What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

Started by FunkMonk, November 08, 2016, 11:02:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

HisMajestyBOB

On the other hand, the President and the executive agencies are above the law, so the judicial branch can go pound sand.
Three lovely Prada points for HoI2 help

Sheilbh

Yeah this is one of those ones where I do kind of sympathise or feel a little uncertain.

In general I agree, but the other side is that it can go both ways - for example many administrations in recent years took a very relaxed approach (more relaxed than the courts were) on, say, financial regulation or anti-trust. That had an effect because of Chevron. So it will reflect the ideological frame of that administrative body - legislation should provide a better scope.

Also I am pretty sympathetic to the idea that it's for the legislature to define the scope of what are, in effect, delegated powers to administrative bodies. But, as you say, it requires a legislature to be functioning for that to work and that's not the way the US legislature is - on the other hand I'm not sure that means you should, in effect, let those powers just accrue to those bodies themselves. I'm not sure what the right approach is of how much the courts (or anyone else) should really be accounting for dysfunction.
Let's bomb Russia!

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 05, 2024, 04:05:45 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 04, 2024, 11:43:44 PMWhat is truly perverse is that decision is both a road map and an encouragement to abuse of power, at least as directed to Trumpian personality inclined to exploit such opportunities.  Yes the decision holds that unofficial acts can be prosecuted. But that just means that if the President wants to commit a terrible crime, then it can and should be done through direct abuse of Presidential powers.  Do everything officially. If you want to steal an election, don't do it through campaign intermediaries or playing footsie with outside lawyers, get some thuggish flunky of an acting attorney general to use the full powers of the US government to steal it as a matter of administration policy, using some complete bullshit enforcement rationale.

How could the Justice Department steal an election without warrants and such issued by a court?

Criminal charges can be brought by information without convening a grand jury. Arrests can be made without involving a court. And in those limited occasions where a warrant is required, who is to stop Attorney General Giuliani if he decides to ignore the Courts?  In any event Trumps people won't find it too hard to find a few Judge Cannons to rubber stamp whatever they want to do
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

jimmy olsen

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 03, 2024, 03:14:26 PMI've said before the thing I find really unsettling about the US is that I can't think of any (and I'm sure there are some) examples of a state getting into this sort of situation and being able to course correct.

I find it grim that ancient and early modern writers all talk about the end of democracies or democratic republics, almost as if it's a law of nature and how much of what they describe and the examples they cite I recognise now.

France is on it's fifth republic.
It is far better for the truth to tear my flesh to pieces, then for my soul to wander through darkness in eternal damnation.

Jet: So what kind of woman is she? What's Julia like?
Faye: Ordinary. The kind of beautiful, dangerous ordinary that you just can't leave alone.
Jet: I see.
Faye: Like an angel from the underworld. Or a devil from Paradise.
--------------------------------------------
1 Karma Chameleon point

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 08, 2024, 07:16:38 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on July 03, 2024, 03:14:26 PMI've said before the thing I find really unsettling about the US is that I can't think of any (and I'm sure there are some) examples of a state getting into this sort of situation and being able to course correct.

I find it grim that ancient and early modern writers all talk about the end of democracies or democratic republics, almost as if it's a law of nature and how much of what they describe and the examples they cite I recognise now.

France is on it's fifth republic.

The experience of 2 through 4 was not to be highly recommended.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Josquius

America certainly does seem to be on the path to having an emperor
██████
██████
██████

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Syt on July 05, 2024, 02:15:00 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 04, 2024, 11:35:26 PMI didn't see the video.

There are Supreme Court cases that are very complicated to understand, with lots of nuance. Like interpreting ERISA, or Burford abstention, or the tax code.
This isn't one of those.

Right off the top the Court says the President has absolute immunity for core constitutional functions.  And a quick glance at Article II - there we go, Commander in Chief of the armed forces, directs the entire Executive branch - OK, game over. Yes there is more detail and that detail is important but in terms of the mammoth impact and the complete reversal of the entire rationale of the constitutional system, that first step is enough on its own.  Presidential powers are so extensive and so impactful that absolute immunity effectively means unchecked absolute power for anyone who chooses to wield it.

Besides the absolute immunity for core constitutional functions, did I understand the ruling correctly that for all other "official functions" the immunity applies if criminal prosecution could in any way hinder the discharge of said function, or the functioning of government?

Plus, that the motive of the President plays no role in the assessment of authority? (And that any documents that fall under any of the immunity clauses can not be used as evidence in cases - if any remain - where the President can be prosecuted?

Yes, plus in those cases involving unofficial conduct, testimony or documentation concerning official acts cannot even come into evidence. Can't emphasize enough what a bizarre rule that is.  In any white collar criminal case, usually most of the evidence that comes in is not of criminality itself. It's usually documents or testimony that provides the context for the criminal activity. Putting on a criminal case with a rule like this is like performing a symphony with half the score pages randomly torn out.

Quotean someone explain to me like I'm five years old how these supposed "originalists" argue for this immunity as being in the intention of the Founding Fathers

Originalism is a scam.
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Sheilbh

Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 08, 2024, 07:16:38 AMFrance is on its fifth republic.
Not sure that's an encouraging comparison :lol: The cycle of French Republics is not a story of course correction.
Let's bomb Russia!

Valmy

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 08, 2024, 07:57:35 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on July 08, 2024, 07:16:38 AMFrance is on its fifth republic.
Not sure that's an encouraging comparison :lol: The cycle of French Republics is not a story of course correction.

I would say the Third Republic was a course correction for the second, defanging the office of the President to ensure there couldn't be another Napoleon III. Then the Fifth Republic was a course correction for the third and fourth, deciding that maybe it is ok if there is another Napoleon III so long as the government wasn't in constant disfunction and turmoil.
Quote"This is a Russian warship. I propose you lay down arms and surrender to avoid bloodshed & unnecessary victims. Otherwise, you'll be bombed."

Zmiinyi defenders: "Russian warship, go fuck yourself."

Oexmelin

The French stumbled upon the Third Republic mostly because monarchists couldn't agree on who ought to be the monarch... The subsequent undermining of the President's power was an evolution of the regime through practice. In a sense, it can be seen as a course correction, one that emerged from compromise - mainly, that there could be a Republic, but that it could only be a Conservative Republic. The framers of the Fourth Republic had en eye towards the Third's relative longevity and stability, but forgot that the ideological compromise that had given it such longevity was long dead.


 
Que le grand cric me croque !