I draw your attention to the Grenfell Tower disaster in London seven years ago. The results of the enquiry are now, finally, in - and they make excoriating reading. Much of the blame is laid at the Tory government's door, due to the mad dash to eliminate almost all regulations. 73 people died.
The difference is...that the Tory party was definitively routed in the recent UK election. Here, despite a scintillating debate performance by VP Harris, we are still looking at the possibility of four more years of government by a mendacious, incoherent, rambling, and yes, let's face it, demented, individual.
Are you speaking of the National Popular Vote (NPV)? The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (Explanation). It has been enacted into law by 17 states and DC with 209 electoral votes (Status in the states). It needs an additional 61 electoral votes to go into effect.
The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 61 electoral votes.
It wouldn't need an amendment. The Constitution leaves the States free to decide how to cast their votes. A given State could, for example, cast their votes for the winner in its own jurisdiction.
States comprising 209 of the needed 270 Electoral Votes (EV) to win a Presidential election are currently members of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). States comprising an additional 74 EV have passed legislation to enter the NPVIC in at least one of their legislative chambers. These additional states would be sufficient to pass 270 EV (209 + 74 = 283). Having 270 EV among their members will activate the Compact in the following July. Passing U.S. Congressional legislation to endorse the Compact will strengthen its Constitutional status. However, experience with the current totally corrupt Supreme Court, blatantly partisan for the Republican Party, suggests that they might concoct any reason they might imagine to maintain the Republican advantage with the Electoral College by declaring the NPVIC unconstitutional.
This suggests that the need for the Democrats, having gained control of the federal government, to reform the Supreme Court is time sensitive, i.e., before the NPVIC is activated. Obviously, the undemocratic Filibuster in the U. S. Senate will first need to be expunged before anything can be done. The U. S. Constitution in Article III specifies lifetime tenure for Supreme Court Justices, but as several people have recently pointed out, the Constitution does NOT specify that all of them will necessarily qualify to vote. Congress could legislate that only the nine most recent Justices would ordinarily vote. The emeritus members would undertake other supporting judicial tasks, including temporarily filling in for a recusing Justice in some particular case before the Court. The legislation would specify that one new Court member would be appointed in each two-year Congressional term, so after each eighteen-year period the voting members would have been replaced. The current corrupt Court might temporarily delay the implementation of the NPVIC, but their time would rapidly pass.
Thank you, Don. That answered quite a few questions I had. So, basically, we need a Democratic House and Senate in order to reform the Supreme Court. I would hope that one of those reforms is term limits for the justices. Also, a very strict code of ethics with severe penalties (like being disrobed) for noncompliance.
Peggy Freeman, now that's an awful picture of the awful being disrobed, literally. My mind got rid of that definition of disrobing really fast and went to your intended definition.
Here is the appropriate section (1) of Article III Don.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
It does not say that Federal Judges serve for a lifetime band it does say that they hold their office during good Behaviour.
The interpretation of the Art III, Section 1, that you state is the common interpretation and is the source of the troubles with SCOTUS..
Alito and Thomas have been proven to not behaved and are corrupt, The Senate, not the house, approved their appointment and that which given can taken away, the Senate can remove them,if they have the guts.
Thank you for the clarification, William. Our Senate, like the Roman senate, is supposed to act as bulwark against autocracy. Tragically, Republican Senators betrayed us and the Constitution when they failed to impeach Trump. The Roberts Court presidential immunity ruling was another betrayal. The Constitution, and our democracy, are in peril.
William, my statement does lack precision. As you point out, Article III says "during good Behavior" and not "for life". The historical effect has been a life term or a term until voluntary retirement: the impeachment process has been habitually underused. "During good Behavior" might suggest a removement process distinct from and with different standards than impeachment, but that not becoming the practice was perhaps established in 1805 with the attempted removal of Associate Justice Samuel Chase (not to be confused with Chief Justice Salmon Chase). President Jefferson accused him of blatant partisanship, which might have become a standard for removal for lack of "good behavior", but he was acquitted. That may have set the precedent that the impeachment process that applies to any government official was what lack of good behavior meant in the case of Justices.
With that clarification, I still find the recent suggestion by several writers that "hold their office" does not necessarily imply exercising the voting aspect of the Justices' tasks. Converting them to a non-voting emeritus status (my terminology) after eighteen years does not explicitly contradict the text of Article III, so it offers a means of reforming the Court without a Constitutional Amendment.
The current SCOTUS is corrupt--and illegitimate. It is illegitimate because it has been captured by a political party engaged in insurrection. If we fail to vote this party out of power we shall lose most of what has been gained after 1776. Project 2025 is their dream.
As if the Democratic Party offers something that the founders and framers would not have thrown the tea in the harbor over? Stop. I mean, unless you want to argue there are "levels of" moral bankruptcy....
Don, thank you for your incisive analysis. Front of mind is that the major hurdle to enacting vanguard legislation that you suggest, is the presence of about half of the legislators in the U.S. Congress. These are the corrupted trump (r)epublicans who have already sacrificed their souls to their lawless god. The only party left with a measure of sanity needs to maintain the Executive and regain control of the Legislative branch of government. Else the monomaniacal drumpf and his cadres will see to the destruction of 250 years of positive efforts by decent people to maintain a republic. The grass-roots vote needs to turn out like never before.
