Politics XVI: Democracy In The Balance

[ahah]

Nov 22, 2024 10:56:54 GMT -4 Spinderella said:

Nov 14, 2022 12:55:00 GMT -4 phillipa said:

I know plenty of people here will call me naive for believing these things. All I can say is, some of the things that are being talked about here, I'll believe it when I see it.

I just feel like this is a very different time we're in right now. If not the First Amendment, what about them changing term limits for presidents? Would people possibly be on board with that? I don't know, just call it a gut feeling. It's one that I would like nothing more than to be wrong about. But with the threats to congress ("Don't agree with us? Consider your primaries over.") about their time left if not jumping on board fully, might control what happens to a lot of things that come across their desks. If they're more fearful about themselves, and not the country...we might have some unfavorable outcomes.

You are a smart woman who clearly from your posts understands how government works. What is your pathway for amending the Constitution to allow Trump a third term?

[Ladybug]

Nov 14, 2022 12:55:00 GMT -4 phillipa said:

I know plenty of people here will call me naive for believing these things. All I can say is, some of the things that are being talked about here, I'll believe it when I see it.

Same. I understand the catastrophizing to a certain extent, but being panicked about things that may or may not happen takes a toll on mental and emotional well-being. If imagining catastrophic scenarios like "martial law is coming!" or "the Constitution will be suspended!" is wearing you down and breaking your spirit before he even takes office, then you're going to be paralyzed by fear and worn down by dread when strength and action are needed.

This is a quote about anxiety that I think about a lot - “Worrying is carrying tomorrow's load with today's strength — carrying two days at once. It is moving into tomorrow ahead of time. Worrying doesn't empty tomorrow of its sorrow, it empties today of its strength.”

[Spinderella]

May 18, 2021 10:34:59 GMT -4 ahah said:

You are a smart woman who clearly from your posts understands how government works. What is your pathway for amending the Constitution to allow Trump a third term?

Whether you're being facetious or not, there are some variables that I've thought about and have come across others that have similar quandaries. I've watched a few political pundits clarify concerns that I, myself, have had. I don't have links to them right off hand at the moment, but some of what has been bouncing in my head:

The 22nd Amendment only bars a person being elected to the office of the President more than twice. It doesn’t prohibit serving or acting as president again, as proposed versions of the amendment would have done. That being said, there isn't much in regards to a insurrection or coup which apparently he's allowed to do now that SCOTUS has cleared that path with his total immunity. It's all done for the benefit of the people, right? He's the only one who can 'save us'. What you and I may take as being an obvious 'limited to only 2 terms, nothing more', Trump has managed to convince SCOTUS that the Constitution we have known is actually only whatever he thinks it means.

The 22nd Amendment also fails to have any provisions on enforcement. If a third term required implementing legislation, the amendment would/should have said so. On the other hand, in 2028, Vance could run at top of the ticket and Trump as VP (if his ego allowed it), only if it was understood that Trump would continue to run things and thus, gets that 'third term'.

Feb 10, 2006 17:47:02 GMT -4 Ladybug said:

Same. I understand the catastrophizing to a certain extent, but being panicked about things that may or may not happen takes a toll on mental and emotional well-being. If imagining catastrophic scenarios like "martial law is coming!" or "the Constitution will be suspended!" is wearing you down and breaking your spirit before he even takes office, then you're going to be paralyzed by fear and worn down by dread when strength and action are needed.

And I apologize if I'm coming off a bit catastrophic in my posts. It's just something about the way these nominees are approaching their potential roles. It's freaking scary and borderline psychotic. Rules don't seem to matter or apply to them, which is where I worry about enforcement. They may not be able to change the constitution, but will that stop them from still carrying on with their plans?

[batmom]

I think that firstly America will be stripped for parts, all regulations that protect citizens from corporate greed rolled back, and all labor protections removed. Then, when everyone is desperate and distracted and too tired to fight, they'll focus on the constitution stuff.

