Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ChairmanPoo]

[misko27]

I hate to say I told you so, but this is one of the reasons why a strong federal govt isn't always such a good idea.  It NEEDS to be capable of being challenged in court, AND LOSING BIG.

I mean I don't see any way to stop the President or Congress from editing the rules that they, themselves, make when they are being challenged for illegality, because that's the whole point? I mean the Court's don't usually want to have to challenge these things. I mean the Supreme Court ruling striking down the Civil Rights Act said, essentially, "Hey Congress, you can't just use the exact same rules you wrote in the 60s, go make new ones." and Congress responded "Not now dad I'm too busy yelling at Obama."

Ordinarily, they (Congress and the President) don't change their laws or EOs in response to legal challenges because they went through the effort of making sure it would withstand one, since it's usually inevitable so it's an obvious thing to do (unless you are Trump, or budgetary reconciliation was involved), so whenever they go to the Supreme Court they are willing to defend them because it's not automatically a losing battle. But, again. Half the issue of Trump's EO was that he applied it to Greencard holders, and refused to issue an edited version (which he could have done at any time), instead making the White House Counsel try to claim that that was what the first order did (which the judges didn't buy at all).

[EnigmaticHat]

Its worth pointing out that if you control both the legislative and executive branches the judicial branch does not serve as an effective check.

Or to put it differently, legally the only thing in between the Republicans and being able to amend the constitution to whatever they want is a 2/3rds majority in both houses.  Which is not an easy thing to obtain mind you, but if they had that then checks and balances would fall apart in a very real way.

[Egan_BW]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

It is terrifying.

[Lord Shonus]

Its worth pointing out that if you control both the legislative and executive branches the judicial branch does not serve as an effective check.

Or to put it differently, legally the only thing in between the Republicans and being able to amend the constitution to whatever they want is a 2/3rds majority in both houses.  Which is not an easy thing to obtain mind you, but if they had that then checks and balances would fall apart in a very real way.

That's only for proposing an amendment. It then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Not only is this a higher percentage needed (Trump won only 60% of the states in the election), but there will be a massive advertising battle between supporters and opponents that makes it very hard for anything really bad to get through.

[Sergarr]

Its worth pointing out that if you control both the legislative and executive branches the judicial branch does not serve as an effective check.

Or to put it differently, legally the only thing in between the Republicans and being able to amend the constitution to whatever they want is a 2/3rds majority in both houses.  Which is not an easy thing to obtain mind you, but if they had that then checks and balances would fall apart in a very real way.

Actually no, that's not all. They also need to flip one Democrat state, too.

[smjjames]

The Republicans seem to be making the same mistake as the Democrats did with the Tea Party.

[Frumple]

That's only for proposing an amendment. It then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Not only is this a higher percentage needed (Trump won only 60% of the states in the election), but there will be a massive advertising battle between supporters and opponents that makes it very hard for anything really bad to get through.

Eehh... what trump won wasn't what an amendment would take, for what it's worth. If it actually makes it to the state-related bits it takes 3/4ths ratification by the state legislatures, not their electoral college members. And as near as I can tell there's at least 12 or so dem controlled ones, with enough split elsewhere it'd probably take notably more than a bare passing. Not terribly likely, heh.

Assuming they don't go for the state convention thing option, anyway. Hard to even guess how that'd go, since a quick check suggests exactly how each state goes about it... differs. It'd be one hell of a mess.

[PTTG??]

The Republicans seem to be making the same mistake as the Democrats did with the Tea Party.

I dunno, at this point I don't know what response is reasonable. It's like, if the doctor says your untreated lung cancer is going to kill you in six months regardless, why bother quitting smoking? In this case, is there anything a Republican politician can do to get rid of the stigma of being a Trumpling?

[Lord Shonus]

That's only for proposing an amendment. It then has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Not only is this a higher percentage needed (Trump won only 60% of the states in the election), but there will be a massive advertising battle between supporters and opponents that makes it very hard for anything really bad to get through.

Eehh... what trump won wasn't what an amendment would take, for what it's worth. If it actually makes it to the state-related bits it takes 3/4ths ratification by the state legislatures, not their electoral college members. And as near as I can tell there's at least 12 or so dem controlled ones, with enough split elsewhere it'd probably take notably more than a bare passing. Not terribly likely, heh.

Assuming they don't go for the state convention thing option, anyway. Hard to even guess how that'd go, since a quick check suggests exactly how each state goes about it... differs. It'd be one hell of a mess.

Think you misunderstood. I was explicitly stating that, even if you count on every state that went Trump in the last election to support an amendment, it would not be enough, as he only carried 30/50 of the states, or 60%.

[Frumple]

Eh, was mostly just making the point that you can't really count what was got during the POTUS election. Amendment has a different selection method, et al. Makeup's different enough it would at least probably be a pretty different spread, if not actually make a difference in an amendment passing.

[Strife26]

Yeah, changing the Constitution is the hardest thing to do within the American system, for understandable and good reasons.

[Flying Dice]

If Trump's presidency results in a Constitutional Amendment, it will almost certainly be a response to some element of his regime, rather than something pushed forward by it.

[PTTG??]

If Trump's presidency results in a Constitutional Amendment, it will almost certainly be a response to some element of his regime, rather than something pushed forward by it.

A major terror attack could win back the majority support for him.

[Max™]

Assuming a (Armok help me for saying this) sane Republican response involving merely invading an unrelated country to a major terror attack from Trump is quite frankly absurd.