President Donald Trump
I assume it's still acceptable to have a Trump thread in a Politics forum?
So this is an obvious lie - basically aimed at
again, not really important to the discussion and somewhat of a red herring. I’m trying to isolate if, in principle, congress has the constitutional power to create agencies/offices/departments or not. If it does have that power solely then the president cannot by executive action contravene a department established by law. That’s the real focus here.
If you want to argue constitutionality of the department, then you have to have standing to do so, and that would be decided by the cou
well the president tries it and then we check the constitutionality.
then ofc if trump admin lawyers don't defend the action based on non-delegation rather on other stuff in court, you would have a point.
but you need to start by closing that department down and move from there.
if congress can create branches of congress, they all still operate under the exclusive determination of the president under unitary executive theory, so he can't **** them down but he can void them of any and all roles including all employees.
then again if you also don't believe the entirety of executive power resides exclusively, without any limit other than the federal constitution, in the hands of the president, from the less relevant employee of the federal government to anything less, then again it's a constitutional battle.
congress cannot create mini-unelected congresses that don't directly respond to the people, I hope you agree with this.
power is all in the hands of either the president, congress, or the judiciary.
maybe congress can delegate powers to the executive but when it does so, the president can do literally everything he wants with that delegated power (including not using it at all) that doesn't directly violate the federal constitution.
so at the very minimum, congress can create the DoE, but the president can utterly disregard it's existence and never fill any post in it, fire all employees, and leave it as an empty she'll during his administration
maybe not yet for now, but if linked to "attack to the most important donor of the republican party" they are political violence.
the same would apply if rightwing terrorists burnt down the quarters of every NGO taking money from Soros. they should be hunted like Al Qaeda and executednin the steeets if they tried that. killed like Noem dogs.
luciom man i dont know what you just said but im gonna click on your post and upvote it because the flames just scored 4 goals in the third to beat the devils and im drunk so you get an upvote and holy fa98u i just read the post and nevermind
Elon is not an official government decision maker, as Trump keeps pointing out.
If he should become one, he should have to divest himself of every business, like every president except Trump has done.
I can't imagine the attacks on NGOs ever happening, but they still wouldn't be a threat to the state.
Elon is not an official government decision maker, as Trump keeps pointing out.
If he should become one, he should have to divest himself of every business, like every president except Trump has done.
I can't imagine the attacks on NGOs ever happening, but they still wouldn't be a threat to the state.
I think politically motivated attacks are threats to the state.
organized attacks against abortion clinics were correctly treated as that
any form of violence which aims to affect political change is terrorism, simple as that
Paul Jennings Hill (February 6, 1954 – September 3, 2003) was an American minister, religious extremist, and anti-abortion terrorist who murdered physician John Britton and Britton's bodyguard, retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel James Barrett, in 1994.[1][2] Hill was sentenced to death by lethal injection and was executed on September 3, 2003.
well the president tries it and then we check the constitutionality.
then ofc if trump admin lawyers don't defend the action based on non-delegation rather on other stuff in court, you would have a point.
but you need to start by closing that department down and move from there.
if congress can create branches of congress, they all still operate under the exclusive determination of the president under unitary executive theory, so he can't **** them down but he can void them of any and all roles inc
the way I think it works is that congress creates these offices, the president nominates the head officials, and the less important officials can be appointed based on either presidential, congressional, or other appointment as prescribed by law. that’s because that’s precisely in the constitution.
and unitary executive theory is a far out theory that is not supported by non-radicals. so sure if the SC decided to go against all precedent then a lot of what I said goes out the window, but I doubt they will do
Paul Jennings Hill (February 6, 1954 – September 3, 2003) was an American minister, religious extremist, and anti-abortion terrorist who murdered physician John Britton and Britton's bodyguard, retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel James Barrett, in 1994.[1][2] Hill was sentenced to death by lethal injection and was executed on September 3, 2003.
Interesting, though I'm guessing Florida would no longer carry out that kind of thing. I still don't consider attacks on abortion providers to be political violence. Those misguided people clearly think they are saving lives with their actions, not trying to influence government actions.
the way I think it works is that congress creates these offices, the president nominates the head officials, and the less important officials can be appointed based on either presidential, congressional, or other appointment as prescribed by law. that’s because that’s precisely in the constitution.
and unitary executive theory is a far out theory that is not supported by non-radicals. so sure if the SC decided to go against all precedent then a lot of what I said goes out the window, but I doubt
so you think congress can create appendices of itself, independent from the executive as much as congress decided, that have power to wield against the general population no matter what the election results are? and where would that exceptional power be expressively given in the constitution?