[phillipa]

Oct 20, 2005 9:22:04 GMT -4 Spinderella said:

I just feel like this is a very different time we're in right now. If not the First Amendment, what about them changing term limits for presidents? Would people possibly be on board with that? I don't know, just call it a gut feeling. It's one that I would like nothing more than to be wrong about. But with the threats to congress ("Don't agree with us? Consider your primaries over.") about their time left if not jumping on board fully, might control what happens to a lot of things that come across their desks. If they're more fearful about themselves, and not the country...we might have some unfavorable outcomes.

Oh I certainly think they're going to try some shit. But I think it's largely going to be a repeat of what happened in 2016 -- Trump and his cronies won't get anything through Congress so he'll issue an executive order which will be immediately either be halted by the courts or someone will sue the administration and there will be a stay on it being put into place. It will then exist in legal hell for months if not years, Trump and co. will move onto something else, and it will quietly die. We saw this multiple times in his first term.

Now I will grant you that some circuit court justices were put into place by the Republicans, but they weren't put into place by Trump himself, and there were also justices put into place by the Biden administration. The states also have the ability to sue the administration for executive orders they don't like, and they also aren't legally required to enforce them. So I still think that Trump's executive orders will largely go nowhere. He'll bluster about it for sure, but bluster accomplishes nothing.

I think the biggest things to come out of his administration this time will be the same things that came out of it last time: tariffs and tax cuts. That's it, at least domestically. In terms of foreign policy, Ukraine, Taiwan, and Gaza are in trouble. But domestically? I just don't see us becoming North Korea. There are too many safeguards in place, and the country is too decentralized (hello Tenth Amendment!) to allow him to pull the kind of things he wishes he could.

[granolamom]

Nov 22, 2024 13:38:07 GMT -4 batmom said:

I think that firstly America will be stripped for parts, all regulations that protect citizens from corporate greed rolled back, and all labor protections removed. Then, when everyone is desperate and distracted and too tired to fight, they'll focus on the constitution stuff.

Totally agree. When Musk and Ramaswamy talk about cutting the government work force by half and by a random method, they are not just normalizing cruelty. Probably some number of government employees are already making plans to leave their jobs to avoid the uncertainty and chaos. After the DOGE boys have completed the layoffs, private enterprise will pick up the contracts and, surprise, since there are not so many regulations any more, the work will be shoddy, incomplete, biased, moved overseas, etc.

SCOTUS has already hamstrung the government agencies, saying that the courts do not have to accept agency expertise in enforcing regulations. T***p has nominated for each cabinet position the person who most despises the programs they will be in charge of. So I wouldn't expect anything but obedience in advance there.

T***p wanted to deploy the military against protesters, and if he gets Hegspeth in at Defense, he will get his wish. That will put a big chill on the First Amendment, with absolutely no work necessary by Congress or the state houses. It would not be a stretch for T***p to say that in such a crisis (something that he has manufactured--civil unrest, giant recession, whatever) as we faced during WWII, like FDR he can run for another term.

I hope I'm wrong, but I'd rather be clear-eyed about the future than not. But in this age of misinformation, he (or rather, the billionaires who finance him) can do a lot of damage.

[ahah]

Nov 22, 2024 13:00:26 GMT -4 Spinderella said:

May 18, 2021 10:34:59 GMT -4 ahah said:

You are a smart woman who clearly from your posts understands how government works. What is your pathway for amending the Constitution to allow Trump a third term?

Whether you're being facetious or not, there are some variables that I've thought about and have come across others that have similar quandaries. I've watched a few political pundits clarify concerns that I, myself, have had. I don't have links to them right off hand at the moment, but some of what has been bouncing in my head:

The 22nd Amendment only bars a person being elected to the office of the President more than twice. It doesn’t prohibit serving or acting as president again, as proposed versions of the amendment would have done. That being said, there isn't much in regards to a insurrection or coup which apparently he's allowed to do now that SCOTUS has cleared that path with his total immunity. It's all done for the benefit of the people, right? He's the only one who can 'save us'. What you and I may take as being an obvious 'limited to only 2 terms, nothing more', Trump has managed to convince SCOTUS that the Constitution we have known is actually only whatever he thinks it means.

