That’s not necessary, obviously Americans would never elect a criminal for President.
This was probably the general thinking before everything went batshit crazy among Republicans.
This was probably the general thinking before everything went batshit crazy among Republicans realized they could appeal to their voters by going mask-off.
That’s true to some degree, but they were not all always crazy.
Although I disagree with for instance McCain (deceased) and Mitt Romney may wear magic underwear, so he obviously is a bit crazy, they were not completely insane. Like numerous all of the MAGA crowd.
I wonder how much Republican politicians actually believe in the shit they say vs how much of it is just to please the small-minded bigots for votes. They seem to oppose the left on every single issue, no matter how trivial.
What’s concerning is the Dem party leadership is still operating under that assumption…
They’re either that out of touch with American politics, or they’d rather risk the country than risk themselves being held accountable in a hypothetical future.
Either way, I think that’s disqualifing, we need people willing to actually fix shit rather than just attempt to not let things get worse and then use that as a threat to keep getting elected.
We tried that with Obama’s SC seat, using it as a fear motivator to convince people Hillary should be president. The party lost that bet, but didn’t learn a single fucking thing. They just want to double down on the strategy.
If they pass laws limiting the damage a republican president can cause, they’re hurting their own chances since lots of people vote for shitty D candidates only to prevent a Republican from winning.
And sure, there are primary elections. But both parties have went on the legal record saying those are nonbinding and they can nominate anyone they want for the general.
If they pass laws limiting the damage a republican president can cause, they’re hurting their own chances
I’m not quite sure I follow, and I disagree that making laws that protect democracy better would hurt them in an election.
And sure, there are primary elections. But both parties have went on the legal record saying those are nonbinding and they can nominate anyone they want for the general.
Yes, it was absolutely outrageous how they claimed they could choose Hillary, even if Bernie won.
No it doesn’t make sense how democrats hurt their own chances because people vote for shitty candidates. I’d say it’s even somewhat self contradictory.
It’s not. Which is why Republicans still manage to become president…
But you’re thinking about what would be best for the country. Unfortunately a lot of democratic politicians are more concerned about the amount of political donations they will receive.
And the wealthy have a lot of money to give, but don’t give it to people willing to substantially raise their taxes
That’s the rub. The people running the political parties care more about getting elected than helping America once elected.
So they’re going to keep picking their donors over the American public, and the worse Republicans are about it, the worse Dems can be while still (legitimately) being the lesser evil.
That’s why they hate progressives so much. They’re raising the bar and presenting an option that’s better than:
Well, it’s us or a Republican, so you have to vote for us.
republicans blocked a supreme court pick of obamas for over a year in congress so that trump could pick it. Previously even some liberals like to have shared power were one party controlled some and the other controlled the other but with the current republican party platform of batshit crazy and no honor Im not sure if anyone still sees that as a viable idea.
Criminals shouldn’t be barred from running though. In fact, there’s precedent for people running for President from prison, and it should be allowed in order to make sure that the state doesn’t imprison people from jailing political opponents.
I don’t understand this line of reasoning and it doesn’t seem like an obvious assumption to me, but am willing to read more about it in order to understand why I might be wrong. Do you have any recommendations for a detailed legal argument for it? My searching is only coming up with opinion articles and none of them seem solid (for either side).
Look up Eugene V. Debs. And yes, this is an opinion, not a legal question. We’re talking about which laws should govern who gets to run for President, and I feel like they’re already too restrictive as they are.
While not a legal argument, look up Alexei Navalny in Russia. He’s been the leader of the country’s opposition party for some time and beyond his attempted assassination, he’s become a political prisoner and has been trying to maintain political status from gaol. He absolutely should be able to run and would objectively be a better president for the average Russian than Putin is.
While it’s not an American example, it’s a general example of why people who are technically criminals (in his case, a political prisoner) should be able to run for office - even from gaol.
It’s one of those situations where a protection needs to be in place that, sadly, can also be abused by bad actors.
