What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[viper37]

I'll happy when Mueller finally gets him.

I don't have nearly enough faith in the system anymore for that to give me any sense of hope.

I read somewhere, I can't remember where, and it might be totally bogus, that a sitting president can not be indicted for any crimes committed while in office or before he came into office (ie, electoral fraud), he can only be impeached.  And that won't happen with a Republican Senate.

According to this, by the time he comes out of office, he would not have to face prosecution, because the crimes would be prescribed.

I find that strange, very strange.

[grumbler]

If I understand it correctly, the US has over 30 national emergencies ongoing at the moment.

[HisMajestyBOB]

If I understand it correctly, the US has over 30 national emergencies ongoing at the moment.

1. Poverty
2. Homelessness
3. Income inequality / wealth disparity
4. Opioid crisis
5. Healthcare
6. Student Loans
7. Climate Change
8. Increasing political extremism
9. Trump
10. Cybersecurity vulnerability
11. Transportation infrastructure
12. Rudderless foreign policy
13. Lack of US leadership in the world
14. Tom Brady
15. Instability within US allies

How'd I do?

[Razgovory]

He'll die of a heart attack caused by a coked-out binge before Mueller gets him.

I was talking about Don Jr.

[The Larch]

Did anyone actually watch his stupid emergency speech? I'm too scared to dive into a transcript.

According to reports it was an hour long rambling mess even by Trumpian standards.

[grumbler]

If I understand it correctly, the US has over 30 national emergencies ongoing at the moment.

1. Poverty
2. Homelessness
3. Income inequality / wealth disparity
4. Opioid crisis
5. Healthcare
6. Student Loans
7. Climate Change
8. Increasing political extremism
9. Trump
10. Cybersecurity vulnerability
11. Transportation infrastructure
12. Rudderless foreign policy
13. Lack of US leadership in the world
14. Tom Brady
15. Instability within US allies

How'd I do?

You forgot
16. Needs more cowbell
17. No new far Side cartoons
18. No host for Academy Awards
19. The Simpsons sucks now
20. Damned kids on my lawn
21. Virginia politicians wore blackface
22. Francisco Franco is still dead
23. Is the dress blue or gold?
24. Thanks, Obama!
25. Keep Calm and [X]
26. Portlandia was cancelled
27. Autotuning
28. YOLO
29. There's never been an American Doctor Who
30. Urban Meyer is a lying scumbag

[11B4V]

If I understand it correctly, the US has over 30 national emergencies ongoing at the moment.

1. Poverty
2. Homelessness
3. Income inequality / wealth disparity
4. Opioid crisis
5. Healthcare
6. Student Loans
7. Climate Change
8. Increasing political extremism
9. Trump
10. Cybersecurity vulnerability
11. Transportation infrastructure
12. Rudderless foreign policy
13. Lack of US leadership in the world
14. Tom Brady
15. Instability within US allies

How'd I do?

You forgot
16. Needs more cowbell
17. No new far Side cartoons
18. No host for Academy Awards
19. The Simpsons sucks now
20. Damned kids on my lawn
21. Virginia politicians wore blackface
22. Francisco Franco is still dead
23. Is the dress blue or gold?
24. Thanks, Obama!
25. Keep Calm and [X]
26. Portlandia was cancelled
27. Autotuning
28. YOLO
29. There's never been an American Doctor Who
30. Urban Meyer is a lying scumbag

I knew buns guns weren't a national emergency....nutters

Fixed 

[jimmy olsen]

That "I didn't need to do this" line is going to be the the first line in every lawsuit against this.

[dps]

That "I didn't need to do this" line is going to be the the first line in every lawsuit against this.

Does kind of undermine the argument that there's an actual emergency.

[Oexmelin]

Did anyone actually watch his stupid emergency speech? I'm too scared to dive into a transcript.

More and more disturbing. It's basically: it's an emergency because I want it to be done. Also rapists and drugs and Nancy lies. It's going to get sued, I'll lose at every appellant court because they are fake courts, until we get to the Supreme Court, where they are fair, and then we'll win:

"We will possibly get a bad ruling, we'll get another bad ruling, and we'll end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we'll get a fair shake and we'll win in the Supreme Court. Just like they did on the ban, and we lost and we went to the Supreme Court and we won." 

At this point, the US should disband Congress, since apparently, the only thing necessary for government is a strong executive, and a heavily politicized judiciary. And the fact that this becomes the new normal, and that American citizens have to pin all their hopes on the judiciary means that once the inevitable legal loopholes are found, opposition will be disarmed. This was already the case on the Muslim ban, where basically everything that Trump said, or did, that provided necessary context for the ban, was excluded from the ruling, in favor of a narrow legalistic interpretation of Presidential powers - which were developed precisely at a time when these powers were in fact held in check by political bodies and norms.

[Admiral Yi]

That's the job of the Supreme Court Ucks, to decide if something is constitutional.  Not whether it is nice, or preferable.

[Valmy]

That's the job of the Supreme Court Ucks, to decide if something is constitutional.  Not whether it is nice, or preferable.

Yeah I mean there was no doubt that the "Muslim ban" was within Executive prerogative. I doubt they would find building massive walls the same way.

[Oexmelin]

That's the job of the Supreme Court Ucks, to decide if something is constitutional.  Not whether it is nice, or preferable.

And deciding whether something is constitutional is messy business: Constitutions have a nasty habit of being full of holes, requiring judges to interpret articles and situations from a variety of other cues - otherwise, you'd get the Ten Commandments, and no dissenting opinion. And so Constitutions are not an EULA. They are also foundational documents, dedicated to a laying the principles of a polity - therefore, yes, they are normative documents, offering guidelines towards deciding whether some things are preferable or nice.

[Oexmelin]

Yeah I mean there was no doubt that the "Muslim ban" was within Executive prerogative. I doubt they would find building massive walls the same way.

If there was no doubt, why was the decision 5-4?

[Valmy]

Yeah I mean there was no doubt that the "Muslim ban" was within Executive prerogative. I doubt they would find building massive walls the same way.

If there was no doubt, why was the decision 5-4?

Because there was more to the question than just that. Yes the President has the authority to make those kinds of foreign relations calls, but they are some limits to that authority.

Here the President has no such authority to unilaterally spend money like this, at least constitutionally. So I don't see how it could be justified by a similar narrowly legalistic way.