this post was submitted on 27 Nov 2024
319 points (96.2% liked)

politics

19243 readers
3134 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] capital@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)
[–] PumpkinSkink@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I think the point is more "As if by magic, all of the institutional barriers we hear about any time something good is on the docket suddenly are non-issues as soon as we're doing something unthinkably evil". If you want to make good counter arguments you need to work off of a "steelman" position of your opposition, otherwise it comes off as bad faith.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

He is the leader of the army. He can send the army to do as he wishes (for a set amount of time and then Congress can force him to withdraw and not provide funding as well. Which would likely result in an impeachment and removal if Congress didn't support what he did) He is not the leader of legislation, so he cannot make legislation when he wishes.

[–] LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I'm sure this will get downvoted but whatever it seems fun to ramble. The president is basically a glorified cop. He can tell all of his soldiers to do his bidding, but a cop cannot act outside of the law without getting enough people to cover for him. If he breaks the law the legislature (review board in that example) would vote to have him removed from his position.

A cop cannot make up laws. He can lie to someone and say something potentially unlawful is legal but all lawfulness would be reviewed and depicted by the judicial branch from laws that were already written and the situation "rectified" in some manner (whether a slap on the wrist or extreme). Usually in the presidents case, they throw out what he said, or they request Congress to discuss it, which could start the impeachment process.

He commands what may currently be the most powerful army in the world, be he can only play with his toys when mom and dad say it is okay, and he has to be in bed by 9:30 as it's a school night.

That's why it is so much of a danger when one party owns both parts of the Legislative branch, easily the most powerful branch (so long as the constitution holds). If dad says you can go to bed at 10, and mom says no, bedtime stays at 9:30. If the party owns both congress and the senate, them mom and dad can agree bed time is at 11, and you can eat cake all you want. If the courts say cake is illegal after 6:30, mom and dad agree to write a new rule that cake time goes to 11. As we want our spoiled child to be able to run rampant.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -3 points 3 weeks ago

The Leahy law is meaningless and always has been.