Israel reportedly bombed a radar station in Iran after Trump said they would not. Israel says ceasefire now in effect (lol). Iranians vow to respond (we'll see).
Yes.So it doesn't matter what anyone sees in the Constitution with their own eyes, it's the Court who get to say what it says?
All that matters is who controls the Supreme Court. It's a monarchy-by-commitee, you have, no?
Yes.
"It's a great system"...Refreshingly honest that the plain meaning of the Constitution is a dead letter.
I see few remaining reasons not to toss the whole government in the garbage and establish a unicameral parliament with proportional representation and have the country run by a PM. While establishing a new court with vastly fewer powers and a much more limited jurisdiction.
So it doesn't matter what anyone sees in the Constitution with their own eyes, it's the Court who get to say what it says?
All that matters is who controls the Supreme Court. It's a monarchy-by-commitee, you have, no?
The Constitution isn't as clear as you think it is in regards to who has authority to authorize military operations.
In practice the Executive branch has operated as if they are able to conduct limited military operations without a full declaration of war since the 19th century.
The Israelis are unhappy the conflict appears to be ending without their main goal of regime change accomplished. I think they will lie, cheat and find every excuse in the book to resume hostilities. Expect new evidence of some new WMD being developed by Iran to go at it again at some point in the future.
The major achievement of this whole thing is most likely that Israel/US convinced the Iranians that they should weaponize ASAP.
Refreshingly honest that the plain meaning of the Constitution is a dead letter.
I see few remaining reasons not to toss the whole government in the garbage and establish a unicameral parliament with proportional representation and have the country run by a PM. While establishing a new court with vastly fewer powers and a much more limited jurisdiction.
Just imagine if Obama would have said "f@$k" as a answer to a reporters question, it would have been the only thing the GOP would be talking about.
The plain meaning of the Constitution is so clear; that the Executive branch has operated as if they are able to conduct limited military operations without a full declaration of war since the 19th century?
I'm speaking more generally as to the fact that the document is rapidly becoming inoperative and lawlessness is being legalized. I would be entirely open to more and specific constraints on the head of any government to unilaterally order military action in the absence of a clear direct threat to the country or its people.
Neither party wants this restraint on the office of POTUS. You can clearly say that the Obama strikes in Libya in 2011 also had the absence of a clear direct threat to the country or it's people. The only way to restrain the war making powers of the Executive branch would be with a Constitutional Amendment which isn't going to happen.
No.Refreshingly honest that the plain meaning of the Constitution is a dead letter.
I see few remaining reasons not to toss the whole government in the garbage and establish a unicameral parliament with proportional representation and have the country run by a PM. While establishing a new court with vastly fewer powers and a much more limited jurisdiction.
Well that’s a deeply thought and logical argument against reforming our system of government.
All that matters is who controls the Supreme Court. It's a monarchy-by-commitee, you have, no?
Yes.
ShitlolWell that’s a deeply thought and logical argument against reforming our system of government.
What the court does is evaluate cases brought before it to determine how or if it fits within the confines of the constitution. Because there are people involved there will always be beliefs and personality's involved. Sometimes the gyrations used to decide a case are nearly unfathomable, other times they're pretty clear.Well, exactly. If the Constitution isn't clear about this (as it isn't about almost everything of importance) it comes down those monarchs to read the runes and consult the oracle (examine the dead cat entrails, hold a seance to consult with the spirit of Washington, or whatever it is they do). Hence it's a monarchy in all but name.
What the court does is evaluate cases brought before it to determine how or if it fits within the confines of the constitution.
Because there are people involved there will always be beliefs and personality's involved. Sometimes the gyrations used to decide a case are nearly unfathomable, other times they're pretty clear.
The system works just fine for the most part, with the occasional stumble into stupid.
You want a dynamic government where the rules change based on public whim. I want no such thing.No the conservative majority decides the outcome and works backwards from there, even if it contradicts the logic of another case they decided.
Which is why I suggest transferring this burden back to a legislature, where it belongs, who is elected and responsible to the electorate for its choices.
Baghdad Bob type assessment.
You are 100% CORRECT. Conservative courts not only go into cases with an agenda there is a pipeline to funnel cases to this SCOTUS to push that agenda. No way justices should be allowed to pick cases. Their case load should be an independent body.No the conservative majority decides the outcome and works backwards from there, even if it contradicts the logic of another case they decided.
You've spent the last several days doing victory laps about Trump winning the popular vote and how this is all what the majority voted for.You want a dynamic government where the rules change based on public whim. I want no such thing.
The idea that ten million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person has no basis in reality.
Public whim? You mean elected representatives enacting the will of the people.You want a dynamic government where the rules change based on public whim. I want no such thing.
The idea that ten million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person has no basis in reality.
The electorate is smart enough that “liberal” policies that make lives better poll at like 70% but dumb enough that they were propagandized into electing Donald Trump who tried to take away their healthcare his first term. They’d be better off voting for policy rather than a shitty personality.You want a dynamic government where the rules change based on public whim. I want no such thing.
The idea that ten million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person has no basis in reality.
You want a dynamic government where the rules change based on public whim.
I want no such thing.
The idea that ten million stupid people will make better decisions than one stupid person has no basis in reality.