2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Commodore]

Are you not familiar with the term "amendment"? To amend is to "alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (a motion, bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure".
(bolding mine)

The legal argument that the "core part of the Constitution" is inviolate and cannot be amended is just plain stupid on the face of it, given Article V's providing for amendments. It explicitly states what cannot be amended, implying that everything else is fair game: "Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

I was discussing a legal concept that does actually exist and how it may be attempted to be used in the US to resist the amendment process if one political faction or another had the will and enough influence to resist it. Just because you may not like me as a person is no reason to be a condescending ass. There's plenty of people here I don't like but still discuss things with them civilly or avoid saying anything to them at all if I find myself unable to be civil.

 

[Arwon]

Just axiomatically, if two parts of a given constitution do contradict each other, they have to be reconciled somehow if tested in a court.

There are different ways that could go.

They could interpret the constitution as hierarchical, with amendments not able to amend basic features there in the original document from its inception. Or they may take a "newer thing supersedes the older" approach.

And in doing either, they might either take a narrow view and uphold both parts except to the extent one conflicts with the other, or they may strike out different sections completely.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Difference is Donald hasn't delivered.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guantanamo_Bay_detention_camp

Still open, and held many prisoners at the end of his first term.


And one can even argue that BLM only exists today because the black President didn't sort it.

Yes, I know that Barack Obama had obstacles, but Donald Trump can claim that too.

Making America Great Again is a bigly job, I need a second term to complete it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Everything sadly seems to be politicized these days, even things which shouldn't be, like wearing masks during the pandemic, or climate change.

I'm sure its only a matter time before whether Hawaiian pizza is good or not will be split down party lines (just for the record, I'm on Team Hawaiian Pizza)!

Then you are worse than Hitler and should be thrown into the sea. Hawaiian pizza is a crime against god and nature.

 

[Arwon]

Then you are worse than Hitler and should be thrown into the sea. Hawaiian pizza is a crime against god and nature.

Nah it's good. Sweet highlights on a savoury dish are a pretty common and good culinary concept

 

[Lexicus]

Just axiomatically, if two parts of a given constitution do contradict each other, they have to be reconciled somehow if tested in a court.

There are different ways that could go.

They could interpret the constitution as hierarchical, with amendments not able to amend basic features there in the original document from its inception. Or they may take a "newer thing supersedes the older" approach.

And in doing either, they might either take a narrow view and uphold both parts except to the extent one conflicts with the other, or they may strike out different sections completely.

Nah. Like literally we strike out the text of the Constitution which is superseded by Amendments.

 

[Patine]

I'm going to link to a piece by a guy I dislike the same way I dislike, say Adam Tooze: he's smart and writes stuff that makes sense, but I cam smell (ironically, in this case) an elitist careerist planning to build a position of influence and then sell out*. However, what he writes now stands on its own merits, and this makes sense:



I's an extended argument of the same type I made here before: the danger of the "corporate democrats" holding power without opposition (And they will suppress opposition from within the party) is greater than any danger Trump poses.

Where I disagree is about the legacy of them holding power for the next four years, if they take the presidency. The result won't be a new generation of (even more) entrenched oligarchs. It will be populist backlash of an outright civil war kind. In many countries it would be welcome, It armed-to-the-teeth USA it's catastrophic.


(* Bernard Henri Lévy style. I do wish I'll turn out to be wrong on that)

"Corporate Democrats," "Corporate Republicans," "Corporate politicians," worldwide, and the multi-national corporatist empire, which funds and donates to political parties (except the hardest-ideologically-Marxist-left) around the globe is the long-term to the people and freedom of the world. Climate change denial and pollution allowance are their original creations, but "going Green," also has a market profit margin. They promote the erosion of labour rights and consumer protection and the impunity of corporate power with minimal limits, but "panem et circus," stops most common people from examining it too closely. But here lay the true evil, growing and festering as a long-term poison - the REAL threat to all of us good people in the world, regardless of whom we're deluded to vote for. Because, the plutocratic oligarchy finds it expedient when social and political divides distract everyone from becoming aware of, and showing any resistance to, this greater, more overarching, longer-term threat than Trump and the current Republicans. But, hey, Biden needs big donations, too, right? And he'll be expected to reciprocate the favour in his commerce legislation if elected - even if in a highly unethical way - as is the way of politics nowadays...