The entirety of Congress aside from the dozen or so democratic members who are true progressive and Bernie are completely illegitimate there representing no one but the donor class. You are suffering from the illusion of choice.
There is no party left of sanity. Just fucking stop the bullshit blind tribal allegiance is the vehicle that usher us to this Third World shit hole.
The soul focus of the electric should be ending big and dark money and removing barriers concerning access to the ballot. Without those two prerequisites, none of the other 1000 things that need fixed, tweeked, or burn it to the Ground can be properly addressed.
A disadvantage of the NPV is that it's not a binding commitment. A state can withdraw from the Compact. So it's life depends on the makeup of the state.
The same states that are responsible for the Electoral Vote, the 3/5ths of a human clause and 2 senators per state will not sign the National Popular Vote, for the same reasons that there is an electoral college,and 2 senators per state.
No it does not. The only single thing the constitution leaves to the states specificallyW the location of the Senate polling place. That is it. A simple legislative mandate of electors awarded on the ratio of popular vote would make the electoral college legitimate and balance out the unfair and unconstitutional small state leverage. The Senate rules and make up of the body account for the situation already. Winner take all small state far undue influence.
That is not how it works. You would need a constitutional amendment. Just as well, State like Idaho are not going to be ruled by NY and CA. You would have civil war. States would not give up their voice and be ruled by major coastal populations centers. You people are little tyrants who cry about Democracy then in private discuss how to rule.
This is actually the whole point of the Senate. To provide equal representation to states, regardless of population, in the senior legislative body. The EC is a vestige of the elitist views of the Framers of the Constitution who were afraid of having a President elected via direct democratic voting. And the U.S. is stuck with this relic of an institution which continues to befuddle the rest of the democratic countries in the world.
The Senate is NOT part of the executive branch. The framers knew that state would not join the UNITED STATES if they had no representation for the executive branch. You would have a situation where NY and CA ruled every election and smaller states would have no voice or representation at the executive level. Just as well, we are NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! We are a REPUBLIC. Majority rules is not how things work here, hence the EC. I don't even think you know how the EC works.
Not true. It has been completely bastardized from the original construction. It was implemented to be a firewall. Needed now more than ever. to maintain that intention, we need it to be filled with honest brokers, obviously and the awarding of electors by a ratio of popular vote. Just stop. Speaking on topics you don't know anything about is always a terrible optic.
You are correct in that it tips the scales towards the small states which was already dealt with and given a level playing field by the make up apparatus of the Senate.
It's called the National Popular Interstate Vote compact and lacks just about 38 votes to be enacted. And it's passed at least one chamber in enough states to effectively end the electoral college
Wake up people we do not want to end the electoral college. It, if populated by honest brokers with the constitutional intention of fulfilling its job is an important firewall. Obviously, as is it has failed us many times. In 2000, and 2016 for example. it should stay. The only thing that should change beside the constituency of honest brokers is a legislative mandate from Washington DC to award electors on the ratio of popular vote. Winner take all is bogus AF and in no way would have been part of the construction from the framers.
Let’s keep it civil and informative. SCOTUS fid not rule that the President could commit any crime and not be prosecuted. They ruled that POTUS was immune when performing official acts but the limits of that immunity were not articulated leaving it to the lower courts to decide and SCOTUS to act as the final.
It is or should be obvious that Congress or Legislatures cannot impinge on Executive duties. It should be equally obvious that the founders never imagined that a President should be compelled to break laws to perform his/her duties. Yet here we are with SCOTUS taking a case that should never have been taken (certiorari)).
John Citoyen, I second CLS comment. what is and is not an official act will be determined by Congress or SCOTUS and the President in his official capacity can sign Executive Orders or order the death of anyone.
In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.
I failed to mention that 1) any president could probably order the execution of anyone anywhere simply because the tools are at his/her disposal. 2) the level of restraint a president might exercise is at his discretion but it certainly helps to have a rational set of advisors 3) I don’t have concerns about Biden or Harris, but Trump is not likely to have rational advisors and it’s almost guaranteed they will test whatever limits SCOTUS may have had in mind. It’s a dangerous guessing game to be sure.
Good point, however, the circumstances. surrounding the killing of Al - Aulaqi et al were somewhat unique and probably do not extend to killing anyone anywhere at anytime especially on US soil.
Since the case was dismissed, it does not create or amplify any legal principles that could be useful precedent. It does, however, raise some questions about the contours of presidential power. Even though courts like to claim that they do not resolve political issues, this case was likely dismissed because the political winds favored dismissal
They did not I think provide any clarity as what is or is not an official act by a sitting president. Trump claims as did Nixon that anything and everything is official if the President does it. Even cheating at golf.
I don't think we'd need to go that far. I do think it's reasonable to impeach members of the Court if they engage in corruption, which would -- or at least should -- include rulings that go against the Constitution, like the immunity ruling. Lifetime tenure on the bench should not be a free pass to do anything they want.
Art III, Section 1 of the constitution, does not say that federal judges serve for life or have no term limits, it says that they serve during good behavior.
The Senate, not the house, approves their appointment, and he that giveth can taketh away, there is no need for impeachment (which involves the house, as their is no procedure for impeachment of judges in the constitution or law),. The Senate confirms appointments and the Senate can revoke the confirmation.
