Thought for the Day

https://twitter.com/JohnBrennan/stat...30514230865920

More impeachment material. I don't know how long ago we crossed a bright red line but I doubt people have gotten this desensitized to the corruption that this will not be discussed for a week or so in the media and then buried or forgotten for the time being. I'm sure there will be a handful of legal experts who will claim that because security clearance is not an entitlement or a guaranteed right that revoking it for self-serving reasons is not impeachable. Or maybe they'll say we cannot even inquire into the reasons it was revoked to begin with since the executive is in charge of the process.

There's something almost boring and mundane about the way in which he can do things that are corrupt and people can scratch their heads asking where it ranks on the list of things he's done.

Given that revenge is fundamental to the President's actions -and indeed, the decisions of most of his senior appointments- Obama Made it, We Destroy It- it is hardly surprising that he should act out of spite when insulting and abusing his fellow Americans for not adoring him, for not telling him he is the greatest and the most popular President in History. You can at least be relieved to know that while his taste in home furnishings is similar to those of Saddam Hussein and Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi, he has not yet ordered his 'enemies' into the Oval Office to blow their brains out, or have them tortured before being executed, as happened with Saddam's two sons-in-law when they were persuaded to return to Iraq after fleeing to Jordan.

Rather than impeachment, the Democrats ought to compile a list of reforms to the Presidency and the political system to make America governable again, by the people, for the people, not some semi-literate con-man who doesn't even remember where his father was born and thinks he can renege on international agreements anytime he feels like it.

Limit the powers of the Presidency in law, stop gerrymandering by the states and create an Independent Boundary Commission so that Congressional Districts will comprise a balanced representation of the people who live in them, so that all Americans can register and vote.

While it is encouraging to see a new generation of candidates being selected by the Democrats, do the cohort nominated so far illustrate how badly divided the USA is, when the Republicans appear to be nominating people who ten years ago would not have been considered fit for office? And where is the united voice the Democrats need to convince voters they have the vision to take the USA into the future rather than the past? If revenge is one of the components that has made the Presidency look like a low-grade tv soap opera, maybe the Democrats should go in a different direction, with a different tone of voice, and offer the people something positive instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Limit the powers of the Presidency in law, stop gerrymandering by the states and create an Independent Boundary Commission so that Congressional Districts will comprise a balanced representation of the people who live in them, so that all Americans can register and vote.

---

There are certain things Congress can do and some they probably can't without a Constitutional amendment. Among the things I imagine they can do is to add some enforcement ability to the Emoluments Clause. They can also pass anti-nepotism laws that apply to the President. They can try to pass laws that protect investigations into the executive branch by special counsel, though this is already hitting areas that might require a Constitutional amendment to address.

There was a case back in the 70s called Morrison v. Olson where the constitutionality of the special counsel provision was at issue. The special counsel provisions provided for an independent counsel to investigate the executive branch and the special counsel would be limited in tenure and could be fired by the Attorney General for cause. The Constitution gives the President the ability to fire "principal officers" of the executive branch and it was argued in the challenge that limiting the President's ability to fire the special counsel directly was unconstitutional. The Court ended up upholding the special counsel provision. The reasons the Court gave was that the special counsel is limited in tenure (and therefore not a "principal officer") and can be fired for "good cause" by the Attorney General. However, they probably would not uphold a law preventing the President form firing the head of the FBI or his Attorney General and installing a puppet to fire the special counsel. Until there's a constitutional amendment the remedy is impeachment.

I still agree with you that the idea of reform, where it is allowed, and to the extent that it can prevent self-dealing and nepotism is extremely important. Also the safeguards for the democratic processes are important.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/487/654/

My point above is that while you're right some problems with addressing the President's conduct prospectively is that he or she is given certain powers that are inherent and can't be removed by law and the remedy for most types of misconduct is almost exclusively impeachment, a political process. What good is a law without enforcement? And what good is a process that cannot be completely insulated from interference by the person being investigated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

There are certain things Congress can do and some they probably can't without a Constitutional amendment. Among the things I imagine they can do is to add some enforcement ability to the Emoluments Clause. They can also pass anti-nepotism laws that apply to the President. They can try to pass laws that protect investigations into the executive branch by special counsel, though this is already hitting areas that might require a Constitutional amendment to address.

---

So far, so good, because these things appear to be 'doable'. However, you may have read that the nominee for the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh, seems to think special counsels investigating the President is wrong, though I would have thought there must be a basic principle in the Constitution that the President can never be 'above the law' even when he is, in a manner of speaking, making legal decisions -for example, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. Surely the whole point of the Presidential powers in the Constitution was designed to prevent a President acting as a dictator or King, even if they never thought to add emolument clauses because they never expected a President to be corrupt in that way.

