here?
The position of the devil's advocate is that the procedure is a little undemocratic - it prevents people to express their will, right? - and ought to be bent when it's really needed. Insert whatever justification here the interested side could plausibly produce.
And like many devil’s advocate positions, it doesn’t make sense. Like, how exactly does the procedure prevent people from expressing their will? If there were truly popular support for DOGE, they would be able to conjure up the required votes in Congress and amongst the states.
But they can’t, because that support doesn’t exist. You’re starting from the presupposition that this is “the people’s will”, but voter turnout was less than 2/3 and Trump only won a plurality of that. That’s not to say that he didn’t win, but you’re talking about whether we should amend the Constitution to satisfy less than a third of eligible voters.
Illegal and unconstitutional executive overreach is what it is, regardless of party.
I don't really envision a Democratic administration making a similar illegal and unconstitutional flurry of bullshit, but if they did, I would absolutely call them out on it.
1. The devil doesn't need an advocate, he already has plenty of shills to advocate for him.
2. 49.8% of the popular vote is enough to elect an executive, but not enough to overturn the constitution, which places clear limits on the power of that executive. The more radical the change, the larger the consensus that it requires. In order for the executive to legally receive this power, you need a supermajority of states.
But in a world where the courts and the cops are on your side, nothing needs to be legal anymore.
> 1. The devil doesn't need an advocate, he already has plenty of shills to advocate for him.
Yes, but - if you want to review your arguments, it might be still useful.
> But in a world where the courts and the cops are on your side, nothing needs to be legal anymore.
Maybe not legal - but effective it could be. As a recent example, Syria changed the people at power disregarding laws - cops and courts weren't enough to prevent it.
Amendments require approval of 3/4 of states and there are still enough states to vote against. Also what amendment, specifically? That Trump can be president more times? Exert more power? Eliminate opposing political parties? Legislate pi to be 3?
Why go through all the trouble of amending the Constitution when you can just do whatever you want because nobody's going to stop you? Suppose Trump declared himself king tomorrow. Who with any power is going to push back? It doesn't matter if it's against the law if nobody cares about the law.
You're saying that elected officials may operate as kings ordained by the will of the people. But they were willed into office, not willed into supreme power.
There are still laws. But you make a case for "might is right"
The constitution and laws are for the people. If the people don't care for them then they're just meaningless bits of paper.
Frankly we haven't had any real rule of law for a long time, and that's finally filtered through to the general populace. The law has been selectively enforced for decades (the famous "three felonies a day"). Of course the people don't respect the law any more, why would they?
I think that’s extremely debatable. Last I checked “unauthorized access to confidential taxpayer information” was not an election topic.
This is true on all sides of course, folks who voted for Obama didn’t vote for drone strikes against US citizens either. Winning a presidential election does not mean four years of dictatorship and silencing of criticism.
FWIW, people thought that when Obama ran around saying “these extrajudicial drone strikes are illegal” they assumed that he would end them rather than do what he actually did - make them legal.
Power Wars by Charlie Savage covers this rhetorical zig zag.
We (supposedly) elected a king. He’s exempt from all rule of law save spineless congressmen.
Whether most of the people doing so were smart enough to understand it is a good question, but the fact is we put a Perón-like figure into office, and only age will likely make him leave.
I think that’s extremely debatable. Last I checked “unauthorized access to confidential taxpayer information” was not an election topic
Gee, I'm shocked, shocked, that a guy who stole large numbers of classified documents on his way out the door and stuffed them in unused bathrooms in his house(s) would fail to safeguard confidential taxpayer information.
You're right, it wasn't an election topic. Nobody who had any power cared to make it one, nobody who cared had the power... and nobody else was paying attention.
Obama didn't run on drone strikes, but everything Trump is doing has been a part of the Trumpist or Republican fringe platform for years. The Republicans have wanted to defund and destroy government ever since Grover Norquist said he wanted government to be small enough to drown in a bathtub. Purging academia of DEI and "woke," aggressive anti-immigration policies, tariffs, rule through executive order, none of it is new, all of it is established, boilerplate Trump-era Republican doctrine.
Trump ran on "draining the swamp." This is what "draining the swamp" means.
The only real exception to the norm seems to be Trump's sudden hard-on for invading Greenland and Canada.But even then you can look back at his infamous comments on not wanting immigration from "shithole countries" like Haiti versus places like Norway, or his comments on Mexico sending rapists over the border, and see how he might want to forcibly annex a few million white people to balance out the scales of white replacement or whatever racist paranoid shit goes on in his head.