Article Ii section 4 covers impeachment of President,VP and all civil officers. That includes federal judges. The process is identical. The senate CANNOT revoke confirmation as you claim. Also, the term “ during good behavior” simply means that bad behavior is impeachable. Article III section 2 clause 2 is far more useful in dealing with the current group. Congress can change the rules for all matters not under “original jurisdiction”. That could mean even limiting what cases it takes and who gets to preside.
No. A ridiculous suggestion. Not possible in a lifetime. That would enter and constitutional amendment that has not only achieve the required 37 states approval but passing by Congress. A legislative mandate of the ratio of popular vote awarding of electorates, the proper policy. It's functioning under honest brokerage, it is a very important firewall. Failing us obviously in 2016.
No, it's not ridiculous. And the Electoral College doesn't actually serve as any kind of firewall. If Republican electors weren't willing to vote against their party's nominee in 2016 despite the obvious threat he posed, there's no reason to expect electors in the future to do any better. To be sure, totally eliminating the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment would be extremely difficult (though if it ever becomes possible, it should be done). But as Michael mentioned above, it is possible to effectively eliminate the Electoral College as a factor if enough states agree to require that their state's electors vote for the national popular vote winner. There's a movement to do just that called the National Popular Vote compact, and it's just a few states away from getting a majority.
Another option that I've seen mentioned is getting the Supreme Court to rule that the current winner take all system for awarding electoral votes violates the rights of those who vote for the losing candidate - which in fact it effectively does, as their votes end up counting for nothing. This would require all states to award electors in proportion to the percentage of the state's popular vote that each candidate received. But such a ruling would obviously only come from a completely different Supreme Court than the one we have now.
I do prefer option #2: The elimination of the "winner takes all" system.
The Founding Fathers, who deep at heart didn't really trust "We The People" to make a good decision decided on a compromise [and now a compromisED system] to elect a President:
Yes, the People will have a vote in electing their President but, just in case, let's have folks who know better ["Electors", CHOSEN BY THEIR POLITICAL PARTY] to be able to 'moderate' [read "modify"] the will of the rabble.
Let's face it: These electors have no other qualification besides being ardent supporters of their Party, by hook or by crook: The honor is bestowed upon you if you rake in enough money and are totally "in the bag" with your Party. But partisanship is precisely what's killing our system.
Instead, as Eric was saying, if, in each State, the delegation was awarded according to the Popular vote, then the over all "will of the People" would be respected.
Look at my State: Wisconsin: We are very much a 'purple State', a very near 50/50 state and we have 10 delegates. but we are a "winner takes all" State. That is very unfair to the 50% of the voters who chose the guy who lost: They end up NOT having ANY representation to carry their voice and the winning Party can run roughshod over their wishes.
But only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule: Their delegates are awarded proportionately. That is a more representative system, a more just system, in which everyone has a voice.
You would believe that those who want to keep the 'filibuster system' so that 'the minority doesn't get crushed by the majority', would be in favor of proportional representation, wouldn't you? Alas, no.
Factions are such that if it helps your Party, you are for it. I'm reminded of George Washington's warning:
George Washington warned of “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” in his Farewell Address as President of United States. “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”
But it's important what kind of proportional system is used. The electoral votes have to be awarded based on the total popular votes for the entire state. No other way of doing it would solve the problem. We don't want to do it like it is done in Nebraska and Maine, as in those cases the electoral votes are based on House districts, which in many states (including Wisconsin) have been heavily gerrymandered by Republicans. And they'd go even further with the gerrymandering if electoral votes are awarded by House district everywhere.
Good point! It should be based on the total State population. It might be difficult, though because the candidate do compete in pre-arranged districts which, as you point out are heavily gerrymandered.
And with this corrupt SCOTUS that won't lift a finger to undo gerrymandering, it will take a while, but at least, there would be some districts in each State that would be awarded to the losing Party.
Today's framework of the electoral college has nothing to do with the Framers intentions. It is heavily bastardized. The only way the founders would keep it as is is the aforementioned policy of doing away with the winner take all award of electors. It does nothing but heavily tip the skills to order small states. They had already even them by the make up of the Senate.
Your contention that there's no expectation for good government because it's filled with dishonest brokers is absolutely beyond moronic. So as Congress and the executive, the supreme court. Abolish them also? Get a grip.
The weak link in this chain is obviously "we the people" we suck. We are in no way, shape or form performing our #Duty.
We are completely derelict. I appreciate you providing proof of theory and concept.
Just because it doesn't doesn't mean that it is supposed to be that way. FFS sakes United States Congress does not represent "we the people" either. Do you think we should abolish? Sit down and be quiet
Gordon Hoffman: It is a good thing that Trump supporters are a dwindling minority. With all the threats to our votes, this could help. But even if they "win" , they will be losers. This is the United States 🇺🇸. Of America.. Imperfect , but strong willed. They would have to kill every last human, and then they would not have US. The goose that laid the truly Golden egg
No they would not. We were just bitch about it on Twitter like we do now. Christ there is no line. Our federal government could be putting minorities in concentration camps, shooting LGBQT peeps in the street for a broadcast entertainment production and open Lee submitting bids for children and all we would do about it is bitch on the worldwide Tik Tok machine. Just like we do now. The constitution was completely abandon in 2010 actually before that. Whenever the "Heller" decision was.
