politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I don't love the idea of executives blanketly rescinding their predecessors' actions. That said, since the fascists started it, I won't complain too much about Mamdani using it.
And he only rescinded Adams’s orders after the date on which he was indicted. The executive orders from before that stand.
Exactly. Criminals shouldn't be allowed to benefit a broken system.
Oh, symbolically it's very powerful. He's (rightfully) pointing out that Adams should have been removed from office, and that therefore his official acts since are null and void.
But you can run into problems when you blanket reverse orders. Perhaps some of them were normal, necessary, or benign - and you won't know which is which until you read them. I would honestly rather Mamdani say he's reversing all of Adams's orders, but then actually sit down and read all of them and reissue/leave alone any that would cause problems if reversed.
I would imagine he, or members of his staff, did read them all before today, and have a good idea of the contents. I believe he explicitly said he was going to reissue certain ones.
It’s a strange instinct to think, somehow, this wasn’t the case. In general, not here specifically even. And he especially does not seem like someone who’d just ad hoc do something without knowing what he is doing.
I was trying to research a list of the 9 orders revoked but that is paywalled and the nyc.gov database appears to be missing those issued by Adams.
There’s a little controversy over one of the orders that adopted an unusual definition of antisemitism so I wanted to see what else was repealed.
I hope and assume if there are any policies the criminal pushed that were actually good, Mamdani will simply re-order them himself.
That seems to be the case.
I like this approach. It is adding legitimacy back to the government. At no point in the future will anyone question the legitimacy executive orders that Mamdani resubmits because of Adam's past criminal indictments.
It feels good to see a politician who actually shows attention to detail and cares about the people they're supposed to represent. That's definitely not the norm.
Begs the question: What actions led him UP to the bribery charge???
I would assume it included, well...bribery.
/j
Well then, he was just drawing attention to himself. Serves him right.
Well that's the thing about executive orders. If you don't want it easily undone, then you go through the actual proper channels to meaningfully change the thing.
In theory I 100% agree. But right now our legislatures are typically in gridlock and executive orders are the only way things get done.
If legislative can't do anything. It shouldn't be done. Gridlock is no excuse to bypass democratic processes
They are not in gridlock for legit reasons, they are exclusively because conservatives don't want democratic government to exist, they want autocracy or oligarchy. Democratic process in US barely exists and only works when evil people want to harm you
You assume those processes were ever democratic to begin with. The truth is that they've been rigged against the common people since they were first written.
I'm all for following the rules, but we can't ever put the rules before people's lives and wellbeing. If the law is unjust, you have a duty to disobey it. This includes legislative gridlock engineered to stifle progress and thwart the will of the people.
The idea that rules are less important than lives is exactly a part of the process that causes things like the war on terror.
Unjust rules should be broken, but rules should not be broken just because lives are at stake.
Basic rights > rules > lives
A whole hell of a lot more democratic than one mayor deciding things. I'm from Chicago, I'm well aware of issues with the process. But I think you're overstating it to say it's wholly undemocratic
Rules alone are a terrible thing to strive for. Institutions, maybe. But not rules. But institutions work only when they're impartial. When your opponent can ignore rules at will, then there is no institutions, and you're allowed to ignore rules as well, until institutions are established.
If it was truly a democratic proces then we wouldn't even be able to have this conversation, because Adams would have been removed from office as soon as he was found to be corrupt. (Which is a prime example of how the "rules" only apply to the poor - why should we follow them blindly when those in power don't!?) But the system isn't working and hasn't been for decades (If indeed it ever did) and to cling to it now as though the government will save us is foolish.
I care about the rules, this whole conversation started because I said I didn't like the idea of blanket rescinding of executive orders. It sets a bad precedent. But we can't cling to "the Rules" as though they are a self-enforcing mandate from some deity.
There are no gods here to save us. Politicians will not save us. The system will not save us.
WE will save us.
We will use the system and the rules when we can and abandon it where we must. But no matter what, we must not put blind faith in anyone or anything, because power corrupts and those in power cannot truly represent our interests because they are not one of us. And that distrust must always also extend to the rules they have written and force us to follow at gunpoint, because they add exceptions for themselves and catch-22s for us.
Of course I don't want one mayor deciding things. But I also sure as entropy don't want him sitting on his hands because of some stupid rule like the filibuster or whatever when he has a mandate from the people to represent their interests.
I'm sure he'll turn out just as spineless as any other politician, but let's not handcuff him just yet. He might just prove us wrong.
This reminds me of the Indemnity and Oblivion Act.
After Charles I of England was overthrown and England was declared a republic, the House of Commons seized control of supreme legislative authority and enacted various laws to govern the country without monarchy. The republic collapsed after a decade, and Charles II was crowned king again. Parliament then enacted the Indemnity and Oblivion Act, which nullified all laws passed by the republican parliament, and it even pardoned almost everyone who was convicted of a crime during that time.
FUCKING MONARCHISTS! Aight just needed to say that, one of my ancestors was exiled to the new world after that whole situation.
Even though England was a republic in name, really it was "more of the same" with the office of Lord Protector as head of state for life with powers similar to the king and the power to appoint his successor.
Don't care ancestoral spite holds true.
I think this is more about symbolism, but yeah I get ya.
We have to use their tactics against them; it’s the only way.
Sometimes, yes. Depends on the tactic - obviously we shouldn't be kidnapping people based on their skin color - but yeah, we can't afford to be too cautious right now. The very notion of democracy sits on a knife's edge.
Their tactics were just erased.