American Politics: Now Let Them Enforce It...But Lame

[San Lumen]

You clearly misunderstand. The relationship between state officials and federal law enforcement is not the same as the relationship between a county clerk and state law. State officials do not have a legal responsibility to assist federal law enforcement agents. That's not their job. Whereas a county clerk does have to perform such duties as processing marriage licenses in accordance with state laws, because that is literally their job.

State officials have a legal obligation to follow Federal warrants. If they have been notified that a warrant is out for an individual in custody, they are legally obligated to hand that person over to Federal authorities.

Not when said organization is acting like the Gestapo and as a Jew i do not make that statement lightly.

[Tarsonis]

You clearly misunderstand. The relationship between state officials and federal law enforcement is not the same as the relationship between a county clerk and state law. State officials do not have a legal responsibility to assist federal law enforcement agents. That's not their job. Whereas a county clerk does have to perform such duties as processing marriage licenses in accordance with state laws, because that is literally their job.

State officials have a legal obligation to follow Federal warrants. If they have been notified that a warrant is out for an individual in custody, they are legally obligated to hand that person over to Federal authorities.

Libertarianism continues to be an offramp to right wing authoritarianism. What ever happened to states rights and all that jazz, eh?

[Washington Resistance Army]

You clearly misunderstand. The relationship between state officials and federal law enforcement is not the same as the relationship between a county clerk and state law. State officials do not have a legal responsibility to assist federal law enforcement agents. That's not their job. Whereas a county clerk does have to perform such duties as processing marriage licenses in accordance with state laws, because that is literally their job.

State officials have a legal obligation to follow Federal warrants. If they have been notified that a warrant is out for an individual in custody, they are legally obligated to hand that person over to Federal authorities.

They do not, no. Several states have even made it law that state LEOs cannot assist federal LEOs with certain types of investigations.

[Ifreann]

You clearly misunderstand. The relationship between state officials and federal law enforcement is not the same as the relationship between a county clerk and state law. State officials do not have a legal responsibility to assist federal law enforcement agents. That's not their job. Whereas a county clerk does have to perform such duties as processing marriage licenses in accordance with state laws, because that is literally their job.

State officials have a legal obligation to follow Federal warrants. If they have been notified that a warrant is out for an individual in custody, they are legally obligated to hand that person over to Federal authorities.

If there is a judicial warrant for someone's arrest, which ICE rarely has, and that person is already in state custody, then state law enforcement would have to hold that person for transfer to federal custody. But beyond having to abide by the terms of a valid warrant, they don't have to do anything. That's not their job.

[German Spartacist Socialist Republics]

State officials have a legal obligation to follow Federal warrants. If they have been notified that a warrant is out for an individual in custody, they are legally obligated to hand that person over to Federal authorities.

Libertarianism continues to be an offramp to right wing authoritarianism. What ever happened to states rights and all that jazz, eh?

Libertarianism doesn’t have any real incentive to defend individual rights, its only incentive is to defend the freedom to accumulate capital, so they will enable right-wing authoritarian governments so long as said government allows them to keep accumulating wealth.

[Jabberwocky]

Soon trump will require us to kneel and swear fealty.

[Alien Space Bats]

So it's not like i don't have ideas there were just irrelevant to the misunderstanding that I was against constitutional conventions rather than viewing ASB's ideas of how to achieve them and what to do in them impractical and sometimes ironically radical.

If you wanted to just pivot to listing of reforms then fair enough. But it would be a pivot and assuming it wasn't just comes off as a goalpost move.

Most of yours are at least something i can work with more even if the deficit and congressman wages aren't really the point right now.

I'll admit to shooting high.

But as I see it, we need more than three reforms - which is why I think that a Constitutional Convention is needed.

1. We need to remove the Justice Department from the Article II branch. Even if we never have another President who is willing to pursue political prosecutions again, the mere possibility of such a thing happening is likely to contaminate future prosecutions of politically connected people (which not only includes celebrities but also members of protest movements who decide to pursue more extreme methods of expressing their dissent.
   