I just can't buy that argument. If Trump "wins" in November, I genuinely don't know if will be the last 'democratic' election for decades as we go full Orban/Fidesz. Climate change will get worse and worse, what little reform energy for police reform will stall, and [insert any number of other arguments].
The author's entire argument is, to quote "Trump, for all his faults, poses no existential threat to the republic." That's very easy for a person across the Atlantic, who in living memory saw a revolt against a dictatorship, to think. Despite how much the idea of revolting against tyranny is part of the American national myth, that isn't something people nowadays accept as a Thing. The casual bigotry and cruelty, the shameless corruption and kleptocracy, the descent into Infowars style conspiracy theories, the complete disregard for congressional oversight, and of course the flagrant anti-democratic viewpoints the GOP is trying to normalize.
Biden, for all of his flaws, is not an actively terrible human being and has some decent qualities to him. He is also a career politician and can be influenced. He can be influenced to rejoin Paris and push for climate action, Trump can't. Biden can be pushed to take action on police reform, Trump cannot. Biden can remove the horrific baby cages, Trump wants more of them.
Would you tell leftists in Hungary, Poland, or Russia to not vote for the opposition parties, because allowing Fidesz/PiS/United Russia another term would mean that definitely next time around the left will win?

A useful term here is herrenvolk democracy.

This post assumes an alternate timeline view of Trump. One who has the unified, coherent, and consistent vision and platform, one who makes truly believes in such a vision you describe, however toxic, and is a true nationalistic - not an egotist and narcissist who only believes in himself and promoting his own PR. A Trump who is actually a competent leader who actually knows what he's doing and shows actual leadership quality. A Trump whose actually said a damned word for a United States into the future beyond him - including planned succession. A Trump with a solid and decisive viewpoint - not a flip-flopper as bad as Romney. And, a Trump without an ideologically mismatched Cabinet, complete with a "revolving door." As I said, an alternate timeline Trump would be needed for your nightmare scenario - not the one we have in our actual reality.

On the left they have to fall in love with their candidates.

On the right they just need to fall in line.

I'm not sure where everyone gets the idea of there being a "political left," in the U.S. with any political cache, power, or influence, who doesn't just get ALWAY get institutionally marginalized, despite having periods of time where their actual popular support has been quite high (the Pre-WW1 Progressive Age, the 1960's, and nowadays). The Democratic Party, who are often just referred to colloquially as "the Left," are not really so. Biden, Harris, both Clintons, Pelosi, and Shumer are all centre-right; Obama was centrist at best. Left-wing voters are just told to vote for these "Establishment," candidates, who are NOT left-wing, only to the left of the Republicans, because no other choice is offered with any chance of winning in the rigged and corrupt Duopoly electoral cheating engine.

An autocracy led by Trump, or anyone else, isn't the real threat. The real threat is sustained minority rule by the political coalition currently represented by the Republican Party. Its rudiments are already in place- Trump was elected with fewer votes than his opponent, and the Republican Senate majority represents substantially fewer Americans than the Democrats' Senate minority.

Joe Biden is offering the bare minimum of a liberal society with competitive elections. The idea of Trump being the superior choice based on some mistaken notion of accelerationism, is completely false. If Trump wins a second term no candidate or party with a substantively anti-elite agenda will be elected for the forseeable future. I would say that only Republicans will be elected, but it's quite possible that Democrats go far enough right to compete for the electorate the Republicans will be able to engineer with 4 more years of Trump (through gerrymandering and cheating the census among other tactics).

Minority rule has always been there, and will continue regardless of who wins. But it's not the minority you're referring - but the true, long-term, and often ignored toxic minority - the ultra-wealthy plutocratic oligarchy.

I‘m wondering whether a weaker presidency shouldn‘t be the goal of the more radical left here. The US executive branch and all federal level politics seem so broken and with so many roadblocks to reforms everywhere that the real possibility of change lies lower. Increase state rights, push trough good policies that then can serve as an example - and screw the people in the red states in the process?

It‘s an argument, that‘s clear. And it rests on the assumption that the US elections are all or nothing. If the Democrats get the Presidency AND the senate (and keep the house and maybe add two judges to the supreme court then), then they can enact the change they want (during the first two years at least). If they don‘t win across the board, then all the energy was wasted to get Biden elected as then he can only rebuild the executive branch and maybe try to repair the international reputation of the US.

I can see Biden getting one or two more radical voices in his boat and leave them rather alone in trying to build their reform project - it will be up to them how successfull these can be then to be implemented. So I‘d still go with supporting Biden - or else just forget about the presidency and support some local races. And here‘s the question, what can lead to a weaker executive branch, a second Trump Term or a Biden presidency with Republicans again trying to obstruct any- and everything?