Elon is getting briefed on secret plans for any war with China for some ****ing reason.
The only thing revealed in the JFK files seems to be a bunch of social security numbers.
What ****ing morons.
Well, at least we got those Epstein files all sorted, as promised!
Oh no...all they did was just give some ****-for-brains influencers stuff that was already released to wave around 🙄
so you think congress can create appendices of itself, independent from the executive as much as congress decided, that have power to wield against the general population no matter what the election results are? and where would that exceptional power be expressively given in the constitution?
No I reject that because the scope of the offices are limited both by the scope of congress and the scope of the executive branch. For example, congress can direct the creation of a branch of the executive having to do with certain policing powers. The appropriation of funds for such a department would make it impossible for the executive to create such offices on their own, but once empowered by congress with a mandate and funding to perform the duties required by the newly created law, the executive can then use that funding and that mandate to perform the policing powers. Hence something like the FBI or CIA, which requires congressional appropriation to operate.
there is nothing extrajudicial in killing violent people en flagrante by law enforcement. it's the purest form of law application.
that's actually one of the first priorities (or should be) of law enforcement: law enforcement being allowed and morally supported to stop criminals in their actions through lethal force is the basis of civil society.
we should literally throw a party to the specific individuals in law enforcement who manage to kill the bad guys and treat them as the heroes that they a
The problem is bad for you might not be the same definition as bad for someone else .
All leftish are evil should be a good start for you to ponder on it ….
But having a police state is a very strange criteria indeed for a libertarian.
It fits great for a fascist tho .
A "police state" typically characterizes authoritarian, totalitarian, or illiberal regimes, found on the right-wing or far-right end of the political spectrum, where the government uses excessive force and surveillance to maintain control and suppress dissent.
I truly cannot keep up with it all. I'd really love to post well written responses to individuals with my thoughts and evidence to back it up along with questions for follow-up, but there have been something like 30+ pages written since my last post. When a well written, reviewed, and researched post takes >30 minutes to write and obviously a lot of time to read everyone else's responses it is impossible to keep up.
Best of luck to everyone in their debates
Ho man thx !
I lmao for like 2m.
Tiresome ain’t it ….
I am ok with the 2 amendment. sometimes the state can act without being legitimated to do so. that's when armed citizens work as a counter.
I am not sure I understand your objection
And yet u say the state should kill everyone opposing it .
So where is the line .
I thought the line you support was already crossing it shrug ….
Political violence should always be treated as a direct threat to the state and dealt with the maximum possible allowed state violence as the utmost unacceptable crime.
That includes Jan 6 where all violent trespassers should have being killed by the state.
This raises an interesting question. Should a person who pardoned people who unlawfully entered the Capital on January 6 also be killed?
Why on earth should the state "kill all the 6th of January protestors" (paraphrased)? That is an absolutely ludicrous statement.
If a liberal democracy can't survive a few thousand people that disagree with its existence without resorting to mass homicide, it might as well close shop.
All the government had to do after the 6th of January attacks was to present a unified front and reaction to the events, and it would likely have stood strong in the eyes of the public.
It didn't, and as a result US institutions have grown fragile. However, this would not have been improved by murdering 3000 people.
We will definitely see deaths of protestors as this presidency goes on
Paul Weiss's complete capitulation in the face of Trump's EO is disgraceful.
President Trump and the head of the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP have reached a deal under which Mr. Trump will drop the executive order he leveled against the firm, Mr. Trump said on Thursday.
In the deal, Mr. Trump said, the firm agreed to a series of commitments, including to represent clients no matter their political affiliation and contribute $40 million in legal services to causes Mr. Trump has championed, including “the President’s Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, and other mutually agreed projects.”
It’s unclear how the money will be used to help the task force. The firm, Mr. Trump said, also agreed to conduct an audit to ensure its hiring practices are merit based “and will not adopt, use, or pursue any DEI policies.”
Paul Weiss's complete capitulation in the face of Trump's EO is disgraceful.
it is.
However, it is classic autocracy stuff. Enormous amount of power is becoming centralized to the executive, and it becomes increasingly dangerous to oppose Donald Trump. So, more and more people and organizations will self-censor, pay up and bow down.
What you have got going for you is local government, that Trump is reviled by a lot of people, and the fact that he is a very old man.
more bad faithed posting, he specifically said those who acted violently not just anyone who was present
Nah. He has previously advocated for deportation of anyone disagreeing with or protesting against the “values of the state”, and if deportation isn’t possible then a quick trial and execution. If many such people are involved then they should be executed en masse.