One of the major reasons for the electoral college is because many of the founding fathers thought the people were too stupid to not elect a populist (like Trump) and that Congress should choose the president, but the other side thought it gave Congress too much power. So they compromised with the electoral system.
It’s been well known since day 1 that the people could do a very bad job choosing the president. The problem is that the EC has been so watered down at this point that the only purpose it currently serves is to create a situation where we’re under the tyranny of the minority. And, ironically, it gave us trump and might do so again.
Most electors are bound by state law to vote a certain way, and the scotus has upheld this practice, so I would argue that they really make no decision at all.
i mean he did also lose the popular vote. that was a pretty significant thing that happened. like i understand where you’re coming from here but he very much did lose the popular vote.
only purpose it currently serves is to create a situation where we’re under the tyranny of the minority.
Although optimistically a lot of the way the government was designed is to prevent exactly the type of person that Trump is becoming president, tyranny of the minority is part of the system. EC and the senate are definitely designed in a way to prevent the unwashed masses from gaining too much power, and keep in mind when the framers were designing this we’re talking only about white land-owning men. Our government’s design is progressive for its time compared to a literal monarchy, but it’s still clearly designed with a caste system in mind.
I mean, she’s not wrong, but she knows you start by getting 290 votes in the House, right? The same group of people who couldn’t get 218 to decide who their own leader was?
That’s actually not the only route to getting a constitutional amendment. If 2/3 of the state legislatures in the country call a constitutional convention they can amend the Constitution independently of the Congress.
You’re being downvoted but you’re right. Right wing groups have been calling for a constitutional convention for years because they know they’d have outsized influence on it.
A constitutional convention isn’t “let’s tackle this narrow issue,” it puts everything on the table. It’d be a disaster with the current makeup of the states.
If we have a constitutional convention, enough legislatures are currently dominated by gerrymandered Republican supermajorities that we will literally be living in a christo-fascist, antebellum-esque state.
We’re actually closer to that right now, I think there are 4 states left who need to call for it.
The problem with this method is the end game is still the same, you need ratification from 3/4 of the states and that won’t happen. Both sides will poison pill the other.
This might have been a good time to hit them with some reverse-psychology. Team up with Hillary to lobby FOR self-pardons and watch the GOP house have a stroke.
Realistically because they could care less about opposing the dems if it keeps their power. If they actually tried some reverse psychology shit like that the GOP would happily let it pass and show how they are more bipartisan than those ‘filthy’ liberals. They aren’t all complete idiots, they are fascists trying to dismantle our democracy.
No but she also doesn’t need to for her base, in fact it works better when they play the idiot stooge. It makes them relatable to their base and makes them seem incompetent to the opposition, to have such a naive take doesn’t help us when we are actively fighting a fascist takeover.
Because you are forgetting about framing the narrative. Fox doesn’t need to tell its base about shit, just point to events in the past about how dems blocked GOP initiatives while parroting on about how great the GOP is for crossing isles to get something passed. They won’t tell the whole story and their base isn’t gonna search out the truth, they are gonna eat up what fox and the like serve up on a platter for them.
If they actually tried some reverse psychology shit like that the GOP would happily let it pass and show how they are more bipartisan than those ‘filthy’ liberals.
They’ve killed bills that they created and submitted themselves before, once the other party accepted said bills.
You mean when riders were added on that they didn’t like? If the plan I responded about was actually put in place you wouldn’t be able to get away with riders and so subsequently there would be no reason for them to kill it, hence it being a bad idea.
Honestly I get why this is, but I disagree slightly. A President should be able to pardon themselves from crimes committed before they were elected to that term. Otherwise you could run into a problem where a corrupt government/administration could jail it’s competitor on bogus charges and then even if elected from a jail cell, that person couldn’t serve.
If they did that to the President and Vice President then the speaker of the house would be made President and that’s a position that can be manipulated with jerrymandering.
If you did shit that would land you in prison, then this needs to be the place where you’re at.
Throughout history, it’s been more likely that someone who was elected from a jail cell was placed there by tyranny than the alternative. I don’t think it’s ever happened that a true criminal in jail won a race in jail; they’re essentially always political prisoners.
