You know, you against even a 5-4 Supreme Court decision still brings the Supreme Court decision to 5-4, because you don’t count and never have counted in that context.
In short, the issue went to the Supreme Court in 1895. The Supreme Court found that some income taxes were permissible under the Constitution even without the Sixteenth Amendment. Therefore, income taxes as such weren’t a usurpation.
Sorry for being so Politically Incorrect, because I know how you Conservatives hate that, but some things are best stated bluntly.
They’ve been codified through a democratic process. I’m fairly certain every damn thing you’ve ever complained in terms of executive power has either been granted by the Constitution or by Congress.
Depending on how you define it, sure, maybe. I mean, the 18th Amendment granted the power to ban alcohol, and the 27th restricted the legislature’s power to approve its own pay raises. But there has never, ever been an amendment passed except through Congressional proposal. That’s what’s craziest about adaher’s fantasy here - that states are going to create a Constitutional Convention, which they cannot control, to solve a problem that doesn’t exist except in the minds of those on the far right.
Prosecutorial discretion does not involve the issuing of licenses to break the law, although for now the courts are telling the President he can’t do that. But it might be good to define what prosecutorial discretion is, as in it’s not, “I don’t like the law, so I won’t enforce it.”
If the balance of political power is such that the Democrats dominate the Presidency and the Republicans dominate everything else, what’s the logical solution to the Republicans’ problem? Sure, they could cheat and change the electoral college rules in enough states, but that’s shady and would look shady to 99% of the public. What isn’t shady is addressing the Democrats’ problem: how do you wield power when you only control the Presidency? Both Obama and clinton have promised to aggressively use Presidential power and that’s a natural response to only being able to control the White House. So when that use of power is legally questionable, it gives ammunition to Republicans to rein it in. Current methods of doing so are unwieldy: impeachment, lawsuits, bills that the President can veto and thus require two thirds majorities.
What would work better then, would be to pass a limiting amendment, with a two thirds vote if the Republicans have it, but if they are short of that, use 37 states if you have that. Republicans are a lot closer to 37 states than they are to veto proof majorities, so you’ll definitely hear some talk about the idea if a President Clinton goes too far.
The closer Republicans get to 37 states, the harder each one will get. The 26th state is much, much easier to get than the 36th. Very small electoral changes would result in Democrats getting back several of these governorships and state legislatures; it would take immense electoral changes for the Republicans to get to 37. At some point is a peak, if they haven’t reached it already.
At the state level it’s all about governing well. Chris Christie won overwhelmingly in a blue state because(at the time) he was perceived as a good governor. if the Republicans do a good job at the state level then it becomes a lot easier to hold those states, and as Democrats continue to be seen as soft on crime and in the pockets of unions that are bankrupting their states, it’ll be possible to pick up more.
Looking at the list, we have 31 governors, so we only need 6 more to at least get 37 executives. Here are six states the GOP could pick up:
Alaska
Colorado
Missouri
Montana
Virginia
West Virginia
Not exactly impossible. In 2016 I believe two of those are up for election. Be interesting to see if Republicans get closer or further to the magic number in 2016.
Virginia in particular may be close to impossible – Terry Mac was a lousy candidate who still won, and the state is just getting bluer demographically. We’ll see, but I think this is just more wishful thinking on your part.
First of all, 38, not 37. Then, your trend for governor isn’t going up; it’s going down. It’s because they aren’t generally doing a good job, and are losing states like Louisiana. You should expect your number to be lower after 2016. And governors don’t matter, legislatures do. Other than that, good post.
Governorships change hands regularly regardless of demographics. If the last governor does badly, then his party loses the next election. Plus state parties tend to try to fit their state. I don’t think there are any states where either major party is unelectable.
So the key is to hold onto the states they have, govern well, and pick up some more. The 2010-2014 period was a good sign in that respect. How many did we lose, just one(Tom Corbett?). So if we keep up the good work, who knows?
I know that. But you need governors to avoid vetoes of such bills. No one actually knows how you call for a constitutional convention, the Constitution leaves the subject wide open, so presumably states would probably attempt to pass laws, and those laws would be signed by the governor. Even if you don’t need a law to start a constitutional convention(maybe it can be done by simple resolution?) you still need a law to define how delegates will be sent, and presumably the governor will get to appoint them. So you still need Republican governors.
Jindal did poorly, no question. AS did Tom Corbett. Everyone else got reelected and a ton of Democrats got defeated. Our trend is actually up, not down. This year, we broke even, one win and one loss.
So, what’s the takeaway here? That conservatives don’t understand how this country works, or that an actual conservative would, but modern Republicans don’t?
Or are they all smart enough, and it’s really just adaher?
Your question is unanswerable unless you want to get more specific. On the narrow question of the mechanism by which the Constitution is amended, I think adaher is likely with majorities of both parties in not understanding it very well.
I think if Hillary is indicted, then John Kerry may be a pick that the Democrats may want. He’s ran for president before, lost to George W. Bush in 2004, and he knows the ins and outs of the White House as Secretary of State. Kerry did not run for president in 2008, when he was seen as a potential candidate, after losing in 2004.