Dwindling minority??? I took 3rd place in the Washington State US Senate race. I had life long Patty voters come to me saying they jumped ship for the first time. RFK didn't endorse Biden. Keep coping. Trump is going to win in the biggest landslide America has EVER seen. Then in 2028 I will get elected and we will take full power. Then guess what? I am going to call for an audit of the government to set a 5% reduction in waste goal to offset exempting the middle class from paying income taxes. The Horror. The middle class being able to keep their money. You truly are unhinged and should stop reading this garbage. Maybe actually go to a Trump rally and see for yourself. Or you can stay in your little SM bubble and pretend you are winning.
The thing is that Wyoming has the same number of votes in the senate as California. Unless they make cows registered voters in Wyoming populations will never be represented.
Completely unneeded and not binding. The normal legislative mandate system applies here. A simple two sentence in perpetuity law of the awarding of electors on a ratio of popular vote basis from Congress and the executive is all that is needed. The constitution specifically in pointedly enumerates the only single Thing that Congress does not have power to regulate concerning elections on the state level is the location of the Senate contest polling place.
The consent of allowing the document to be "interpreted" has consequences..... all of them bad.
The Constitution of the United States is meant to be FOLLOWED.
It is worse than that Michael. The RNC has trained 100,000 poll watchers (many of whom will have guns) to station at vital election districts. Republican legislatures have passed over 100 Voter Suppression laws, and voter registration lists have been scrubbed, Georgia has passed a law that enables county election offiicials to delay certifyiing results if there is a complaint. Steve Bannon said that they have drawn up law suits challenging results in swing states, they are in the hands of lawyers who will be par,ed on court house steps, an fake electors will have been signed up, and parked on Capitol steps, so that what happened in Minn last time doesn't happen again (real electorsgot into the state capitol ahead of the fakes.
They are also going to challenge the Vice President, if she wins the election, certifying her own election, and that will go to SCOTUS, and need I tell you of the result. If the election isn't resolved, then Congress will pick the winner, and each state gets one vote, and their are more red states than blue states.
A fair comparison, given that both countries have nukes, neither country will have elections, Trump will be only too happy to take on the role of Dear Leader and pass it on to Don Jr. when he dies.
In my opinion, he isn't demented in the sense of forgetful, but he lacks decisional capacity. He's certainly a personality disorder, we can split hairs over whether it's narcissistic or borderline, but it's incurable relies on enablers. A swarm of fleas and ticks make a living off him when no serious investor ever has. Elon Musk owns him now.
As reported in the Guardian, new PM Keir Starmer has a stock answer during PM question time, 22 billion pounds, the budget hole inherited from a completely inept Tory party. One similarity between us and them, both the Tories and Republicans are completely bereft of anyone who can remotely lead them. Not only is there no bench strength, there is no bench.
In other words: A Kakistocracy, or rule by the least qualified. One would be hard-pressed to find someone in this flourishing country LESS able than bunkerboy or musk. They are two FAILED businessmen who ruin EVERYTHING they touch!
Remember when Twitter wasn't COMPLETE garbage? How about trump stea-oh wait.
These Old Agencies, like the FDA, the SEC, and the NLRB... Were the result of Disasters in which Thousands Died, or became Impoverished.... Unfettered Capitalism makes a Few Rich, and Most Poor...
I agree, Smokey. Americans are finally waking up to the problem of these mass shootings though I doubt very much will be done to fix that problem. Also, this election has opened quite a few eyes to the danger we are facing with the orange man. This didn't happen overnight, it has been building for decades and if we don't stop it now, we will have a really bad problem!
I draw your attention to the Grenfell Tower disaster in London seven years ago. The results of the enquiry are now, finally, in - and they make excoriating reading. Much of the blame is laid at the Tory government's door, due to the mad dash to eliminate almost all regulations. 73 people died.
The difference is...that the Tory party was definitively routed in the recent UK election. Here, despite a scintillating debate performance by VP Harris, we are still looking at the possibility of four more years of government by a mendacious, incoherent, rambling, and yes, let's face it, demented, individual.
First, the Electoral College has to go.....
Good luck getting an amendment getting rid of the Electoral College.
We're getting closer to a quorum of States which want the change.
Are you speaking of the National Popular Vote (NPV)? The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia (Explanation). It has been enacted into law by 17 states and DC with 209 electoral votes (Status in the states). It needs an additional 61 electoral votes to go into effect.
The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 61 electoral votes.
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC).
Will SCOTUS challenge it?
Last I checked, I think only THREE more states need to choose America over Kakistocracy! Well, three to five.
Thank you for the reminder of that great word and perfect description for the trump era.
Michael, how many states have elected for the change? I believe last I read about it was 24. Is that correct?
Ask Dr. Reich to give us a tutorial. He knows all about it.
Thanks, I'll do that!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=The%20National%20Popular%20Vote%20Interstate,and%20the%20District%20of%20Columbia.
It wouldn't need an amendment. The Constitution leaves the States free to decide how to cast their votes. A given State could, for example, cast their votes for the winner in its own jurisdiction.
States comprising 209 of the needed 270 Electoral Votes (EV) to win a Presidential election are currently members of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC). States comprising an additional 74 EV have passed legislation to enter the NPVIC in at least one of their legislative chambers. These additional states would be sufficient to pass 270 EV (209 + 74 = 283). Having 270 EV among their members will activate the Compact in the following July. Passing U.S. Congressional legislation to endorse the Compact will strengthen its Constitutional status. However, experience with the current totally corrupt Supreme Court, blatantly partisan for the Republican Party, suggests that they might concoct any reason they might imagine to maintain the Republican advantage with the Electoral College by declaring the NPVIC unconstitutional.