Fuck the Republicans and their perjury trap and all, but after 25 years can we finally admit that the President getting a blowjob from an 21yo intern is a bad thing?
A manager at any other company or government position would be fired for it because consent is a tricky thing when there’s a power imbalance.
Why are we pretending it’s all okay with the most powerful person on the planet and a young woman whose entire career and aspirations can be completely made or destroyed my him in an email?
I don’t think anybody thought it was okay. You do understand that there is this thing where both sides are wrong? That was clear from day one.
Yes, Clinton should have been fired. What about Reagan though? Thanks to his cabinet for which he was responsible, thousands of innocents died. What about Nixon? He barely got what he deserved. What about bush, starting a war over lies (false pretenses is way understating it) that cost the lives of thousands upon thousands on all sides… The fucker should have been in jail.
I think there were way worse things going on on presidencies than a blowjob with an iffy power balance and concensus
If POTUS and and intern represent an iffy power balance, what does an actual power imbalance look like? Even in this post, you are still minimizing his culpability. And sure, you are spot on about those Republicans, but that’s irrelevant to the point you responded to.
Yes, the overarching consensus among establishment friendly Democrats has been to completely ignore what we learned about Bill Clinton in that incident. Sure, leave him in office if the Republican option is worse (and they always are), but why is he still an influential member of the Democratic establishment? Why is he still a highly sought after speaker at Democratic party events? And yeah, I actually do recall arguing with his supporters on Reddit about whether this incident was even a stain on his character. Absolute hypocrisy.
but why is he still an influential member of the Democratic establishment? Why is he still a highly sought after speaker at Democratic party events? And yeah, I actually do recall arguing with his supporters on Reddit about whether this incident was even a stain on his character. Absolute hypocrisy.
I truly don’t want to go down the rabbit hole of seeming to defend bad actions, but, you are assuming coercion and non-consensual behavior though, are you not?
If so, do we know this for a fact?
Maybe others who judge them otherwise consider what they did as consensual and non-coerced activities.
My point is just how other people judge the actions when judging the person, not if I personally thought the actions were correct or not. Personally I would have turned down a consensual offer in the work office.
The whole point of the power imbalance is that true consent can never actually be communicated and, therefore, can never actually be known. If I offer to stick my dick in my secretary’s mouth, does she say “yes” because she’s into it, or because she’s afraid of retribution? How do I tell the difference? If HR finds out, they won’t try to tell the difference, they will show me the door.
I’ve seen this happening also a lot on Reddit in the past and a few times here. I don’t think people post a few times the same comment by purpose. Could this be a client related bug?
Its not reddit or lemmy related, this happens for almost any user submission if your internet connection stutters at just the right moment.
Its why sites like your bank or larger purchase shopping sites will tell you to only click a button once, even if its been a few seconds and nothing happened. Dont want to accidentally double charge yourself
I disagree with a bunch of her proposals simply for the reason that I fundamentally disagree that America should have an elected president.
I believe the 3 branches of government should be the Judiciary, the States, represented by the Senate, and the People, represented by the House.
The Senate isn’t a legislating house, it’s a house that has the choice to veto legislation with a 2/3rds or more vote, led by a Tribune who calls such votes when deemed necessary, if the Senate itself doesn’t override the Tribune with another 2/3rds or more vote.
Critically, the Senate has 27 representatives from each state, 21 from permanently inhabited territories, and 15 from Indigenous Nations and Labor Unions of 5k or more members, and from County level divisions which have larger populations than individual states. Now every small guy in US politics has their interests served by the Senate.
The house is expanded so that every US State gets a number of reps equal to however many times 50k fits into their population, grouped into districts where 5-9 representatives hail from with a proportionate number of constituents. House is led by a Consul and elected cabinet.
The expanded House and Senate will be a lot to wrangle, but the American people will have a far more functional and personally validating selection of leaders and representatives, and that alone will significantly boost satisfaction with and thereby participation in our democracy.
