|
|
Post by kaanra on May 8, 2019 22:17:28 GMT
It seems with congress and the executive branch, that we are in uncharted legal territories with no concrete precedents. If the president can just say no to things, use executive order for (I think things that are irrelevant to the use of executive order), deny subpoenas to his private finances, etc., what happens? I feel like we live in this fake reality where an action can just be written off as politically motivated, no matter what, from either side. But if an action is both politically motivated and just, does it matter? Asking banks for the presidents private finance records and tax returns seems in line with a lot of political theories, most of the other standing presidents and a lot of legal people would feel that it is ok as well. tldr; just hella confused at what would have to happen for anything to get done, and kinda worried that if there is no legal precedent set for these edge cases, it will just happen again on the other parties side.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mātōnya on May 8, 2019 23:12:27 GMT
I have seen that argument and I agree it's a legitimate concern. I think a lot of us right now are learning more about the U.S. federal government than we ever knew before, and what we're learning is scary (e.g., that it seems a sitting president can basically do what he wants regardless of the age-old platitudes about "checks and balances"). I think, if anything, this should show the American people that they need a new Constitution, and in my ideal world, the discussion would be, "Ok, so how do we make a new Constitution now?" rather than, "Ok, so how are we going to deal with this when it happens again?" I guess that does nothing to solve the current crisis, I admit, but I think any plan going forward should have that as an ultimate goal.
|
|
|
|
Post by kaanra on May 10, 2019 23:38:30 GMT
Why do you think a new constitution entirely, even in the ideal sense? Realistically, some new amendments would suffice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mātōnya on May 11, 2019 2:50:57 GMT
Because I think the Constitution is fundamentally flawed in the way it describes how the federal government should work. I suppose you could just tack on 30 amendments to satisfy what I personally believe is wrong with it, but if you're going to do something like that then you might as well just start fresh. For those of us from other countries, the idea of making a new charter or constitution every so often doesn't seem strange or excessive, and I've never quite understood why Americans are so very attached to theirs. But I will concede that amendments could satisfy me, but I would see them restructure the government in some profound ways, so within my ideals the changes would probably be just as radical as making a new constitution anyway. I'm not convinced that it's any less realistic to do one or the other if we theoretically had the ability to implement the specific changes I would have in mind.
I guess you could say I'm just not committed to an incrementalist approach when you can have everything you want now by disbanding the federal legislature and starting with a new constitution.
|
|
