The most important amendments likely to come out of a convention where most of the delegates were Republican-nominated, given how Democrats would be focused on governing at that point, would be clarifications on the power of the executive branch and the federal government.
Presidents would be required to enforce the law, limited only by resources, not political preferences.
Presidents could not use executive orders as a way to make new law, only to clarifiy areas of legislation that Congress had left vague.
Congress could only legislate on economic issues that are truly interstate in nature, ending the “butterfly effect” theory where everything affects interstate commerce in some small way, so Congress can literally legislate on anything.
Judicial review would be specifically written into the Constitution. SCOTUS would be required to review any legislation that affected the above three amendments. If SCOTUS declined, Congress would create a special court for the purpose.
Yeah, congrats. By literally stealing a Supreme Court nomination, he’s insured that the party that doesn’t control the Senate will never again be allowed to nominate a SC justice. So…yay?
Well, if Democrats responded to their inability to win anything but the White House by expanding the powers of the President, the only recourse would be amendments to more carefully define Presidential power. Best for President Clinton not to push the envelope for the good of the country. But her promise to basically not even bother to enforce immigration law wasn’t helpful. There are enough resources to deport a few hundred thousand a year and that’s what we expect to see accomplished. You can prioritize felons or whatever you want, but you cannot leave resources unused because you just don’t wanna.
He doesn’t need to pull out. He can just do whatever up to and including declaring next week Greenhouse Gas Week and the US would still be in it - the agreement has no enforcement nor penalty clauses.
Climate change is a 100-year fight. Democrats will win elections and make some progress, Republicans will win elections and undo progress, and that dynamic will exist until Democrats win the war on public opinion on this issue. But in the meantime, the idea is to make more progress than the Republicans undo.
You think we’ve reached “status quo” on guns? That seems unlikely to me. Heller just happened in 2008. McDonald was in 2010. There are a number of cases working their way towards the Supreme Court right now. I suspect things will change further over the next few years.
I agree with that much. Democrats only care about precedent when they’ve established it. If they have their way, a whole bunch of decisions about interstate commerce, the right to bear arms, and freedom of speech will be considered to be “wrongly decided” and they’ll just make new precedent.
Yeah, and the question is where exactly in that tenth decade we are right now.
And the Paris accords do matter: they’re an agreement that other major countries signed only because we did. The existence of the accords still has an element of moral suasion to it. If we formally withdrew, other countries would have no reason at all to continue to respect it.
The hell with the “lazy” poor people, children, people of different skin colors, sick (“they deserve it”) people… heck the hell with the whole planet, as long as I can have my gun and all the fake sense of power it gives me!!
I will never understand this type of thinking… I’m still hopeful that most R voters are either 1) voting because of peer pressure or lack of information/brainwashing or 2) those annoying single issue voters
Time will tell where this all goes… But so far, even possible treason (to the #1 geopolitical enemy of the past 50+ years nevertheless!!!) still isn’t enough for the majority of them…
It’s the other side that confounds me: you want to help the poor and the sick; and children, and people of all colors; and, indeed, the whole planet. And you figure there are folks who’ll vote against that, so long as that “fate of the whole planet” entrée comes with a side order of “we’re gonna take yer guns.”
Does your side announce, full-throatedly, that we’re all in mere agreement on guns, and so now let’s talk about the poor and the sick and the whole planet? Or, despite thinking that the whole planet is at stake, does your side – er, stick to its guns?
Depends on what you mean by ‘totally unproven.’ In math, something’s either proven or not; there’s no difference between an otherwise sound argument with one iffy step, and having nothing at all. It’s totally unproven until it’s totally proven. So by that standard, you’d be correct.
But if by ‘totally unproven’ you mean that there’s no evidence at all - maybe you didn’t hear about favors Trump has done for Russia from changing the GOP platform about Ukraine last summer, to handing them Israeli intel about ISIS just the week before last? Maybe you didn’t know about the assorted connections between the Trump campaign and Russia, including Flynn taking money from them? Maybe you didn’t hear (the Russians did!) that Trump fired Comey to kill the Russia investigation? Or that Trump asked two of his top intel appointees to tell Comey to kill the investigation?
And I’ve left out a bunch of stuff. This already makes Watergate look like small potatoes, and there’s still an Imelda Marcos-sized closet worth of shoes still to drop.