I don't know. But let's please stop pretending no one who voted for Trump knew who he was or what he was about, or that what's happening now is not in effect what many Trump supporters wanted.
> But the people are getting what they voted for, so is it really ethical to intervene in that?
Did people vote for this? I thought people were voting on the price of eggs. Trump dishonestly disavowed the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 ghostbuster containment system of horrible policies when people started becoming aware of the horrors that were in there. Sure, Trump is releasing those demons on us now, but a lot of voters claimed to believe Trump's dishonest disavowals.
Trump wouldn't have won if he had been honest about what he would do. Voters didn't choose *this*.
For all the fetishization of the constitution popular media has led me to believe Americans engage in, when push comes to shove it doesn’t seem to be worth the paper it’s written on.
It'd be interesting to find out why people think moving the USAID organization under the Secretary of State is unconstitutional.
If they do not disperse the money as directed by Congress to specific causes by the end of the fiscal year then there is a problem, but not until September 30th
It’s unconstitutional because the U.S. has separation of powers: the Congress passes laws and the President executes those laws. USAID was explicitly chartered by the Congress as an independent agency outside of the executive offices:
That means that the President can’t wipe it out as an independent agency unilaterally. He could go to the members of his party in the legislature and ask them to create a bill rechartering the agency but then it would get public debate and they’d have to own what they’re doing, so he took the path of daring anyone to enforce the law. It’s like hot-wiring your buddy’s car because you don’t want to ask if you can borrow it, except that it’s disrupting millions of lives.
I didn't see where the chartering is in that, all the refs I saw assumed the group's existence, and only a few referred to it as an "agency"--but maybe I missed it?
Most of what I saw was that USA was supposed to follow the guidance of the Secretary of State, or work with other departments. That was Rubio's claim, that not only did it not work with the State Department, but it subverted that department's work and that there was no cooperation with Congressional oversight committees.
disrupting millions of people who REALLY need CIA slush fund money to do "good things" with it, they promise. USAID needs to go into the dustbin and fast.
That’s a valid opinion, but it’s still illegal not to have Congress change the law just as it’s illegal for hurricane survivors to help themselves to Walmart’s stock even if they really need food or clothing.
That is totally hyperbolic. I think it is true that birth-right citizenship is part of the 14th amendment and the Trump administration will fail in this challenge. However, there is some debate about it among legal scholars, though, again, I think the weight of the evidence is in favor of birth-right citizenship,
However, disagreeing about the interpretation of the constitution when it is not actually that "plainly" clear, it has been supported by precedent is not the same as ignoring the constitution. In fact, it sets up a challenge for the Court to decide and it will almost certainly find in favor of this kind of citizenship.
Many presidents, including Obama, have put forth orders and supported legislation that was ultimately found to be unconstitutional; it does not mean they were running a monarchy or whatever the left is implying.
That's unclear to me. The idea that someone can just cheat the naturalization process by smuggling their pregnant selves onto our soil long enough to give birth is absurd. The 14th amendment was added to solve a specific problem, the disenfranchisement of slaves who had truly been born here without their say or that of their parents, for generations, and with the leave of the United States government when that was occurring. Nor can an overly permissive reading be justified on moral grounds... most of Europe (and indeed, the world) does not honor the concept of jus soli.
Besides all of that, there is the danger that if Democrats try to play the 14th card against him, Trump will declare the immigrants enemy combatants. At which point they are no longer under the jurisdiction of the United States at all, and he can do more than simply deport them. The left has been out-maneuvered at every step here, it's unlikely that this is the point at which they start winning.
Most of Europe and the world don’t have as wide ranging protections for free speech or bearing arms as we do, either. So using that as an argument is not relevant, regardless of any spiffy smart sounding Latin phrases.
The text of the 14th amendment follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
For better or for worse, the amendment does not make any exceptions for denying citizenship to persons born of late term pregnant women who just arrived on the shores.
Marking lawful citizens as enemy combatants for simply being born in the US sounds like a very bad idea to me, and should be to you too. Why would I not be a potential enemy combatant for making this comment on hacker news right now?
> For better or for worse, the amendment does not make any exceptions for denying citizenship to persons born of late term pregnant women who just arrived on the shores.
