so basically - hurt Trump’s feelings, expect the DoJ to come knocking.
good times.
Textbook brownshirts from the 30’s.
Funny since she just started investigating insider trading in the Trump admin.
The Tribunal of Six:
Normally, we would consider this a flagrant abuse of constitutional rights and executive authority, but orangeboi said it’s an official act, so it’s cool.
Okay, so who in the government is responsibility for preventing politicians from going after their political enemies? Who isn’t doing their job right now?
If it’s just the courts, we’re fucked. They’re overworked and legal cases take way too long to stop this. And of course congress is bought and paid for.
So the constitution was built to fail. Got it.
Built to fail? The Constitution worked, more or less, for over 237 years and 44 different presidents. It hasn’t even failed yet now, although it is in a lot of danger.
It’s the job of Congress to stop the President from doing this, via impeachment. However, in a democracy the people get to choose their leaders and if the people elect not just a man like Trump to be President but also a majority in Congress to support him almost unconditionally, then the people get what they voted for.
Even now, Republicans in Congress fear that they will not be re-elected if they oppose Trump. Thus they’re still carrying out the will of the people.
… if the people elect not just a man like Trump to be President but also a majority in Congress to support him almost unconditionally, then the people get what they voted for.
this includes the democrats who vote for his candidates and bills.
TBH, our Constitution has lasted an awfully long time for a nation. Most other nations, in the same time, have gone through at least one, and sometimes a dozen governments in the same timeframe.
The founding fathers wanted it to be rewritten every 15 years or so.
Where can I find the evidence for this? I want to read more about it.
It was 19 years, and it was a letter from Thomas Jefferson to James Madison.
The TL; DR of it is, Jefferson used the best actuarial data he had (which we now know is flawed, but his point still remains) and determined that every 19 years, the voting electorate would be made up of voters fewer than 50% of which would have been old enough to vote for the laws in effect. In other words, more than half of voters (aka adults) would be subject to laws they would not have been old enough to vote for at the time they were passed.
His reasoning therefore was to basically “redo” government every 19 years, so that at no point could anyone be subject to a law they didn’t have a say in voting for.
Thank you!!
I believe it was discussed in the Federalist papers too
Well, duh.