Worthless, as impeachment requires a 2/3rds majority in the Senate which won’t happen and while they can oversight to their hearts content, very little way for them to take any action with that oversight, since it takes a 2/3rds majority of both houses to override a veto.
I don’t think you made the point that you thought you were making. I could be wrong, but your snark reads like something a Trump supporter who doesn’t understand the effect of tariffs would say.
We agree on House at 1000+. You curiously omit mention of the Supreme Court.
I mentioned the judiciary in that post, but I did implicitly include the Supreme Court, though I did not say so explicitly.
Yes, I noticed. I believe everyone would like to see how a SC would fall out in the new system. It was conspicuous by it’s absence.
The details would have to be worked out.
But speaking in a general way.
I would foresee the Supreme Court being less powerful and less influential in such a system though perhaps a bit more powerful than their British and Israeli counterparts.
In Great Britain and Israel the Parliament/Knesset is supreme, unquestionably supreme… Neither country has a written Constitution and the parliament is the final word.
However, that would not be the case in the United States, which would retain a written Constitution. However, with a change to a parliamentary system, the power of the Supreme Court (and the judiciary in general) will necessarily be diminished, as the House of Representatives would have a level of supremacy that would not match that of Parliament or the Knesset, but would still exist.
So its hard to say exactly where the Supreme Court would come in, power wise.
When you say ‘’ House of Representatives would have a level of supremacy that would not match that of Parliament or the Knesset’’ are you saying a check on the house that the Parliament or the Knesset do not have?
The Parliament and Knesset are not checked by a written Constitution, while our House of Representatives still would be.
How were you going to check them?
I can remember Dems on this board complaining about the R’s deciding not to draw up the AUMF for Syria.
Alexander ■■■■ Bag was not a founder.
I think what you are forgetting is this system was never designed for every aspect of our lives to be run from DC and the states to be neutered like eunuchs.
They’ll just ignore it. They already are.
I can’t.
They have it in the Constitution we have now.
“Most of the power”.
If you want Israeli or English government, there’s a way for you to get that.
Why is it assumed Mexico will not cooperate and render the issue of new tariffs on them mute?
Would be very easy and self serving for Mexico to lock down its southern border. If they refuse…They have earned the added tariff. Trump will be a hero for defying all the swamp pundits.
1 Like
No, that’s not “extreme” at all, but more politics-as-usual. Parliamentary systems have the same problem, handing power over to a demagogue “prime minister” or “president” or “chancellor” who abuses it.
We need genuine structural change, away from any existing political system.
No, the clamor for a popular “commander in chief” demagogue to be “our leader” and take us over a cliff, who makes speeches at us and lies and panders to crybabies and special interests, and scapegoats foreigners and plays on people’s ignorance, who puts instant gratification ahead of the long-term good – this is all fundamental to a system which holds elections based on popularity and rabble-rousing and speech-making and charisma, and dog-whistling.
What we need instead is something that encourages thinking and questioning and truth-seeking. Rather than speech-making and pandering to mobs and celebrity status-seeking.
He was actually and totally abused his executive powers…with your sides blessings.
Congress