All everyone wants is for there to be at least someone they feel like hears their deal sitting in office, and with these mega districts, odds are fairly good that at least one sitting representative and one sitting senator will be that guy who gets where you’re coming from and assures you your issues are being fought for.
I disagree wholely that the system works, necessary change is held up constantly by archaic creaking procedures and the rightful distribution of power has long been parasitically weathered away by the unchained executive ever since Jackson normalized the fiat veto.
Any independent executive will inherently make itself a threat to the sovereignty of the people, because it will inherently seek ways to achieve its agenda whenever it runs up against legislative opposition.
This idea is outdated by 150 years. The Civil War clearly established that the United States is no longer a Confederation of individual states, it’s a Union. We literally say “indivisible” in the Pledge of Allegiance.
The Senate doesn’t need to exist. Unicameral legislatures are very common in the world today, and they work.
I disagree that the Senate doesn’t need to exist, I think that the hand it currently holds is unbalanced, but being a tool of intervention by small players against the will of the people trampling minority rights is a well justified place in government.
Plus, it’s a 2/3rds plus veto, so it’s only coming down when a large number of those seated across the political spectrum are in agreement that an act of Congress is going too far with something.
Unicameral legislatures are very common in the world today, and they work.
Do you disagree with that? It’s true. No country ever moves from unicameral to bicameral because it’s simpler and easier.
There’s already other veto powers: the President and the Supreme Court can both veto the Legislature. Why does the Legislature need a veto for it’s own decision? That’s just unnecessary.
I’m proposing replacing the president’s veto with the Senate’s
That’s literally the main thing they’d have in this model, the veto.
The reason they have it in addition to the courts is because the courts focus more on using it in cases where a law itself breaks established laws, while the Senate could use it for bills that are hypothetically legal but which still cross some other line like say disproportionately burdening indigenous communities or being unjustly against practices of organized labor.
Which is the problem she’s trying to address. It’s become very obvious that precedent is no longer good enough when you have unethical, immoral, shady people in charge.
Turns out most of the US government relied on norms, traditions, and basic human decency, but very little of it was actually codified into law. Which in this day and age is like having no rules at all since no one has any shame anymore
The rules around pardons are incredibly vague. Presidents have typically treated them vary seriously and used them sparingly. Then Trump saw it as an opportunity to make some cash and do favors for his cronies who committed crimes to help him.
The legal consensus is that they can’t, but it’s never been tested --nor did anyone ever seriously conceive of it as a possibility-- so it’s theoretically possible as a matter of law.
As a non-american, living in an other continent, this is indeed news to me. It’s honestly the first time I hear about this being annactual possibility. I’m fact, its a couple of days ago that I found out, (through Lemmy) that there is no limit to how many pardons a president can issue! I thought it was only a few!
In a piece in Vanity Fair, Lewinsky offered her vision for a more robust democracy via six new amendments: no presidential self-pardons, mandatory background checks for presidents, no suspensions of the U.S. Constitution, a retirement age for elected officials, elimination of the Electoral College and codification of a woman’s right to an abortion.
There’s not a single thing wrong with anything she’s saying, except that she doesn’t go far enough. Well, also that part about suspension of the constitution I wonder what it means. If you suspend the constitution, then you’d presumably also not care about an amendment that says you cannot do so.
But anyways, for pardons, I would say that there should be a ban on any pardon where the President has a conflict of interests. For example, when Trump pardoned Stone. The President specifically shouldn’t be able to pardon anybody who he knows personally or who helped him personally.
There should be background checks for US presidents yes, but also for all congresspersons and Supreme Court Justices. All of their finances should be public information as a matter of course.
Oh boy the classic “criminals dont obey the law!” Bullshit.
THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWSTHAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!!
Oh boy the classic “criminals dont obey the law!” Bullshit.
THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWSTHAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!! THAT IS NO FUCKING EXCUSE TO NOT HAVE LAWS!!!
I think it was a mistake to do so, but I believe he should be able to.
If a President campaigned on marijuana reform and pardons, could they pardon folks for marijuana related crimes.