   Not only can no one be above the law, but the law enforcement apparatus must be beyond reproach.
   
   My preference would be to make it accountable to the Supreme Court - which would at least solve the "Andrew Jackson" problem once and for all.
   
   
2. We need to regulate money in politics, and that can't be done by simply reversing Citizens United v. FEC; the problems we've had with the reversal of Roe v. Wade demonstrate what happens when you reverse a long-time precedent rather than pursue the proper approach (which is to amend Federal law or the Constitution to address the issue, whichever might be necessary).
   
   So an amendment making it legal for Congress and the States to enact campaign finance limits is definitely needed.
   
   
3. We need to restore Chevron deference, because the whole idea of forcing Congress to continually update regulations instead of delegating responsibility for issuing regulations to experts appointed for that explicit task is simply unworkable. As with Citizens United, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo can't simply be overturned without difficulty - yet it leaves us in a ridiculous position in a world that is experiencing an ever-accelerating pace of technological change.
   
   
4. We are likely going to need to give Congress the legal authority to establish truly independent governmental entities, given that this President seems to want to push the Unitary Executive Theory as far as it can possibly go. This is because I anticipate that SCOTUS is going to overturn Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which will give the President FAR too much power for any one man to have, especially over matters that should not be handled like a political football.
   
   
5. If SCOTUS reverses Train v. City of New York, we're going to need to fix that, too. Presidents can't be allowed to impound Congressionally-mandated funds at will; that gives them tremendous power to abuse almost everyone and everything at will by just withholding Federal funds from their ennemi du jour. Putting the recision process down in the Constitutiuon will fix that for good - and it needs to be done before we go any further.
   
   
6. Presidential criminal immunity needs to go away. In particular, as things stand today following Trump v. United States, Congress can't (for instance) stipulate an actual criminal penalty for violating the Emoluments Clause and make it stick - which renders that clause unactionable and opens the door to unrestrained Presidential graft. In fact, as Justice Barrett pointed out in same that ruling, the majority opinion goes so far as to make it impossible for government officials who actually witness the President accepting an outright bribe to testify against him. That's just bonkers.
   
   
7. At a minimum, the War Powers Act needs to be established as a Constitutional provision. There is currently no effective check against a President's warmaking power, and that is simply unacceptable.

So yes: My list goes WAY beyond three items.

[Alien Space Bats]

On the topic of constitutions, states also have them, and they vary widely in many ways. Consider a hypothetical new state that undertakes the creation of a constitution in today's political climate. Is it even possible? The last states to do this were Hawaii and Alaska, in the 1950s. If some sort of historical threshold has been crossed beyond which such an effort is doomed to fail in some sense (define as you will), when did that occur and what was the nature of that threshold? Or, assuming that this could still "succeed" (again, define), under what conditions?

The fearfulness of the opposition just didn't seem to exist to the extent that it was even considered that they would not succeed. But now?

Michigan came up with a new Constitution in 1962, following a successful Constitutional Convention.

I grew up there (I was born in 1957), so I think you can see why I don't see the matter as hopeless as everybody else does.

[Tarsonis]

Soon trump will require us to kneel and swear fealty.

Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

[Alien Space Bats]

State officials have a legal obligation to follow Federal warrants. If they have been notified that a warrant is out for an individual in custody, they are legally obligated to hand that person over to Federal authorities.

I'm not entirely sure that's true. State officials aren't obligated to enforce Federal law, because State Legislatures have the right to refuse to allow their resources to be used to do something that the Federal government is charged with doing on its own.

They can't actively interfere - but they don't have to assist if their Legislatures tell them not to.

[Rusozak]

Soon trump will require us to kneel and swear fealty.

Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

Everyone has always been on their knees. Standing never existed. ~ MAGA probably

[Alien Space Bats]

Soon trump will require us to kneel and swear fealty.

Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

“Why don’t you use some sense and try to be more like me? You might live to be a hundred and seven, too.”

“Because it’s better to die on one’s feet than live on one’s knees,” Nately retorted with triumphant and lofty conviction. “I guess you’ve heard that saying before.”