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" could easily be read to exclude those who are born to people present unlawfully and/or in violation of their visa. I think it's pretty plausible that the Supreme Court might overturn Wong Kim Ark.
> Marking lawful citizens as enemy combatants for simply being born in the US sounds like a very bad idea to me, and should be to you too. Why would I not be a potential enemy combatant for making this comment on hacker news right now?
Welcome to how it's always been for anyone who didn't have citizenship. The "enemy combatant" concept is some tinpot dictator bullshit, but at this point it's been well established in the US and supported by both sides of the aisle, the Dems wouldn't have a leg to stand on in campaigning against it. Talking about applying it to "lawful citizens" is purely circular logic - Trump will take the position that they aren't and were never lawful citizens.
The debates on the amendment make it clear that Congress believed the 14th extended to the children of outright criminals.
Indeed, one of the Senators (Cowan) against the amendment feared millions of invaders who settle as trespassers leading to a loss of control over immigration due to the amendment.
It is simply impossible to read the debate and argue that Congress' understanding of the amendment didn't include exactly the group people today are trying to exclude.
> the 14th extended to the children of outright criminals
A criminal is very much "subject to the jurisdiction of" the US, far more so than an illegal immigrant who if caught will likely not be imprisoned or even tried, but simply deported.
> It is simply impossible to read the debate and argue that Congress' understanding of the amendment didn't include exactly the group people today are trying to exclude.
What Congress believed at the time is not binding on today's courts if they don't want it to be, as the history of interpretation of many other parts of the constitution shows.
> A criminal is very much "subject to the jurisdiction of" the US, far more so than an illegal immigrant who if caught will likely not be imprisoned or even tried, but simply deported.
Deported using......jurisdiction?
You think if they do some big crime the US is going to ignore it and do nothing but give a referral because oops no jurisdiction?
No, just deported. When the Navy shoots at Somali pirates they don't worry about jurisdiction. The left has been at pains to point out that illegal entry is not a crime and border patrol is not law enforcement, but that cuts both ways.
> You think if they do some big crime the US is going to ignore it and do nothing but give a referral because oops no jurisdiction?
If they do a medium-sized crime the US ignores it and just deports them, that much happens all the time already, no-one wants more people in prison.
If they do a big enough crime then I'm sure the US would find some way to charge them, but that's no different from what they do for full-on foreigners who never come anywhere near the US. E.g. if they kill a US citizen on US soil then the US would claim jurisdiction on that basis, even if the perpetrator stayed on the other side of the border the whole time.
>You think if they do some big crime the US is going to ignore it and do nothing but give a referral because oops no jurisdiction?
If you were being reasonable, you might realize that short of those crimes deserving the death penalty, our country is better off just deporting. I don't want to spend $50,000/year (and up) on sequestering someone from our population, when deportation accomplishes that same result. Just make sure the deportation is successful. Send them with a crate of evidence for local prosecutors (who, in theory, should want to prosecute them... unless they really were sending them here to destablize our country with sabotage and rape).
This would remain true for me, even if it had no impact on citizenship of their children.
I'm not saying there's a pressing need to prosecute and imprison, I'm saying the option exists because the US has jurisdiction. The US is not forced to do nothing about the crime.
And I could imagine situations where it makes sense to prosecute and then deport with a suspended sentence, which keeps costs relatively low but also gives them a much bigger incentive to never come back.
I didn't say anything about the parents being imprisoned, tried or even caught.
Indeed, Senator Cowan feared "Gypsies" who "settle as trespassers wherever they go" and whose "cunning is of such a transcendent character that no skill can serve to correct it or punish it." He argued the amendment to make those born here citizens would prevent their removal, as a class.
He went beyond that of course. His diatribe includes floods of "Mongol race", Chinese, Australians and even cannibals.
Really, the arguments against jus soli today almost sound like they're channeling the man.
The debate over the 14th amendment covered children of foreign countries.
> Mr. Cowan: I am really desirous to have a legal definition of “citizenship of the United States.” What does it mean? ... Is the child of the Chinese immigrant in California a citizen? Is the child of a Gypsy born in Pennsylvania a citizen? ... If the mere fact of being born in the country confers that right, then they will have it; and I think it will be mischievous. ...
> Mr. Conness: If my friend from Pennsylvania, who professes to know all about Gypsies and little about Chinese, knew as much of the Chinese and their habits as he professes to do of the Gypsies ... he would not be alarmed in our behalf because of the operation of the [proposed amendment] ... so far as it involves the Chinese and us. The proposition before us ... relates simply in that respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, and it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens.
