• Trump on Flynn pardon: "we'll see what happens"
    39 replies, posted
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;52982889]Yep. The ability to pass sweeping reforms in one election cycle is not a good thing. It is a dangerous amount of power.[/QUOTE] So much truth here. One of the best parts of government is the bureaucracy. Slow, steady change prevents fast, downhill change. Example being the absolute failure of Trump to rule by fiat, dispute his overwhelming attempts to. Also, one of the reasons why Rep. Tax Reform being a budget bill is so gross. By using the simple majority required for the "budget bill", they're passing into law huge, sweeping changes off of party lines and bypassing any Dem. votes whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;52983017]The system as designed works alright as long as you don't have a death cult as a major party, but alas. I don't think gradual change is really enough right now. The opioid crisis won't go away without some serious changes. (Universal Health Care of some sort is polling around [URL="http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/06/23/public-support-for-single-payer-health-coverage-grows-driven-by-democrats/"]60%[/URL] btw.)[/QUOTE] Oh I’m certainly not picking on universal healthcare in particular. Its ridiculous that we still have people who pretend it’s not a problem, or that other countries don’t have perfectly functional (and less expensive on average) universal healthcare systems.
[QUOTE=Gbps;52983023]So much truth here. One of the best parts of government is the bureaucracy. Slow, steady change prevents fast, downhill change. Example being the absolute failure of Trump to rule by fiat, dispute his overwhelming attempts to. Also, one of the reasons why Rep. Tax Reform being a budget bill is so gross. By using the simple majority required for the "budget bill", they're passing into law huge, sweeping changes off of party lines and bypassing any Dem. votes whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Why are riders even allowed? They've been used from the very beginning as a way to abuse and circumvent the system.
[QUOTE=archangel125;52983144]Why are riders even allowed? They've been used from the very beginning as a way to abuse and circumvent the system.[/QUOTE] They're allowed because both parties can abuse them. That's the only ever reason why such things happen, is if both parties can equally abuse it.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52983262]They're allowed because both parties can abuse them. That's the only ever reason why such things happen, is if both parties can equally abuse it.[/QUOTE] You'd think an ideal system would be one that wouldn't allow such rampant abuse.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52982521]What good is the partition of power if the executive branch can just do as they please? That sounds pretty stupid.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between "do as they please" and "not do what they don't want to do." The net result of the checks and balances system is a skew towards the status quo - all branches can be told they can't do a thing they're doing, so nothing gets done. That's a lot better than one branch (e.g. Trump) getting enough power to "do as they please" with no consequences. I'd rather have the president be able to get nothing done than the president be able to do whatever. [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;52982685]Congress has the power to do anything it wants. Which is why it being dysfunctional is probably a good thing. All it has to do is write in at the end of any law that "this effects interstate commerce" and suddenly the law is legitimate within the Constitution.[/QUOTE] Commerce clause tests aren't deferential. They don't automatically become constitutional. Obamacare was knocked down under a commerce theory and saved only on a taxation one.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52982434]Wait what? And that's considered okay? Doesn't it make the judicial and legislative branches basically useless if the executive doesn't feel like enforcing anything?[/QUOTE] No, actually the scotus ruled on this, if the legislation passes a law and the executive refuses to enforce it then they can have the judiciary force them to, if they still refuse then thats a constitutional crisis Most of the laws and budgeted items from congress though have deadlines and extension provisions so like the embassy and jeruselem issue, the executive branch had an out to keep issuing wavers to delay, but in cases like the russia sanctions they have refused to enact them so far even as the deadline has passed, congress should have forced the matter but they give trump a pass on everything
[QUOTE=Snowmew;52982405]The judicial branch doesn't have an army. The police and military [i]are[/i] the executive branch, that's how it's set up. If the executive does not want to act, the judiciary can make all the rulings it wants, but they're just paper without the executive's enforcement.[/QUOTE] Minor correction: Most federal police services are under the Judicial branch, including the FBI and USMS as the most prominant of the bunch. There are exceptions like secret service police under the executive branch or capitol police under the legislative branch.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52985952]Minor correction: Most federal police services are under the Judicial branch, including the FBI and USMS as the most prominant of the bunch. There are exceptions like secret service police under the executive branch or capitol police under the legislative branch.[/QUOTE] Huh? FBI and USMS are both under DOJ, which is executive. DOJ is run by the AG, which is a Presidentially-appointed position.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.