“Yes, I certainly have,” mused the treacherous old man, smiling again. “But I’m afraid you have it backward. It is better to live on one’s feet than die on one’s knees. That is the way the saying goes.”

“Are you sure?” Nately asked with sober confusion. “It seems to make more sense my way.”

“No, it makes more sense my way. Ask your friends.”

Joseph Heller, Catch 22

[Vassenor]

Soon trump will require us to kneel and swear fealty.

I’m expecting demands for kowtows rather than just taking the knee.

[Hwiteard]

Soon trump will require us to kneel and swear fealty.

Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

Alternatively, you could die on your knees from a bullet to the back of the head—possibly after crying, begging for mercy, and maybe even pissing yourself.

[Vassenor]

Better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

Alternatively, you could die on your knees from a bullet to the back of the head—possibly after crying, begging for mercy, and maybe even pissing yourself.

So we’re back to Please Tread On Me?

[Uiiop]

So it's not like i don't have ideas there were just irrelevant to the misunderstanding that I was against constitutional conventions rather than viewing ASB's ideas of how to achieve them and what to do in them impractical and sometimes ironically radical.

If you wanted to just pivot to listing of reforms then fair enough. But it would be a pivot and assuming it wasn't just comes off as a goalpost move.

Most of yours are at least something i can work with more even if the deficit and congressman wages aren't really the point right now.

I'll admit to shooting high.

But as I see it, we need more than three reforms - which is why I think that a Constitutional Convention is needed.

1. We need to remove the Justice Department from the Article II branch. Even if we never have another President who is willing to pursue political prosecutions again, the mere possibility of such a thing happening is likely to contaminate future prosecutions of politically connected people (which not only includes celebrities but also members of protest movements who decide to pursue more extreme methods of expressing their dissent.
   
   Not only can no one be above the law, but the law enforcement apparatus must be beyond reproach.
   
   My preference would be to make it accountable to the Supreme Court - which would at least solve the "Andrew Jackson" problem once and for all.
   
   
2. We need to regulate money in politics, and that can't be done by simply reversing Citizens United v. FEC; the problems we've had with the reversal of Roe v. Wade demonstrate what happens when you reverse a long-time precedent rather than pursue the proper approach (which is to amend Federal law or the Constitution to address the issue, whichever might be necessary).
   
   So an amendment making it legal for Congress and the States to enact campaign finance limits is definitely needed.
   
   
3. We need to restore Chevron deference, because the whole idea of forcing Congress to continually update regulations instead of delegating responsibility for issuing regulations to experts appointed for that explicit task is simply unworkable. As with Citizens United, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo can't simply be overturned without difficulty - yet it leaves us in a ridiculous position in a world that is experiencing an ever-accelerating pace of technological change.
   
   
4. We are likely going to need to give Congress the legal authority to establish truly independent governmental entities, given that this President seems to want to push the Unitary Executive Theory as far as it can possibly go. This is because I anticipate that SCOTUS is going to overturn Humphrey's Executor v. United States, which will give the President FAR too much power for any one man to have, especially over matters that should not be handled like a political football.
   
   
5. If SCOTUS reverses Train v. City of New York, we're going to need to fix that, too. Presidents can't be allowed to impound Congressionally-mandated funds at will; that gives them tremendous power to abuse almost everyone and everything at will by just withholding Federal funds from their ennemi du jour. Putting the recision process down in the Constitutiuon will fix that for good - and it needs to be done before we go any further.
   
   
6. Presidential criminal immunity needs to go away. In particular, as things stand today following Trump v. United States, Congress can't (for instance) stipulate an actual criminal penalty for violating the Emoluments Clause and make it stick - which renders that clause unactionable and opens the door to unrestrained Presidential graft. In fact, as Justice Barrett pointed out in same that ruling, the majority opinion goes so far as to make it impossible for government officials who actually witness the President accepting an outright bribe to testify against him. That's just bonkers.
   
   
7. At a minimum, the War Powers Act needs to be established as a Constitutional provision. There is currently no effective check against a President's warmaking power, and that is simply unacceptable.