It is very hard to look at the debates and argue it was just done for ex-slaves and has no other effect given they very clearly debate the effect.
> That's unclear to me. The idea that someone can just cheat the naturalization process by smuggling their pregnant selves onto our soil long enough to give birth is absurd.
But that's not true. Only their offspring gains US citizenship, not them.
> Nor can an overly permissive reading be justified on moral grounds... most of Europe (and indeed, the world) does not honor the concept of jus soli.
It is extremely common in the Americas though. I think only Colombia and a few island countries don't have birthright citizenship here. I think it is a good concept for us, the US has historically been a nation of immigrants and our country has a culture that is shaped (and IMO strengthened) by people from all over the world.
The reason why it's common in the Americas has little to do with perceived virtues of immigration, but because they were colonized. Granting citizenship through jus sanguinis is not really possible in this case; granting it via principle of jus soli on the other hand legitimizes the conquest.
The jus soil argument is an interesting solution to a problem that even the Founders recognized, which is the tendency for a democracy/republic to create a second, lower class of "not-quite citizens" (famously, Rome).
It means that even if your citizenship never gets worked out, your descendants will be handled.
Having it so extreme as to be "anyone born on the soil (except diplomat kids)" is a novelty. Not necessarily a bad one, but also not obviously what the 14th was attempting.
> It'd be interesting to find out why people think moving the USAID organization under the Secretary of State is unconstitutional.
If there are no existing laws to prevent this, then it probably is legal. Given the voluminous laws in existence, I would not be surprised if there was one out there which is relevant.
> If they do not disperse the money as directed by Congress to specific causes by the end of the fiscal year then there is a problem, but not until September 30th
While this might be a "strict letter of the law" kind of thing (again IANAL), violating the spirit of a law is still illegal. Disbursement schedules are a real thing, with real-world impact when they are not adhered to, and can cause very real problems.
That doesn't mean it's subject to the whims of the president. When Congress creates independent agencies, they lay out exactly how the president has oversight (usually by hiring and firing the director and/or board).
I remember you pushing this idea (that the independence of independent executive agencies are unconstitutional, or unaccountable, or similar) heavily in a thread a couple days ago. Where is it coming from? AFAIK virtually everyone on both sides has agreed that the independence of these agencies was a Really Good Thing for the last hundred years.
I argued that independent agencies are extra-constitutional, not clearly "un"constitutional, but very clearly not enumerated in the Constitution.
Given that, they've operated on a consensus model for so long, it's hard to say that the current admin is doing something illegal by changing (as long as the money is spent by end of fiscal year, due to impoundment laws). This may be a "constitutional crisis" in the parliamentary sense, but hardly in the American sense.
>virtually everyone on both sides has agreed
This is something I've talked about elsewhere, but the electorate that put Trump in office did it specifically in rejection of the Dem & GOP cooperation of the last several decades which led to the same things happening regardless of who was in charge.
From that perspective (and without saying anything about legality or wisdom, etc) Trump is doing exactly what the people who put him in office asked him to do.
I understand you're arguing this, I'm asking where this meme came from. Independent agencies have been around for more than a century and AFAICT the idea that there's something constitutionally unsavory about them is very new. Whence came this idea? Is it something you personally invented that the rest of the right doesn't subscribe to, or are others advocating it, and if so could you refer me to what arguments they're using to justify it?
I haven't seen arguments that they're constitutionally unsavory, but I've seen arguments, that the President, as chief executive, does have almost CEO-like control over them. FDR did exert such control, in his case using it to expand the federal government, but he ran a fast-moving government.
So it's not like there isn't precedent for this, it's just that the consensus was as you said, the independent (some would say unelected) bureaucracy running things. But that was only ever a convention.
In most cases the law that created the agency spells out exactly what control the president has, and AFAIK presidents still have to follow the law like everyone else. Is there any real justification for this, beyond the general notion that FDR once got away with something similar so maybe Trump should too?
> AFAICT the idea that there's something constitutionally unsavory about them is very new.
I don't think anyone's claiming that they're "unsavory" - just that they are creatures of the executive that were created by the executive and may be abolished by the executive as well.
And I don't think it's a new position either? The Ron Paul types have been complaining about them for literally decades.
