Is Jindal Serious Right Now?!

[Commodore]

No, it makes sense. I wasn't sure if the POTUS had the power to oust governors- "state's rights" may be a buzzword, but it is also a very real part of the American constitutional system- but it is not as immediately obvious that he wouldn't, while legislators sit in altogether different branch of government. A more centralised system might allow the executive to boot governors, but I can't imagine any meaningfully democratic system actually allowing them to boot representatives. (Certainly the British executive can't; that's why they have to resort to murdering them.)

"States' rights" kinda goes out the window though if an elected official from that state starts advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government. You don't get to threaten the federal government if you are a part of that government. And yes, state governments are part of the larger federal system and are not as independent as they sometimes like to think they are.

And while no president has ever attempted to remove an elected state official, there is some precedent for the president having authority over individual state governors. Just take a look at the federalization of the National Guard and the deployment of the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce integration since the governor refused to and even said he would use his state's National Guard troops to prevent black students from entering white schools.

 

[Traitorfish]

"States' rights" kinda goes out the window though if an elected official from that state starts advocating the violent overthrow of the federal government.

It's not self-evident that it does. If proceedings are to be taken against State officials, then surely it's the duty of the State government to carry them out? If the State is found to neglecting its duties, then the Federal Government may be in a position to step in, but you've yet to make anything like a case for that.

 

[Cutlass]

If a governor has broken a federal law, then the federal law enforcement agencies can arrest him and put him on trial. But any president that got caught blatantly misusing that would have a poopload of trouble on his hands. But it has to be an actual criminal offense, like bribery.

 

[Commodore]

It's not self-evident that it does. If proceedings are to be taken against State officials, then surely it's the duty of the State government to carry them out? If the State is found to neglecting its duties, then the Federal Government may be in a position to step in, but you've yet to make anything like a case for that.

Well I'm not really trying to make a case for it, I'm really just trying to state my belief that Jindal should be removed for his comments. I believe that it is not the place of an elected official to foment rebellion amongst the population. And before you bring it up, I am not saying that officials shouldn't be allowed to disagree with the government; I am saying they shouldn't be allowed to advocate or attempt to instigate rebellion against the government.

 

[Traitorfish]

And you have not made any sort of case that Jindal actually has "advocated or attempted to instigate rebellion against the government". He used some bombastic, macho rhetoric, but that doesn't actually constitute a threat of violence. He used language that rubs you the wrong way, and you want the Feds to go in with fists swinging.

This is McCarthy stuff, it really is.

 

[Commodore]

And you have not made any sort of case that Jindal actually has "advocated or attempted to instigate rebellion against the government". He used some bombastic, macho rhetoric, but that doesn't actually constitute a threat of violence. He used language that rubs you the wrong way, and you want the Feds to go in with fists swinging.

This is McCarthy stuff, it really is.

You're right, but I don't have any problem with Jindal's words being spun in such a way as to make it look like he was advocating the overthrow of the federal government. I'm sure as hell not going to shed any tears over a far-right politician having his career destroyed because he couldn't keep his big mouth shut. Like I said earlier in this thread, I have no issue with reducing the amount of political power the far-right has in the US.

I think a concentrated effort needs to be made to weed the extremists and Teahadists out of the Republican party and encourage more moderate conservatives to take the helm and steer the party away from the path of lunacy they seem to be on. Now if that means we have to use some...unsavory tactics to do so then

 

[Traitorfish]

"Unsavory" here being a euphemism for undemocratic, illiberal and probably illegal. Unaccounted manipulation of the electoral system to produce results favourable to the incumbent administration. The flouting of the separation of powers and of the separation of Federal and State governments, two of the American constitutional system's most deeply-embedded principles.

So "unsavoury" is certainly the right word, I can't fault you on that.

 

[Commodore]

"Unsavory" here being a euphemism for undemocratic, illiberal and probably illegal. Unaccounted manipulation of the electoral system to produce results favourable to the incumbent administration. The flouting of the separation of powers and of the separation of Federal and State governments, two of the American constitutional system's most deeply-embedded principles.

So "unsavoury" is certainly the right word, I can't fault you on that.

True, but how else do you deal with an extremist element in your government that has demonstrated time and time again that they themselves will not play by the rules, use the rules to subvert the democratic process in an attempt to impose their will on the American people, and has hijacked one of two major political parties that govern this nation?

 

[Traitorfish]

Trade unions. Now, granted, that's my stock answer to every political question that you could possibly pitch, but in this case it's also the best answer. The progressive response to far-right insurgency isn't extending extraordinary powers to the central government- What does that achieve, but saving the job of accumulating power when they eventually take charge? Have we learned absolutely nothing from the Weimar Republic?- but strong popular organisations of an explicitly democratic and anti-fascist orientation, including but not limited to trade unions. Call it "civil society" or "the working class", depending on your ideological preferences, but it remains that the only serious anti-fascist force that has ever existed is the people mobilised.

 

[Commodore]

Trade unions. Now, granted, that's my stock answer to every political question that you could possibly pitch, but in this case it's also the best answer. The progressive response to far-right insurgency isn't extending extraordinary powers to the central government- What does that achieve, but saving the job of accumulating power when they eventually take charge? Have we learned absolutely nothing from the Weimar Republic?- but strong popular organisations of an explicitly democratic and anti-fascist orientation, including but not limited to trade unions. Call it "civil society" or "the working class", depending on your ideological preferences, but it remains that the only serious anti-fascist force that has ever existed is the people mobilised.

I would like to think that would work, but the far-right has done a good job and weakening and, in some instances, completely busting up unions here in the US. They have done this under so-called "right to work" laws coupled with anti-union propaganda that portrays union supporters as anti-business thugs who want to steal your wages. So how are the trade unions supposed to regain their power and political pull?

The problem we are having with the far-right extremists here in the US is that they have very powerful and very wealthy backers that seem to be ensuring their message gets out and the progressive message gets shouted down at every possible turn. They are playing dirty and I think the only way to stop them now is to beat them at their own game.

 

[Old Hippy]

The problem we are having with the far-right extremists here in the US is that they have very powerful and very wealthy backers that seem to be ensuring their message gets out and the progressive message gets shouted down at every possible turn. They are playing dirty and I think the only way to stop them now is to beat them at their own game.

and that is too organize, have active membership in groups, become involved, turn up at marches just to up the numbers so it gets coverage, write letters to the paper, email elected representatives.
As a lefty, I can give you no better advice than to do what the 'tea party' did...

extremes are not important, the battle is for the middle ground...

 

[onejayhawk]

and that is too organize, have active membership in groups, become involved, turn up at marches just to up the numbers so it gets coverage, write letters to the paper, email elected representatives.
As a lefty, I can give you no better advice than to do what the 'tea party' did...

extremes are not important, the battle is for the middle ground...

That seems too Tea Party.

J

 

[Light Cleric]

No, it makes sense. I wasn't sure if the POTUS had the power to oust governors- "state's rights" may be a buzzword, but it is also a very real part of the American constitutional system- but it is not as immediately obvious that he wouldn't, while legislators sit in altogether different branch of government. A more centralised system might allow the executive to boot governors, but I can't imagine any meaningfully democratic system actually allowing them to boot representatives. (Certainly the British executive can't; that's why they have to resort to murdering them.)

Yeah, it sucks that "state's rights" was pretty much ruined by whackjobs/segregationists etc. long before I was born, pretty much how the 10th Amendment was too.