At this point, I am no longer convinced there is any way to preserve the Constitution. Donald Trump and the Senate have shone a blindingly bright spotlight on just how much of the American "checks and balances" system was actually based on the good faith of the various branches of government. It was never perfect (partisan squabling has been a part of American politics almost since the Constitution was ratified), but it was never like this. The blatant actions of the Trump-Senate axis have shown me that the Constituion needs to be replaced. It is unfortunate, but the USA needs to move to a second republic. There are quite a number of things that need to be changed "while we're at it", but especially a lot of what was implicit needs to become explicit, including primarily limits on presidential power. I also would like to see some clearer definitions of the limits of judicial power. There is nothing democratic about a system where a partisan judicial appointment can override the clear desire of the voters, and where even if it is appealed, it can ultimately end up with a situation where nine people, none of whom were elected by the people or answerable to the people and all of whom are no more politically "independent" than Bernie Sanders, can make a decision about what the Constitution "means", by a 5-4 decision (meaning that almost 45% of the so-called best judicial minds in the country say the opposite), and no one can do anything about it. That is not democracy. The US constitution has had a good, long run. (France is into its 5th republic, in less time than the US has gone with the first.) It was a brilliant document for its time. But the modern world has shown its limitations. It's time for a Constitutional Convention.
No, it shows that impeachment can be a political weapon. You should be able to understand the huge difference between those two statements.
I am curious to know what you think needs to be fixed and why it can't be done within the current system (if I am understanding you correctly). The system is designed to be anti-democratic in that it allows for the protection of the rights of the minority and some amount of insulation from day-to-day whims. If the public had its way, things like birthright citizenship, the right to a defense attorney in criminal cases, and freedom of the press might all be seriously curtailed. There are checks on judiciary power. It's just that government is reluctant or slow to use them, or they are onerous. Most "bad" decisions are subject to new legislation. Congress could "overturn" Citizens United or authorize a new Voting Rights Act or end or modify qualified immunity whenever it wants. A new constitutional amendment could define the right to bear arms as something that makes sense. And judges can be impeached just like any other official (although no justice that I'm aware of has gone so far off the rails that they deserve impeachment and removal).
Wow, I haven't seen right wingers blowing this many loads since 2016. Keep dreaming, guys, and maybe one day America will be like it was(n't) in the 50's!
But it's not just an occasional thing with Trump. Pretty much everyone who has left his administration he later realizes that person was a bum. Kelly, Bannon, Mattis, Mooch, there are no doubt others that I can't think of. It's fairly clear that either he's thin-skinned and wrongly attacking people just because they are critical of him or he really kind of sucks at screening talent. (Or both).
Trump is a moron who appeals greatly to other morons, many of which unfortunately constitute the American electorate. The mainstream Republicans are just along for the ride.
The "sources" are her record. She was known as being "moderate-to-conservative" on criminal matters for instance. That included findings that give a lot of leeway to the police under "qualified immunity", something that has been used by them to escape consequence for their actions subsequently and contributes to the clusterfuck that exists right now. Then there's the time she visited Egypt to legitimse the junta that had taken power. Soon afterwards they began handing out hundreds of death sentences to dissidents. Yes, there are good things too. But let's be objective. She's only a liberal icon now because reactionaries on the court have made her seem so.
I think Shoes was being facetious. Mike could have been being ironic if using the definition of ironic as being sarcastic rather than the other and more common definition of incongruous.
It's a nice thought, but it could also only happen in the aftermath of a horribly destructive conflict.
For women, she really is a big deal. Women needed a man's permission to do damn near anything involving money and she deserves her due on changing that, no matter what else.
That was my first thought. Impeach him for what? Following the constitution and appointing a judge? And speaker or not, she has no control over the US Senate, so no amount of kangaroo courts in the house is going to change that. Dems can be pissed all they want, but the only way they are stopping this is to peel away Republican Senators. And empty threats and attempted character assassinations of the eventual female nominee isn't going to win many votes in November.
?!? I'm totally in awe of the Right's ability to deny the nose on their face. Clinton's impeachment for lying under oath - that was a political weapon. trump? Hell, I don't even have to google to list five things off the top of my head that has happened since the first impeachment. tampering with the post office tweeting lies verbal threats to not leave office if voted out verbal threats to "postpone" the election withholding information vital to the health of Americans resulting in the deaths of Americans whom otherwise could have taken necessary actions to protect themselves. He is a danger to our government - corrupt as it is. He needs to be removed - should have been removed with the first impeachment.
I wouldn't say from scratch. Use the existing Constitution - especially the Bill of Rights - as your foundation but like Async said, clarify some stuff. But the bulk of the Constitution is fine as is. A three-branch government, a bicameral legislature, yadda yadda yadda.
I'm always in awe of the far left's ability to make a mountain out of a mole hill when they don't get what they want. Of course it was and the American people thought the same thing when they gave so many republicans the boot in 1998.Democrats picked up five seats, marking the first time since the 1934 elections in which the president's party picked up seats in the House. Yes, the first time that the Dems had eggs on their faces. So lets take a look at your "accusations." Post office has been losing money for years. Why keep throwing more money at it? A president that lies? Stop the presses! THAT'S never happened before. Those old nuggets? You do realize that the first time you sounded the alarm on that four years ago it was the left that lost their minds after the election. So why in the world should anyone outside of your fantasy bubble believe it will happen now? Bullshit. If you want him removed, go vote. Outside of that, it isn't happening.
OK, do you swear to ensure the vote is fair? That if he tries to ignore legitimate votes or interfere with them, you'll help fuck him up? See, the problem is... I don't think you would. I think you'll swallow any excuse for destroying American democracy, as long as it keeps the GOP in and the Dems out. Because I think - and you've provided ample evidence - that you're a partisan cunt.
Post office losing money is an entirely different issue than trump's meddling with the post office. Nice try, though. That's a true Republican strategy there - deflection. Another Republican strategy - escalate something to the Nth degree, then when called on it, deflect. It's like you're answering based on a list of strategies provided by the Republican party. trump tweeted these thing THIS SUMMER - 2020. Not in 2016. ?!?!? Delusional much? Clearly, as Republican Senators are just as bad as trump. They all need to go.
Please feel free to provide links showing any Democratic president attempting to interfere with a lawful election.