In some constitutional democracies there is a court that sits above the apex court, and they rule on constitutional matters only. I feel this is is an effective check/balance, as it makes the interpretation of the constitution completely unambiguous.
The US Supreme Court is the original constitutional court. It invented the idea that courts can rule on the constitutionality of laws and governmental actions (in Marbury v. Madison, 1803).
Some more recent constitutions have established a separate court that only rules on constitutional issues, but the US doesn't have that.
IANAL, but my understanding is that that effectively is what SCOTUS does most of the time, i.e. very few issues make it to SCOTUS that aren't constitutional questions. In any case, there is not any higher court like you're describing.
you're talking about the US Supreme Court but it has been politicized over the years and leans to one party or the other instead of strictly interpreting the constitution. For example, many people believe it leans heavily to the right side these days.
Totally appropriate. Everytime congress would ask USAID for information on their spending or audit what they were doing, they would just ignore the requests and say they were apolitical. They're not apolitical. The state department is by definition political, and responsible for the US interests. Totally reasonable to roll it under the state department where they will have to answer questions and not refuse audits. It's not going away it's just going to be accountable to the public that pays its budget (the US taxpayer).
What is your source for this? USAID has an inspector general like every other government agency. Inspector generals are independent of the agency and part of their function is to perform audits. Congress has the same powers with regard to USAID as it has with any other agency. It can investigate, subpoena, etc. The senate must confirm nominees to lead the agency. USAID is subject to the same laws like FOIA as any other agency.
What does it even mean to say that the state department is by definition political? There are political appointees, but the overwhelming majority of the state department is career foreign service or career civil service, which are apolitical. The same is true for USAID.
None of what you're saying makes any sense or has any relation to reality.
Do you disagree with what he says in the above video? They denied to be audited.
The US in USAID stands for United States. Can we not ask what they spend the money on?
USAID was not created by congress. It was created by executive order 10973 by JFK. It can be undone by executive order. It's function can be rolled into the state department.
That is factually incorrect. Congress did not codify USAID as an independent agency in 1998. It reaffirmed and clarified its role. The foreign affairs reform and restructuring act of 1998 left USAID a separately managed and operationally independent agency UNDER THE AUTHORITY of the secretary of state. Congress did not explicitly codify it as fully independent.
This stuff isn't hard to look up, but feel free to send an explicit link explaining why they can spend money and never have to answer any questions about what they are spending it on. Some of the alleged things that they spent the money on are ridiculous (not going to repeat them here).
Something is "constitutional" if nine unelected political operatives in black robes with lifetime appointments say it is.
This same court invented prisidential immunity out of thin air. They invented "history and tradition" doctrine out of thin air (and then selectively applied it). They invented "major questsions" doctrine to allow them to act as all three branches whenever they want to.
There is absolutely no opposition to any of this. There are only the perpetrators and the controlled opposition who are 100% complicit with what's going on.
Nobody is coming to save you and certainly not the courts.
we keep having side debates about 'appropriate', 'ethical', 'traditional', 'conventional', 'legal', 'moral', whatever, but the fact remains that you can do whatever you want, until someone else stops you.
No one is stopping the people at the top of the US Government from doing what they want. In fact, there is a whole apparatus in place, at this point, to protect their ability to continue to operate unchecked.
Irrespective of whether our system of checks and balances is working (it isn’t) it’s still worth pointing out exactly what rules and norms are being broken.
USAID as the specific agency was established by executive order, in response to legislation (the Foreign Assistance Act) passed by Congress requiring such an agency to exist, and other legislation that continues to fund its operation.
If the goal is reorganization then it could be argued that the president has the power to do so provided it still meets the requirements of the legislation passed by Congress.
If the goal is to simply delete the agency with no replacement and let the funding stop indefinitely, that is not so clearly within the president's power and has precedent against it.
That’s an absolutely absurd response. Even if your argument were correct (it isn’t) there is no executive order shutting down USAID. It isn’t “specious” to want actions like the shutting down of entire government agencies to be done legally.
The opposite happened. Congress said that an agency should manage aid, and then USAID was created by executive order. Trump could just create another agency.
Congress passed a law in 1998 itself to establish US AID, 37 years after the EO. The EO was made with authority that had been granted by another law.
That 1998 law does not permit the President to abolish it or name a different organization:
> Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5.
Congress explicitly forbade downsizing of US AID without prior consultation.