So yes: My list goes WAY beyond three items.

Fixing Trump's screw-ups and returning de-jure powers to congress does not a "Congress willing to de-facto keep their powers" make.

Once that (and supreme court reform which i presume you support) is settled then we can add these on to the convention or other proper ways of amending law. Just as is and specifically without giving the voters a better system of choices on their end these suggestions just sound like kicking the can down the road.

[Uiiop]

On the topic of constitutions, states also have them, and they vary widely in many ways. Consider a hypothetical new state that undertakes the creation of a constitution in today's political climate. Is it even possible? The last states to do this were Hawaii and Alaska, in the 1950s. If some sort of historical threshold has been crossed beyond which such an effort is doomed to fail in some sense (define as you will), when did that occur and what was the nature of that threshold? Or, assuming that this could still "succeed" (again, define), under what conditions?

The fearfulness of the opposition just didn't seem to exist to the extent that it was even considered that they would not succeed. But now?

Michigan came up with a new Constitution in 1962, following a successful Constitutional Convention.

I grew up there (I was born in 1957), so I think you can see why I don't see the matter as hopeless as everybody else does.

Then I can only say I've only known Constitutional Convention as something of a Pandora's Box that even Conservatives doubt we could find consensus even if they had enough states to start it in and over an amendment they backed.


You can see why I'm skeptical not of the Convention itself succeeding but of something that can be done without at least 2020 degrees of mess if not more.

[Eahland]

But the CPUSA, PSL and DSA don't have the party machine that Bernie or AOC has. Most people don't know what CPUSA or DSA is. If Bernie and AOC were to fully defect to DSA, loudly and try to take as many lefty dems with them, it could seriously cripple the Democratic party and build a base of support and action against the Trump admin when it inevitably fails.

The party machine comes with the party.

What you’re advocating for is for a literal repeat of 1912 essentially.

All that AOC and Bernie leaving the Dems would do is divide the vote and ensure GOP dominance.

Point of order: Bernie is not, in fact, a Democrat.

[Jangljazira]

Bukele is fucking cartoonishly evil.

He really is. The guy is a disgusting dictator who should be tried for crimes against humanity at The Hague.

Not really, his policies have been good for Salvadorans.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The party machine comes with the party.

What you’re advocating for is for a literal repeat of 1912 essentially.

All that AOC and Bernie leaving the Dems would do is divide the vote and ensure GOP dominance.

Point of order: Bernie is not, in fact, a Democrat.

When you've caucused with them for 30+ years and vote with them nearly 100% of the time and have tried to secure their presidential nomination multiple times, I feel like it's splitting hairs to insist you're not actually a member of the party. He is, he just likes having an I behind his name.

[Necroghastia]

He really is. The guy is a disgusting dictator who should be tried for crimes against humanity at The Hague.

Not really, his policies have been good for Salvadorans.

Imprisoning people without trial ain't that good for anyone.

[Shrillland]

According to Van Hollen, Kilmar Abrego Garcia has been transferred from CECOT to a detention centre with better conditions

[San Lumen]

He really is. The guy is a disgusting dictator who should be tried for crimes against humanity at The Hague.

Not really, his policies have been good for Salvadorans.

Imprisoning people without a trial in an overcrowded prison that has been described as hell on Earth isn't a good for anyone.

[Vassenor]

The party machine comes with the party.

What you’re advocating for is for a literal repeat of 1912 essentially.

All that AOC and Bernie leaving the Dems would do is divide the vote and ensure GOP dominance.

Point of order: Bernie is not, in fact, a Democrat.

Anyone vaguely to the left of Trump is a democrat apparently.

[HISPIDA]

The party machine comes with the party.

What you’re advocating for is for a literal repeat of 1912 essentially.

All that AOC and Bernie leaving the Dems would do is divide the vote and ensure GOP dominance.

Point of order: Bernie is not, in fact, a Democrat.

bernie isn't a democrat in the same way that a wyvern isn't a dragon. like, not strictly speaking, but they're basically the exact same.

and wyverns are dragons, but i digress.