EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 7268
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1987 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:16 Broetchenholer wrote: But that is the case. Nothing is the definitive truth and given enough time, even a perfect social contract turns into outdated paper. It might be politically impossible to write a new constitution but that does not mean it is impossible because the constitution can not be touched. Before the constitution you had the british social contract and you were bound to that. You changed it because it did not represent your countries needs any more. Your society makes rules, not rules the society. Yes, I agree, but the question is if the law should be established by people with a supermajority mandate (which is what is required for a constitutional amendment), or the nine judges on the SCOTUS. | ||
KwarK
United States43480 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:17 Doodsmack wrote: If Trump doesn't "Build The Wall" that's gotta be the biggest political failure in recent memory. Bush actually ran on a campaign of non interventionist foreign policy in 2000. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:19 LightSpectra wrote: Yes, I agree, but the question is if the law should be established by people with a supermajority mandate (which is what is required for a constitutional amendment), or the nine judges on the SCOTUS. The judicial branch is acutely aware that its ability to create new law should be used sparingly. The activist judge creating law with every ruling is the rare exception, not the rule. All of the rulings that can create law are done through a panel of judges, rather than a single justice. So the answer is both. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18194 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:25 KwarK wrote: Bush actually ran on a campaign of isolationism in 2000. You could argue that his policy got changed for him. Unless some external force prevents Trump from building the wall they aren't comparable. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43480 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:27 Acrofales wrote: You could argue that his policy got changed for him. Unless some external force prevents Trump from building the wall they aren't comparable. I edited my post anyway because it was inaccurate. He made a commitment to the security of the Persian Gulf, leaving open the possibility of a second Gulf War if a second Kuwait invasion happened. But if isolationism wasn't the right word, certainly he opposed adventurism in the style of Clinton's Somalia mission. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Though that's not necessarily a bad thing since a massive shakeup every 4-8 years would be pretty bad. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1987 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:26 Plansix wrote: The judicial branch is acutely aware that its ability to create new law should be used sparingly. That is not very assuring. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
President Donald Trump reorganized his National Security Council on Wednesday, removing his chief strategist, Stephen Bannon, and downgrading the role of his Homeland Security Adviser, Tom Bossert, according to a person familiar with the decision and a regulatory filing. National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster was given responsibility for setting the agenda for meetings of the NSC or the Homeland Security Council, and was authorized to delegate that authority to Bossert, at his discretion, according to the filing. Under the move, the national intelligence director, Dan Coats, and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Corps General Joseph Dunford, are again "regular attendees" of the NSC’s principals committee. Bannon, the former executive chairman of Breitbart News, was elevated to the National Security Council’s principals committee at the beginning of Trump’s presidency. The move drew criticism from some members of Congress and Washington’s foreign policy establishment. Bloomberg I'd speculate that Bannon is falling out of favor with Trump after the last few failures. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
I would be less assured if the Judicial Branch had less power to be a check on the legislature and could not create new law if pressed. Without the ability to create new law, Judicial Branch is limited in how it can restrict the legislature to prevent future abuses of law. If you dislike the abuses of moneyed interests influencing what laws are created, such as ISPs selling our personal data, the court is the only one that will put a true end to that practice. Any law protecting us can be undone, as the administration has shown. Remember, the court cannot choose which issues come before it. The only way they can enforce a political agenda is through attrition. They cannot create agencies or appropriate funds. They don’t even control how many people are on the bench or their own paychecks. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:37 ticklishmusic wrote: Bloomberg I'd speculate that Bannon is falling out of favor with Trump after the last few failures. I have seen a slow but definite regression towards the Republican mean with Trump lately. It may or may not stick. He doesn't really have too many allies who aren't either pond scum or crooks though so he has little choice. | ||
|
Broetchenholer
Germany1950 Posts
 | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1987 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22062 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:44 LegalLord wrote: I have seen a slow but definite regression towards the Republican mean with Trump lately. It may or may not stick. He doesn't really have too many allies who aren't either pond scum or crooks though so he has little choice. Trump wants to 'win' and to do that he needs the GOP, not Bannon. He is finding out that his ability to do anything is rather limited without Congress backing him up. I wonder tho, with Bannon gone who is going to be Trump's inner circle representative on the NSC since he doesn't bother to go himself. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
When people say “create new law” is when they set down guidelines that the court will find acceptable, which influences how future laws are written. The recent rulings on gerrymandering do this, by created framework for districts that the court will accept. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:52 Gorsameth wrote: Trump wants to 'win' and to do that he needs the GOP, not Bannon. He is finding out that his ability to do anything is rather limited without Congress backing him up. I wonder tho, with Bannon gone who is going to be Trump's inner circle representative on the NSC since he doesn't bother to go himself. Someone who the Republicans trust who is also capable of feeding Trump honeyed words of praise without going insane in the process, probably. | ||
|
KwarK
United States43480 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:47 Broetchenholer wrote: No, the judiciary system should not create new laws, they should only rule on exisiting laws. Your society needs to create it's own social contract, of course with input of the judiciary branch. Effectively, you need to make a vote to abolish (parts of) the constitution in favor of a new one. Then you find a consensus for your values and put them into law even though they may collide with the old system. That's of course hard and i don't know if that was ever done without a serious break of society. That said, i don't know any country except for the States that has been without a change of government form in the last 100 years, maybe Great Britain? Not very knowledgeable how their "Constitutional Monarchy" reformed itself. If you are lucky, Trump starts a public vote for Royalty, wins, abolishes the constitution to become King of America and when the American Revolution starts, you can create a new document Britain doesn't have a constitution. Parliament wields the absolute powers of the monarch. It can do anything and everything beyond limit itself because its powers are limitless. However convention dictates a lot of how the powers are wielded. Traditionally the Prime Minister acted on behalf of the monarch regarding foreign policy, making and unmaking treaties at will. In recent years those powers have slowly been absorbed back into Parliament as a whole. This was notably recently with the Brexit court case in which a court ruled that Boris Johnson couldn't simply take the UK out of the EU as foreign secretary but rather a vote must be taken in Parliament. This was a break from centuries of tradition, but a break with precedent such as the Iraq War vote and the Libyan intervention vote. We basically make it up as we go. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15729 Posts
| ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
During a December rally in Hilton Head, South Carolina, Trump took a cavalier attitude toward Iraq's use of chemical weapons under Saddam. "Saddam Hussein throws a little gas, everyone goes crazy, 'oh he's using gas!'" Trump said. Describing the way stability was maintained in the region during that time, Trump said "they go back, forth, it's the same. And they were stabilized." Source Today’s chemical attack in Syria against innocent people, including women and children, is reprehensible and cannot be ignored by the civilized world. These heinous actions by the Bashar al-Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution. President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a “red line” against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing. The United States stands with our allies across the globe to condemn this intolerable attack. Source | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1987 Posts
On April 06 2017 00:55 Plansix wrote: That is all they do. The “create new law” is when they create legal reasoning for denying the law based on constitutional guidelines or within written law. They don’t make new law whole cloth. The SCOTUS does not pass legislation like Congress does, this is true, but it does de facto create new laws by introducing innovations into the legal system like Miranda rights or the Dred Scott decision. There is a strong argument to be made that Britain's unwritten constitution is what got them into World War I. | ||
| ||