This suggests that the need for the Democrats, having gained control of the federal government, to reform the Supreme Court is time sensitive, i.e., before the NPVIC is activated. Obviously, the undemocratic Filibuster in the U. S. Senate will first need to be expunged before anything can be done. The U. S. Constitution in Article III specifies lifetime tenure for Supreme Court Justices, but as several people have recently pointed out, the Constitution does NOT specify that all of them will necessarily qualify to vote. Congress could legislate that only the nine most recent Justices would ordinarily vote. The emeritus members would undertake other supporting judicial tasks, including temporarily filling in for a recusing Justice in some particular case before the Court. The legislation would specify that one new Court member would be appointed in each two-year Congressional term, so after each eighteen-year period the voting members would have been replaced. The current corrupt Court might temporarily delay the implementation of the NPVIC, but their time would rapidly pass.
Thank you, Don. That answered quite a few questions I had. So, basically, we need a Democratic House and Senate in order to reform the Supreme Court. I would hope that one of those reforms is term limits for the justices. Also, a very strict code of ethics with severe penalties (like being disrobed) for noncompliance.
Peggy Freeman, now that's an awful picture of the awful being disrobed, literally. My mind got rid of that definition of disrobing really fast and went to your intended definition.
Not really Peggy see my response to Don.
Here is the appropriate section (1) of Article III Don.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
It does not say that Federal Judges serve for a lifetime band it does say that they hold their office during good Behaviour.
The interpretation of the Art III, Section 1, that you state is the common interpretation and is the source of the troubles with SCOTUS..
Alito and Thomas have been proven to not behaved and are corrupt, The Senate, not the house, approved their appointment and that which given can taken away, the Senate can remove them,if they have the guts.
Thank you for the clarification, William. Our Senate, like the Roman senate, is supposed to act as bulwark against autocracy. Tragically, Republican Senators betrayed us and the Constitution when they failed to impeach Trump. The Roberts Court presidential immunity ruling was another betrayal. The Constitution, and our democracy, are in peril.
William, my statement does lack precision. As you point out, Article III says "during good Behavior" and not "for life". The historical effect has been a life term or a term until voluntary retirement: the impeachment process has been habitually underused. "During good Behavior" might suggest a removement process distinct from and with different standards than impeachment, but that not becoming the practice was perhaps established in 1805 with the attempted removal of Associate Justice Samuel Chase (not to be confused with Chief Justice Salmon Chase). President Jefferson accused him of blatant partisanship, which might have become a standard for removal for lack of "good behavior", but he was acquitted. That may have set the precedent that the impeachment process that applies to any government official was what lack of good behavior meant in the case of Justices.
With that clarification, I still find the recent suggestion by several writers that "hold their office" does not necessarily imply exercising the voting aspect of the Justices' tasks. Converting them to a non-voting emeritus status (my terminology) after eighteen years does not explicitly contradict the text of Article III, so it offers a means of reforming the Court without a Constitutional Amendment.
The Costitution of the United States demands to be FOLLOWED. Not "interpreted" leave that to the charlatans and their scripturen
The House must impeach them first.
For that to happen they would pre-requisite we need a legitimate opposition.
The current SCOTUS is corrupt--and illegitimate. It is illegitimate because it has been captured by a political party engaged in insurrection. If we fail to vote this party out of power we shall lose most of what has been gained after 1776. Project 2025 is their dream.
A given.
As if the Democratic Party offers something that the founders and framers would not have thrown the tea in the harbor over? Stop. I mean, unless you want to argue there are "levels of" moral bankruptcy....
Don, thank you for your incisive analysis. Front of mind is that the major hurdle to enacting vanguard legislation that you suggest, is the presence of about half of the legislators in the U.S. Congress. These are the corrupted trump (r)epublicans who have already sacrificed their souls to their lawless god. The only party left with a measure of sanity needs to maintain the Executive and regain control of the Legislative branch of government. Else the monomaniacal drumpf and his cadres will see to the destruction of 250 years of positive efforts by decent people to maintain a republic. The grass-roots vote needs to turn out like never before.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/10/trump-gop-support-jd-vance-2024/679564/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
The entirety of Congress aside from the dozen or so democratic members who are true progressive and Bernie are completely illegitimate there representing no one but the donor class. You are suffering from the illusion of choice.
There is no party left of sanity. Just fucking stop the bullshit blind tribal allegiance is the vehicle that usher us to this Third World shit hole.
The soul focus of the electric should be ending big and dark money and removing barriers concerning access to the ballot. Without those two prerequisites, none of the other 1000 things that need fixed, tweeked, or burn it to the Ground can be properly addressed.
A disadvantage of the NPV is that it's not a binding commitment. A state can withdraw from the Compact. So it's life depends on the makeup of the state.
The majority of states are red.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
The same states that are responsible for the Electoral Vote, the 3/5ths of a human clause and 2 senators per state will not sign the National Popular Vote, for the same reasons that there is an electoral college,and 2 senators per state.
Not sure whatsoever.