Your superior knowledge of the law and America makes me wonder how the 'States rights' issue conflicts with my proposal to create an Independent Boundary Commission, because from this side of the pond, it is simply outrageous how some states can legally take away the right to vote that exists from registered voters, and prevent the registration of new ones. In aggregate terms this issue, from purging voter rolls to suppression, involves millions of Americans. There is nothing here about a hundred or a thousand spoiled ballot papers or alleged rigged voting, this is stark: millions denied the vote, and that is before you ask who they are to find they are mostly Black, Latino, and any other social group.

I understand that States protect their rights from the same fear of dictatorship that the Constitution attached to the Presidency, but voting is so fundamental to the operation of democracy that I don't see how or why it should differ across the country. Moreover, the evidence of gerrymandering is so blatant I don't see how it can be regarded as anything but corrupt, but if the Supreme Court declines to take action because it doesn't want to encroach on States rights, then in 2020 you could have in some places in the USA, fewer voters, not because they died or moved away, but because the ruling party is afraid they won't vote for them so stops them from voting, which is not so far from the dictatorship that the Constitution is supposed to prevent.

It is because the States themselves have corrupted the system that they should no longer be allowed to own it. And thus it is time to create a nationwide independent body, or watch your democracy fail the people it is supposed to protect. But will the Democrats even propose anything so bold, that would change the character- and the outcome- of elections to come?

The Red States are the Poor States, you scratch any problem deep enough and you'll probably find the real problem is insufficient funds. The Republicans can say whatever they want, right now they're in STEAL mode. When all the money is long gone, and the Democrats are back in charge, they pivot to OBSTRUCT mode. Gaming the system is as American as Cherry Pie.

Locks keep the honest people out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by buttslinger

The Red States are the Poor States, you scratch any problem deep enough and you'll probably find the real problem is insufficient funds.

---

I think this is a misleading generalization. For example, a survey did find that most of the poorest counties in the US are in Red States, but that rural areas tend to be poor anyway and Red States have more rural communities than Blue States-

Generally speaking, rural areas have a lower cost of living, so the small income you make in a poor, rural Texas county is going to go further than it would if you lived in a poor, urban area like Detroit or Camden, N.J. This raises questions about how comparatively disadvantaged poor Americans are in rural and urban areas.
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...es-red-states/

On the other hand there is the argument:
Go somewhere with low tax burdens, light regulation, and limited government, young man. Grow up with your country in a red state.

That’s the conclusion of the annual “Rich States, Poor States” report from the conservative American Legislative Exchange Council, set to be released Tuesday.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/o...utlook-in-2018

But then,
In 2012, Kansas did what Donald Trump wants to do: it introduced huge tax cuts to try to boost growth. Today, the state is out of money – and residents are angry
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...nomic-disaster

Maybe it is a question of competence in the management of other people's money, and who you think does it best? The Republicans with their trillion dollar defence addiction, or the Democrats and their welfare programmes....or maybe it ain't that stark.

Here is a thought, though I may have expressed it before: Democrats should focus their energies on reforming the electoral system, to get people in a representative democracy doing that most basic thing denied to them, in this case, in Texas: Voting.

Imagine, the two lowest turnouts for Mayoral elections:
Fort Worth, pop. 850-900,000, voter turnout: 6%
Dallas, pop 1.493 million, voter turnout: 6%

For young voters [in Forth Worth] the statistics are even more alarming: turnout among 18- to 34-year-olds in the city is currently running at 1.5%.

Are these figures accurate?
Now add in people being sent to prison for voting and you prompt a repeat: how many not voting? Going to prison if they do?
Yup, because the law is vague and this poor woman had no idea she had been removed from the register, and even though she cast a provisional vote that wasn't counted, she still faces the prospect of jail time.

This is not democracy, but discrimination. And who was it said the elections are rigged?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...e-years-prison

Visits to Africa by politicians in their official role:

President of the USA: 0
Theresa May: 1
Angela Merkel: 4
Emmanuel Macron: 7.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

…..Democrats should focus their energies on reforming the electoral system, to get people in a representative democracy doing that most basic thing denied to them...

---

I'm going to go out on a limb and say the Democrats will be back in 2020, I think if Trump has two semis worth of charges against him, we could get Medicare for all, good Healthcare for the rich, and excellent healthcare for the Saudis that fly in on their Lear jets. That's as good as it gets. Johnson gave us Medicare and Civil Rights, but at a terrific political cost, the Republicans rode Obamacare from 2010-2016. Backlash against Obamacare was their only real platform. But it was enough to get back the House and Senate. Politics was never meant to be a 24/7 expedition, the Republicans did that and they need to be punished for it.

If everybody voted, Democrats would control everything, say the political gurus. Freedom is a double edged sword.
Trump and the Republicans are in charge of everything, they have a following of voters that forgive all sins, the economy is booming, and yet the sky is falling on them.

I'd advise the Dems to lay low, and try to win over the floundering Republican voters.

They sure don't make Republicans like John McCain anymore, it's all about money now, and it will only get worse.