I am ok with having some restrictions, maybe a review board or clearly defined method for legal challenges, but I think generally ok with the pardon power being fairly broad.
As an example could Ford have pardoned Nixon? I think it was a mistake to do so, but I believe he should be able to.
Why would you believe that the President should be able to give a pardon to somebody like that? What’s the benefit to the American public?
If a President campaigned on marijuana reform and pardons, could they pardon folks for marijuana related crimes.
He doesn’t know those people. There is no personal conflict of interests.
I am ok with having some restrictions, maybe a review board or clearly defined method for legal challenges, but I think generally ok with the pardon power being fairly broad.
There already IS a review board. There already are clearly defined methods for legal challenges. And that has nothing to do with pardoning your buddies after they committed crimes, especially if they committed crimes FOR YOU. Trump and Nixon went against the usual process. Federal pardons are almost always only given out after a person has completed their sentence, and on recommendation of the board.
You don’t need to know someone to have a conflict of interest. A candidate running on the promise to pardon everybody for every crime if they vote for that candidate is a clear conflict of interest. Or pardoning somebody for payment.
I think youtu.be/6uUzrvJtZps from Bob Woodward gives an interesting view, but I think Ford himself sums it up similarly when he said,
“My conscience tells me clearly and certainly that I cannot prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed. My conscience tells me that only I, as President, have the constitutional power to firmly shut and seal this book”
Ford believed pardoning Nixon was the best way for the country to move forward. I disagree with that decision, however I think it’s the Presidents job to make that decision. It likely cost Ford the next election.
Everything you’ve said is evidence that Ford shouldn’t have had the power to pardon Nixon.
You have read the speech, and listened to Woodward, and know all of the ramifications, and you still say you disagree with his decision. This is the reason why we have processes, such as courts. There is absolutely no need for unilateral executive power in this situation.
And importantly, you didn’t answer my only question… How does this power benefit the American public?
Ford’s excuses were that he wanted to move forward. Why don’t we just move forward with murderers, as well? I’ll answer that. It’s because usually, we like to feel justice so that we can move forward. Nixon never truly faced justice.
Ford said that the economy would suffer. That was just his guess. We’ve had almost the same thing today with Trump, and the economy isn’t suffering. So, that means that Ford was probably just wrong about that excuse.
Ford said that he wanted to have his own Presidency, instead of being overshadowed by Nixon. That was never going to happen, no matter what he did. He became President without any general vote, voting him into either Presidency or Vice Presidency. He was President only because that was what Nixon wanted. But even if that hadn’t been the case, Presidents are judged by how they respond to problems. Waving your hand and pretending the problems away doesn’t help the American public.
These were all Ford’s excuses for why he did it. But they were bad excuses. There’s simply no benefit to America to allow Presidents to do this. I consider this matter closed. As you didn’t actually answer my question, I don’t see any point in continuing. Your last comment was your chance to answer my question, but instead you gave Ford’s answers, and said that you disagreed with them. I believe that was a silly choice. But what’s done is done.
Case closed? You certainly are under no obligation to respond but I am free to continue the conversation.
The benefit to the American people is that we have a complex process with regard to legal matters. We have decided that part of that process includes pardon powers. Each branch of the government has their powers.
The legislative branch creates a law. The executive blocks it. The legislative overrides the executive. The judicial declares it unconstitutional. The legislative amends the constitution. The judicial applies the law. The executive pardons. The legislative impeaches.
Each of these require political capital. If the American people support you, change happens. If they don’t, you get booted.
I’m aware it’s not all that simple.
The executive branch has taken on more power recently (20+ years), largely due to the legislative branch refusing to act. The judicial branch has had to make ultimately correct but legally challenging decisions, again due to the legislative braches refusal to act.
A President is tasked by the American people to perform certain duties as commander in chief. To act in the American people’s benefit. Certain powers, like pardon, are also granted.
States like Georgia don’t provide their executive branch the same privilege. Should a similar process be put in place at the federal level? Possibly. Georgians put it in place. Georgians thought so. The American people? It’s worth a discussion.