No it does not. The only single thing the constitution leaves to the states specificallyW the location of the Senate polling place. That is it. A simple legislative mandate of electors awarded on the ratio of popular vote would make the electoral college legitimate and balance out the unfair and unconstitutional small state leverage. The Senate rules and make up of the body account for the situation already. Winner take all small state far undue influence.
That is not how it works. You would need a constitutional amendment. Just as well, State like Idaho are not going to be ruled by NY and CA. You would have civil war. States would not give up their voice and be ruled by major coastal populations centers. You people are little tyrants who cry about Democracy then in private discuss how to rule.
This is actually the whole point of the Senate. To provide equal representation to states, regardless of population, in the senior legislative body. The EC is a vestige of the elitist views of the Framers of the Constitution who were afraid of having a President elected via direct democratic voting. And the U.S. is stuck with this relic of an institution which continues to befuddle the rest of the democratic countries in the world.
The Senate is NOT part of the executive branch. The framers knew that state would not join the UNITED STATES if they had no representation for the executive branch. You would have a situation where NY and CA ruled every election and smaller states would have no voice or representation at the executive level. Just as well, we are NOT A DEMOCRACY!!! We are a REPUBLIC. Majority rules is not how things work here, hence the EC. I don't even think you know how the EC works.
Not true. It has been completely bastardized from the original construction. It was implemented to be a firewall. Needed now more than ever. to maintain that intention, we need it to be filled with honest brokers, obviously and the awarding of electors by a ratio of popular vote. Just stop. Speaking on topics you don't know anything about is always a terrible optic.
You are correct in that it tips the scales towards the small states which was already dealt with and given a level playing field by the make up apparatus of the Senate.
It's called the National Popular Interstate Vote compact and lacks just about 38 votes to be enacted. And it's passed at least one chamber in enough states to effectively end the electoral college
Look at status here
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
A political football to miss direct you from the truth and having a conversation about a constitutional legislative mandate
Wake up people we do not want to end the electoral college. It, if populated by honest brokers with the constitutional intention of fulfilling its job is an important firewall. Obviously, as is it has failed us many times. In 2000, and 2016 for example. it should stay. The only thing that should change beside the constituency of honest brokers is a legislative mandate from Washington DC to award electors on the ratio of popular vote. Winner take all is bogus AF and in no way would have been part of the construction from the framers.
Like finding AC in Hades!🥵😡💙💙💙💙💙💙💙
If only…….
It won't be '4 more years'. As Harris noted, Trump has said he will 'terminate the constitution'.
It's not an empty threat, as the Supreme Court just ruled that any crime a president commits is not a crime.
Trump would be able to do anything, with no checks, balances, or accountability.
Let’s keep it civil and informative. SCOTUS fid not rule that the President could commit any crime and not be prosecuted. They ruled that POTUS was immune when performing official acts but the limits of that immunity were not articulated leaving it to the lower courts to decide and SCOTUS to act as the final.
It is or should be obvious that Congress or Legislatures cannot impinge on Executive duties. It should be equally obvious that the founders never imagined that a President should be compelled to break laws to perform his/her duties. Yet here we are with SCOTUS taking a case that should never have been taken (certiorari)).
'SCOTUS acting as the final' is the potential problem, I think. I am concerned they will use a lot of leeway in how they define 'official acts'.
Like a squid, Justice Roberts muddied the waters to escape responsibility.
SCOTUS has become a tool of the Republican Party, whose goal is the implementation of Project 2025.
If you are trying to defend the indefensible here, namely leading legitimacy to the present parity of a supreme court, did a fine job.
John Citoyen, I second CLS comment. what is and is not an official act will be determined by Congress or SCOTUS and the President in his official capacity can sign Executive Orders or order the death of anyone.
In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.
The precedent has been set.
I failed to mention that 1) any president could probably order the execution of anyone anywhere simply because the tools are at his/her disposal. 2) the level of restraint a president might exercise is at his discretion but it certainly helps to have a rational set of advisors 3) I don’t have concerns about Biden or Harris, but Trump is not likely to have rational advisors and it’s almost guaranteed they will test whatever limits SCOTUS may have had in mind. It’s a dangerous guessing game to be sure.
Good point, however, the circumstances. surrounding the killing of Al - Aulaqi et al were somewhat unique and probably do not extend to killing anyone anywhere at anytime especially on US soil.
Since the case was dismissed, it does not create or amplify any legal principles that could be useful precedent. It does, however, raise some questions about the contours of presidential power. Even though courts like to claim that they do not resolve political issues, this case was likely dismissed because the political winds favored dismissal
John, the SCOTUS ruling changed the game, and considering the ideological drift of the High Unholy Roman Catholic Six, can one expect anything,
They did not I think provide any clarity as what is or is not an official act by a sitting president. Trump claims as did Nixon that anything and everything is official if the President does it. Even cheating at golf.
If you think the constitution has any bearing on today's federal government, you have zero knowledge of the body politic. Get a grip
Awful
But would a popularly elected Supreme Court as they are proposing in Mexico be better? Don't think so.
I don't think we'd need to go that far. I do think it's reasonable to impeach members of the Court if they engage in corruption, which would -- or at least should -- include rulings that go against the Constitution, like the immunity ruling. Lifetime tenure on the bench should not be a free pass to do anything they want.
Art III, Section 1 of the constitution, does not say that federal judges serve for life or have no term limits, it says that they serve during good behavior.