The 22nd Amendment also fails to have any provisions on enforcement. If a third term required implementing legislation, the amendment would/should have said so. On the other hand, in 2028, Vance could run at top of the ticket and Trump as VP (if his ego allowed it), only if it was understood that Trump would continue to run things and thus, gets that 'third term'.

Feb 10, 2006 17:47:02 GMT -4 Ladybug said:

Same. I understand the catastrophizing to a certain extent, but being panicked about things that may or may not happen takes a toll on mental and emotional well-being. If imagining catastrophic scenarios like "martial law is coming!" or "the Constitution will be suspended!" is wearing you down and breaking your spirit before he even takes office, then you're going to be paralyzed by fear and worn down by dread when strength and action are needed.

And I apologize if I'm coming off a bit catastrophic in my posts. It's just something about the way these nominees are approaching their potential roles. It's freaking scary and borderline psychotic. Rules don't seem to matter or apply to them, which is where I worry about enforcement. They may not be able to change the constitution, but will that stop them from still carrying on with their plans?

I was not being facetious, I was being sincere.

I recall some on the right playing out the same sort of scenarios that you've laid out here believing that Democrats would do it to keep Obama running the country.

As I read the immunity decision, I think that staying in office for the benefit of the people would at best fall into the middle category of the court having to decide whether or not it is a presidential duty. I have a very hard time getting my head around any federal judge deciding that is an official presidential act. Even if they did, I see that one going to the Supreme Court, and don't see them agreeing it's what they meant by official acts as president.

With regards to enforcement -- isn't this where the states come in (which does exhibit some value of having states run elections, and to some degree shows the value of the electoral college? Lets play out the scenario where Kimberly Guilfoyle succeeds Lara Trump as chair of the RNC and declares they are not going to hold primaries, Donald Trump is their nominee. Do you think there'd be ANY Secretary of State who would challenge that in court saying that putting his name on the ballot violates the 22nd Amendment? I do. Again, I don't see the Supreme Court saying "Sure, the constitution says it, but there's no means of enforcement, so I guess we have to go with it".

[mojogirl]

Nov 22, 2024 14:22:47 GMT -4 ahah said:

I recall some on the right playing out the same sort of scenarios that you've laid out here believing that Democrats would do it to keep Obama running the country.

The difference is, Obama didn't spend his time in office musing about how wonderful it is that Chinese President Xi is President for Life, and he DIDN'T STAGE A FUCKING COUP TO TRY TO STAY IN POWER. With the GOP, every accusation is a confession. EVERY ONE.

Don't get me wrong, I am not worried about a 3rd Trump term, if for no other reason that I am surprised almost every day that he is still alive. I think the scenario Batmom lays out above is far more plausible.

[ahah]

Nov 22, 2024 15:16:57 GMT -4 mojogirl said:

Nov 22, 2024 14:22:47 GMT -4 ahah said:

I recall some on the right playing out the same sort of scenarios that you've laid out here believing that Democrats would do it to keep Obama running the country.

The difference is, Obama didn't spend his time in office musing about how wonderful it is that Chinese President Xi is President for Life, and he DIDN'T STAGE A FUCKING COUP TO TRY TO STAY IN POWER. With the GOP, every accusation is a confession. EVERY ONE.

Don't get me wrong, I am not worried about a 3rd Trump term, if for no other reason that I am surprised almost every day that he is still alive. I think the scenario Batmom lays out above is far more plausible.

Well the difference in the minds of people on the right who were pushing the theory on Obama is that they like Trump's policies and didn't like Obama's. I mean heck, I guess we could also say another difference is that Obama's wife was beloved and Trump's wife wants nothing to do with being first lady. But all of that is irrelevant because the reason I made the point was to acknowledge there are people in these situations who imagine the worst case scenario and convince themselves it can happen. The likelihood is so slim that I don't think it's worth the time to get wrapped up in it for either situation.

[ratscabies]

Remember Prohibition? First it wasn’t a constitutional amendment, then it was, then it wasn’t again.

But then, booze is FAR more beneficial than Twitler.