I suppose the idea is that the justice system can still fail. Everyone can do the “right” thing but at the end of it all, it just doesn’t feel right. Another option might be to resolve issues with the justice system making the correct call at the time, but not one we agree with now.
Even though marijuana possession was a crime at one point, it’s silly now, so you get a pardon.
Now technically I doubt there are many folks with ONLY a federal simple marijuana possession charge and so this applies to very few people and it doesn’t absolve them from any other convictions. However I think as the President, Biden is setting guidance for the country. Governors should see this and then act similarly to pardon state crimes. Congress should see this and implement related laws.
If it is important for a president to suspend habeus corpus, then that should be a power granted through the constitution, not through suspension of the constitution.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus doesn’t come from the Constitution, it is from common law. However, the Constitution does say “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This both protects Habeas Corpus, and also allows for suspending it. It was controversial when Lincoln did it because he did so unilaterally as president, rather than Congress doing it, but the Constitution doesn’t actually say who can suspend it, or specify a procedure, so Lincoln’s act was within the Constitution.
Tldr: Suspending Habeas Corpus is controversial, but not the same as suspending the Constitution.
There should be background checks for US presidents yes, but also for all congresspersons and Supreme Court Justices. All of their finances should be public information as a matter of course.
This would enable the government to make anyone they don’t like criminals to keep them out of office.
I didn’t suggest that it would keep them out of office, just that it would be released to the public. If that public information is enough to keep them out of office, then guess what? The government today already has the ability to do it. The biggest difference is that everybody would be subject to it.
Getting rid of the slavery-era EC would be excellent, that’s for sure. No way the cons will go for that; it’s the only reason they win any presidency since 1988 (W getting popular vote for second term was due to being a “war president” and an incumbent and even then, it was a squeaker - and he would not be in there in the first place if it wasn’t for the EC in 2000).
The EC gives far too much power to a minority of people. It’s bad enough that in the Senate, a state with as many people as California gets the same representation as states with hardly anyone in it, but the EC also lets people in the hinterlands select our POTUS over the will of the majority of the people.
The people in the radicalized hinterlands are already able to send a rep to the House, even extremists like Marge and Bobo; that should be enough.
The EC is slave-state leftovers, it should go the way of slavery itself.
There would still be two parties. They would just both shift left until they were roughly equal again. We currently have a right party and a far-right party. One of the reasons Democrats are so ineffective is because they are trying to appeal to an incredibly wide swath of voters. They talk as if they are centrists, but their actions are conservative, and people on the left are left without representation. Eliminating the EC would shift Reps to the left to appeal to more voters, which would push Dems to the left to distinguish themselves, and the middle ground would actually be in the center again. That sounds like a big win to me.
Ostensibly there is a background check done on all of those it’s called the vetting process. But up until now it’s only been a voluntary process that virtually all presidents and most senators and congressmen go through.
To use the reverse term to that which Monica Lewinsky did, it took an luddite president like Trump to expose the weakness of not having laws that enforced those vetting processes.
The thing is that, largely, government works because people all just kind of agree that it should. If a president says “I’m suspending the Constitution to deal with an emergency”, what happens next? We have a bunch of masked fascists, at high levels in government and in Washington think tanks, who would talk a lot about the unitary executive theory. It would be presented as a done deal, as if there was no question that it was legal. Who would step in to stop it? In the best case scenario, we would have a major constitutional crisis, that would eventually get worked out between the courts, the press, the public, and hopefully some courageous civil servants. In the worst case, it would straight up end our democracy. Somewhere in between lies civil war, and whatever that leads to. If suspension is explicitly forbidden, it gets a lot harder to defend, and makes the best case scenario a lot more likely.
I’m less sure about the value of background checks for presidents. I’m not sure some routine background check would unearth anything that the other side’s oppo-research wouldn’t. But hey, can’t hurt. I’m guessing the intelligence agencies are already digging up everything they can find; making that an official requirement and publicly reported before the election might be really beneficial, not only directly, but also to prevent rogue officials from keeping the dirt to themselves and using it against a sitting president.
Add comment