The Senate, not the house, approves their appointment, and he that giveth can taketh away, there is no need for impeachment (which involves the house, as their is no procedure for impeachment of judges in the constitution or law),. The Senate confirms appointments and the Senate can revoke the confirmation.
Article Ii section 4 covers impeachment of President,VP and all civil officers. That includes federal judges. The process is identical. The senate CANNOT revoke confirmation as you claim. Also, the term “ during good behavior” simply means that bad behavior is impeachable. Article III section 2 clause 2 is far more useful in dealing with the current group. Congress can change the rules for all matters not under “original jurisdiction”. That could mean even limiting what cases it takes and who gets to preside.
First, Trump has to be unelected
Trump with cement overshoes and then to the deep Atlantic ocean.
FT6 phone banks Today.
https://www.mobilize.us/ft6/?q=phone%20banks&tag_ids=20038
No. A ridiculous suggestion. Not possible in a lifetime. That would enter and constitutional amendment that has not only achieve the required 37 states approval but passing by Congress. A legislative mandate of the ratio of popular vote awarding of electorates, the proper policy. It's functioning under honest brokerage, it is a very important firewall. Failing us obviously in 2016.
No, it's not ridiculous. And the Electoral College doesn't actually serve as any kind of firewall. If Republican electors weren't willing to vote against their party's nominee in 2016 despite the obvious threat he posed, there's no reason to expect electors in the future to do any better. To be sure, totally eliminating the Electoral College through a constitutional amendment would be extremely difficult (though if it ever becomes possible, it should be done). But as Michael mentioned above, it is possible to effectively eliminate the Electoral College as a factor if enough states agree to require that their state's electors vote for the national popular vote winner. There's a movement to do just that called the National Popular Vote compact, and it's just a few states away from getting a majority.
Another option that I've seen mentioned is getting the Supreme Court to rule that the current winner take all system for awarding electoral votes violates the rights of those who vote for the losing candidate - which in fact it effectively does, as their votes end up counting for nothing. This would require all states to award electors in proportion to the percentage of the state's popular vote that each candidate received. But such a ruling would obviously only come from a completely different Supreme Court than the one we have now.
I do prefer option #2: The elimination of the "winner takes all" system.
The Founding Fathers, who deep at heart didn't really trust "We The People" to make a good decision decided on a compromise [and now a compromisED system] to elect a President:
Yes, the People will have a vote in electing their President but, just in case, let's have folks who know better ["Electors", CHOSEN BY THEIR POLITICAL PARTY] to be able to 'moderate' [read "modify"] the will of the rabble.
Let's face it: These electors have no other qualification besides being ardent supporters of their Party, by hook or by crook: The honor is bestowed upon you if you rake in enough money and are totally "in the bag" with your Party. But partisanship is precisely what's killing our system.
Instead, as Eric was saying, if, in each State, the delegation was awarded according to the Popular vote, then the over all "will of the People" would be respected.
Look at my State: Wisconsin: We are very much a 'purple State', a very near 50/50 state and we have 10 delegates. but we are a "winner takes all" State. That is very unfair to the 50% of the voters who chose the guy who lost: They end up NOT having ANY representation to carry their voice and the winning Party can run roughshod over their wishes.
But only two States, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule: Their delegates are awarded proportionately. That is a more representative system, a more just system, in which everyone has a voice.
You would believe that those who want to keep the 'filibuster system' so that 'the minority doesn't get crushed by the majority', would be in favor of proportional representation, wouldn't you? Alas, no.
Factions are such that if it helps your Party, you are for it. I'm reminded of George Washington's warning:
George Washington warned of “the baneful effects of the spirit of party” in his Farewell Address as President of United States. “Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”
But it's important what kind of proportional system is used. The electoral votes have to be awarded based on the total popular votes for the entire state. No other way of doing it would solve the problem. We don't want to do it like it is done in Nebraska and Maine, as in those cases the electoral votes are based on House districts, which in many states (including Wisconsin) have been heavily gerrymandered by Republicans. And they'd go even further with the gerrymandering if electoral votes are awarded by House district everywhere.
Eric, I believe no matter what we do, republicans are going to find a way to cheat. That's what they do.
Good point! It should be based on the total State population. It might be difficult, though because the candidate do compete in pre-arranged districts which, as you point out are heavily gerrymandered.
And with this corrupt SCOTUS that won't lift a finger to undo gerrymandering, it will take a while, but at least, there would be some districts in each State that would be awarded to the losing Party.
Today's framework of the electoral college has nothing to do with the Framers intentions. It is heavily bastardized. The only way the founders would keep it as is is the aforementioned policy of doing away with the winner take all award of electors. It does nothing but heavily tip the skills to order small states. They had already even them by the make up of the Senate.
With a 2025 Congress (Idaho believes that 100%), we'll get the Illiberal Democracy Trump and Orban are seeking.
And takes WAAAAY to long
Your contention that there's no expectation for good government because it's filled with dishonest brokers is absolutely beyond moronic. So as Congress and the executive, the supreme court. Abolish them also? Get a grip.
The weak link in this chain is obviously "we the people" we suck. We are in no way, shape or form performing our #Duty.
We are completely derelict. I appreciate you providing proof of theory and concept.