That's a nice idea. But it has to go further. Like reforming the electoral system to break the rigged and corrupt Duopoly hold and allow a true functional and healthy multi-party system. After all, if there's a weaker Presidency, clinging to the Duopoly's artificial hold on power shouldn't be as big a deal, right?

A weaker presidency wouldn't mean "states rights", it means a more parliamentary federal system ie an executive role for the leader in congress, and a president with fewer powers.

It would be entirely possible to have a more, or less, centralised federation regardless of the division of powers between the congress and president. President vs congress and states vs federal are two different axes of power. Many configurations are possible.

I'm not so sure Americans would see it the way us Commonwealthers do, I'm afraid.

If you want to be an intellectual prisoner of your country's history, that is your decision.

If you listen to her post, NOTHING has EVER improved, progressed, or gotten better a single iota in American history socially, AT ALL, especially for minorities, and saying that anything has improved in these areas at all gets nasty (and quite undeserved) comments and accusations from her.

 

[Lexicus]

Minority rule has always been there, and will continue regardless of who wins. But it's not the minority you're referring - but the true, long-term, and often ignored toxic minority - the ultra-wealthy plutocratic oligarchy.

What you're talking about and what I'm talking about are both true. You drastically underestimate the threat from Trump and the Republican party specifically. There will be no way to peacefully challenge the rule of the plutocrats if Trump wins this election.

 

[Arwon]

Nah. Like literally we strike out the text of the Constitution which is superseded by Amendments.

I think we're assuming a case where a new addition to the text isn't explicitly doing a strike out or deletion or change, but a partial or complete contradiction still exists.

Obviously if a new approved amendment explicitly changes or removes an existing part, that's not a contradiction.

 

[Socrates99]

This amendment thing, are we talking about one that would alter something in the base document or alter another amendment. Altering the base document is exactly what an amendment is. Altering or contradicting another amendment has already been done with the 18th and 21st.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think we're assuming a case where a new addition to the text isn't explicitly doing a strike out or deletion or change, but a partial or complete contradiction still exists.

Can you give an example? Or are you just speaking hypothetically?

 

[Lexicus]

Obviously if a new approved amendment explicitly changes or removes an existing part, that's not a contradiction.

That is what Constitutional Amendments in this country do, by definition.

 

[Arwon]

Can you give an example? Or are you just speaking hypothetically?

Completely hypothetically. But imagine for example voters/legislatures in 37 states approve a constitutional flag burning ban or flag desecration ban.

That contradicts freedom of expression but the amendment isn't explicitly deleting or striking out the first amendment. So at some point a court is going to have to do some jurisprudence reconciling the two things.

 

[Commodore]

Then you are worse than Hitler and should be thrown into the sea. Hawaiian pizza is a crime against god and nature.

And whether they are responsible for it's creation or not, Hawaii should be stripped of all representation and voting rights at the federal level just for having such an abomination bear its name.

 

[Patine]

And whether they are responsible for it's creation or not, Hawaii should be stripped of all representation and voting rights at the federal level just for having such an abomination bear its name.

Bring back the King and give him his rightful Constitutional Monarchy, stolen by the Criminal-Bandit Sanford Dole and illegally purchased by the Underworld Fence of Nations, William McKinley!

 

[Sommerswerd]

And whether they are responsible for it's creation or not, Hawaii should be stripped of all representation and voting rights at the federal level just for having such an abomination bear its name.

But the beaches tho...

I guess we could just invade and liberate the poor citizens of Hawaii from this injustice and abomination against their name... and rename pineapple "freedom fruit".

 

[r16]

we here have almost 20 years experience , admittedly by a more gifted leader . Whose spectacular oratory skills currently depends on the teleprompters . When one went down on live TV he was seen telling people to rewind ... That both sides are bad a truth but it doesn't , shouldn't cover it ...

that Trump must go . No hope with him , every vote against Trump matters .

 

[Arwon]

Hawaii should secede anyway

 

[Commodore]

But the beaches tho...

I guess we could just invade and liberate the poor citizens of Hawaii from this injustice and abomination against their name... and rename pineapple "freedom fruit".

More evidence that we should be running the country. We should establish what would be the world's first memeocracy, rule by memes. Our entire policy platform would be "we did it for the lulz". All legislation will be written in meme form as well.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hawaii should secede anyway

Alaska too.

In fact, every state should secede.