> Sec. 7063. (a) Prior Consultation and Notification.--Funds appropriated ... may not be used to implement a reorganization, redesign, or other plan described in subsection (b) by ... the United States Agency for International Development ... without prior consultation ... with the appropriate congressional committees.
> (b) ... a reorganization, redesign, or other plan shall include any action to
> (2) expand, eliminate, consolidate, or downsize the United States official presence overseas ...
> (3) expand or reduce the size of the permanent Civil Service, Foreign Service, eligible family member, and locally employed staff workforce of the Department of State and USAID from the staffing levels previously justified to the Committees on Appropriations for fiscal year 2024.
> I'd be really surprised if Congress can stop the President from firing employees. He is the head of the Executive branch.
The President is bound by law in that role, and most of thr federal civilian workforce is covered by civil service laws that govern hiring and firing, they are not at-will employees serving at the pleasure of the President? And those laws create a legal property interest which means that no one in government can fire them without due process, and that to do so is a violation of not only the statute itself but the 5th Amendment as well. This has been litigated fairly extensively, as one might expect given the size of the federal workforce and the inevitability of disputes over thr legitimacy of adverse workplace actions.
Based on some googling sounds like you're partially right, it was established as EO by JFK in 1961. But it was established as an agency via Congress in 1998. So the assertion that President can't dissolve USAID without Congress is in fact true. At least as of 1998.
> edit: why is the level of discussion about anything Trump-related always so low? If you want to defend USAID, defend USAID. If you can't defend USAID, make an entirely specious process argument.
Who is making specious arguments? Your comment was about process, while omitting congress’s role in that process, and people are responding accordingly.
Strict constitutionalists would call many of these programs unconstitutional.
This is a problem for the left and for neo-cons; they flouted the constitution for so long, that now that someone else (Trump) is doing it to them, the left/neocons don't really have a base that responds well to cries of "Unconstitutional!".
Constitution says nothing about barrel loading, smooth bore muskets. It says "arms". It's a fairly timeless umbrella term for "weapons or objects usable as such". The only people who have trouble understanding this are generally those who approve of the Machine gun registry being closed by having the federal expenditure to maintain it set to $0, and don't that as being an example of "infringement" of a Constitutionally granted right.
It also says “the right of the people” a phrase understood in every other part of the constitution and its amendments to refer to the individual citizenry. Notably, you don’t need to be a member of the press to exercise a right to free speech.
It has different wording but I feel like it’s only difficult because of the politics and emotions attached to it. If it said instead:
“A thriving community of professional musicians, being essential to the existence of great art, the right of the people to keep and play musical instruments shall not be infringed.”
I really don’t think anyone would be arguing that it restricts the right to keep and play musical instruments only to people who are already professional musicians.
A rule saying you already need to be a professional is unreasonable in this scenario. But I think a rule that you have to engage with the community of musicians if you want to have a musical instrument could probably coexist with that wording.
If we go down that route, the "militia" in the US is divided into the "organized" militia, which is effectively the National Guard forces, and the "unorganized" militia, which is everyone not in the "organized" militia and are:
> able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
So I'm not sure "a rule the you have to engage with the militia" is going to get any better of a reading on the 2nd amendment from an "individual" vs "some group of people defined by the government that aren't 'the People' of every other part of the constitution" perspective.
As far as I know that’s been the definition at least since the 50s though I’m pretty sure at least the “able-bodied males 18-45” part has been around even longer
> Where did I get the definition of the militia? The US Code
You can't look to the US Code for definitions of terms in the Constitution; the US Code definition applies to the portion of the US Code that that definition is applicable to, but (except where the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to define something) cannot define terms in the Constitution, otherwise, Congress could simply rewrite the Constitution by redefining the language used in it, and would never need to use the more difficult process of Constitutional Amendments.
As a general rule I agree, but in that case we’re limited to what the constitution says explicitly and what is says explicitly is that keeping and bearing arms is a right of “the People” which is a distinct group from “the States” and “the United States”. Further we know that the Militia is not the Army, nor the Navy, and that it too is also considered a separate group from “the people”.
It seems reasonable to conclude then that the right must be conferred to all the people because if they meant for it to be limited to the Militia they would have said “the right of the Militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
Joni Ernst is a Senator who I heard speak on this issue. She was trying to get information out of USAID and it became a long battle just to check their work and could only do so under extremely limited conditions later. They try to hide everything, basically.