Just because it doesn't doesn't mean that it is supposed to be that way. FFS sakes United States Congress does not represent "we the people" either. Do you think we should abolish? Sit down and be quiet
A thing is only ridiculous when it is ridiculed.
Trump supporters think it's okay. They won't know they don't like it until it's implemented.
Gordon Hoffman: It is a good thing that Trump supporters are a dwindling minority. With all the threats to our votes, this could help. But even if they "win" , they will be losers. This is the United States 🇺🇸. Of America.. Imperfect , but strong willed. They would have to kill every last human, and then they would not have US. The goose that laid the truly Golden egg
No they would not. We were just bitch about it on Twitter like we do now. Christ there is no line. Our federal government could be putting minorities in concentration camps, shooting LGBQT peeps in the street for a broadcast entertainment production and open Lee submitting bids for children and all we would do about it is bitch on the worldwide Tik Tok machine. Just like we do now. The constitution was completely abandon in 2010 actually before that. Whenever the "Heller" decision was.
Dwindling minority??? I took 3rd place in the Washington State US Senate race. I had life long Patty voters come to me saying they jumped ship for the first time. RFK didn't endorse Biden. Keep coping. Trump is going to win in the biggest landslide America has EVER seen. Then in 2028 I will get elected and we will take full power. Then guess what? I am going to call for an audit of the government to set a 5% reduction in waste goal to offset exempting the middle class from paying income taxes. The Horror. The middle class being able to keep their money. You truly are unhinged and should stop reading this garbage. Maybe actually go to a Trump rally and see for yourself. Or you can stay in your little SM bubble and pretend you are winning.
I'm sorry I don't speak nebulous gibberish. Do you want to translate that into any of the Romance languages or Latin?
Num Latine loqui vis?
The thing is that Wyoming has the same number of votes in the senate as California. Unless they make cows registered voters in Wyoming populations will never be represented.
Democrats can move there and take over!
Same with the Dakotas. W. (By God) Virginia.
They will by the legislative mandate demanding electors from the electoral college be awarded on the ratio of popular vote.
Oh FFS there's a measure that will work
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
Completely unneeded and not binding. The normal legislative mandate system applies here. A simple two sentence in perpetuity law of the awarding of electors on a ratio of popular vote basis from Congress and the executive is all that is needed. The constitution specifically in pointedly enumerates the only single Thing that Congress does not have power to regulate concerning elections on the state level is the location of the Senate contest polling place.
The consent of allowing the document to be "interpreted" has consequences..... all of them bad.
The Constitution of the United States is meant to be FOLLOWED.
It is worse than that Michael. The RNC has trained 100,000 poll watchers (many of whom will have guns) to station at vital election districts. Republican legislatures have passed over 100 Voter Suppression laws, and voter registration lists have been scrubbed, Georgia has passed a law that enables county election offiicials to delay certifyiing results if there is a complaint. Steve Bannon said that they have drawn up law suits challenging results in swing states, they are in the hands of lawyers who will be par,ed on court house steps, an fake electors will have been signed up, and parked on Capitol steps, so that what happened in Minn last time doesn't happen again (real electorsgot into the state capitol ahead of the fakes.
They are also going to challenge the Vice President, if she wins the election, certifying her own election, and that will go to SCOTUS, and need I tell you of the result. If the election isn't resolved, then Congress will pick the winner, and each state gets one vote, and their are more red states than blue states.
If Trump gets in America will become North Korea.
Remember Mao and Stalin? All "strong" men, admired by millions. Oh, how Trump envies them!
A fair comparison, given that both countries have nukes, neither country will have elections, Trump will be only too happy to take on the role of Dear Leader and pass it on to Don Jr. when he dies.
First, we must register people and get out the vote.
In my opinion, he isn't demented in the sense of forgetful, but he lacks decisional capacity. He's certainly a personality disorder, we can split hairs over whether it's narcissistic or borderline, but it's incurable relies on enablers. A swarm of fleas and ticks make a living off him when no serious investor ever has. Elon Musk owns him now.
PS we are having this chat on X.
He uses strong psychopath behaviors.
How about public financing of elections? This is priority number one!
As reported in the Guardian, new PM Keir Starmer has a stock answer during PM question time, 22 billion pounds, the budget hole inherited from a completely inept Tory party. One similarity between us and them, both the Tories and Republicans are completely bereft of anyone who can remotely lead them. Not only is there no bench strength, there is no bench.
In other words: A Kakistocracy, or rule by the least qualified. One would be hard-pressed to find someone in this flourishing country LESS able than bunkerboy or musk. They are two FAILED businessmen who ruin EVERYTHING they touch!
Remember when Twitter wasn't COMPLETE garbage? How about trump stea-oh wait.
I wish it would only be four more years, but I have my doubts.
Too many willfully ignorant people in the US!
These Old Agencies, like the FDA, the SEC, and the NLRB... Were the result of Disasters in which Thousands Died, or became Impoverished.... Unfettered Capitalism makes a Few Rich, and Most Poor...
…and kills a fair number.
I agree, Smokey. Americans are finally waking up to the problem of these mass shootings though I doubt very much will be done to fix that problem. Also, this election has opened quite a few eyes to the danger we are facing with the orange man. This didn't happen overnight, it has been building for decades and if we don't stop it now, we will have a really bad problem!
We all have frontal lobes.
Alas, Daniel, frontal lobes can become perverse. It's a very human problem.