5 hours ago, Moon99 said:

Does the founding fathers know own party will not impeached the president for breaking the law? It seems not democracy at all and flawed if that what founding fathers did not know could happen

No. I don’t think they considered that congress would be so corrupt. There were indications that republicans would have voted to impeach Nixon, which is why he resigned.

Technically parties didn’t really exist yet when the founders wrote our governing docs and Washington warned against them

Edited July 29Jul 29 by iNow

22 hours ago, Moon99 said:

Are you saying you can’t contempt president only a government employee? That president has powers that you can’t contempt?

It is unlikely. There are few things were the President is actually doing things. While Trump signed executive orders which are against the law, the remedy is for the institutions to follow the law. So, for example the DHS might have deported folks illegally, and they are either obligated to not do that and/or to bring those deported back. If the officials fail to do so or their lawyers lie about it, contempt charges might be levvied against them. But as Trump is not the one in actual charge of the deportation, he is conveniently separated from those (I think, I am not a lawyer, but that is how I read the articles about it).

But as others said, even if he was personally in charge of deportations for some reasons, the SCOTUS ruling has rendered him functionally immune, anyway.

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

There are few things were the President is actually doing things. While Trump signed executive orders which are against the law, the remedy is for the institutions to follow the law

Right. IOW, when the law wasn't being followed, people were suing the government, not the president.

But as Trump is not the one in actual charge of the deportation, he is conveniently separated from those

I've seen people make comparison with “Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?” (Henry II talking about Becket) because there is no direct legal set of orders, but the president’s wishes are being carried out (or they’re just doing what they want, as with some actions by Hegseth and Miller)

7 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The DoJ is part of the executive branch, but it's supposed to be independent wrt law enforcement activities. POTUS isn't supposed to use it to get back at enemies or take the heat off themselves. Nixon tried that with the Watergate scandal prosecutor. TFG, being an enormous hypocrite, started this latest term by claiming Biden weaponized the DoJ, so he's going to weaponize it even more to root out injustice. So far, he's only investigating the people who investigated him last time, like Jack Smith. Not sure what makes this any different from Nixon.

SCOTUS is supposed to be impartial, using legal knowledge to interpret the Constitution and federal law. They are NOT under the control of the executive branch. Nevertheless, they are horribly partisan right now, and have lost the faith of the American people wrt justice. Most see them now as part of the Christo-fascist regime in power currently, helped by the Heritage Foundation and lots of billionaires who want the majority of us to just die.

How could the founders not know that the president would not consolidate the DOJ and Supreme Court for abuse of power? Why would founders set it up only his own party can impeach him. It seems very unlikely the own party would impeach president.

3 hours ago, swansont said:

No. I don’t think they considered that congress would be so corrupt. There were indications that republicans would have voted to impeach Nixon, which is why he resigned.

The republicans where different back than, now Trump is cult leader and so all the republicans say yes to Trump the same with MEGA base.

42 minutes ago, Moon99 said:

Why would founders set it up only his own party can impeach him. It seems very unlikely the own party would impeach president.

They didn't. As others already said, during the time of the founders, there were no parties. Moreover, impeachment requires action of congress and senate. In modern times, parties were more likely to protect their own from impeachment, but rarely as blatant as it has been done in case of Trump.

44 minutes ago, Moon99 said:

The republicans where different back than, now Trump is cult leader and so all the republicans say yes to Trump the same with MEGA base.

Well, yes. Except, the party did not yet exist, as mentioned. Also the republicans were more different than one might imagine, especially considering the flip during the Southern strategy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy). Cult-like features did start to emerge at least during the tea party, where folks started to lose their minds that a person with mixed descent (who identified as black) could become president of the USA.

9 hours ago, Moon99 said:

How could the founders not know that the president would not consolidate the DOJ and Supreme Court for abuse of power? Why would founders set it up only his own party can impeach him. It seems very unlikely the own party would impeach president.

The republicans where different back than, now Trump is cult leader and so all the republicans say yes to Trump the same with MEGA base.

You do realize these two statements contradict each other, right?

But it points to the reality that political parties change over time. The parties that existed in the early US were not the two major ones we have today - the early ones went extinct when they no longer appealed to the people. It remains to be seen if the republican party eventually crumbles to dust because of the rampant corruption and other flaws of Trumpism.

So if democracy and institutions are failing in the US how do they fix that so it does not turn into fascism?

3 hours ago, Moon99 said:

So if democracy and institutions are failing in the US how do they fix that so it does not turn into fascism?

Fascism is already here. Part of the problem is people framing this as something that might happen in the future.

The fix starts with throwing the fascists out of office.

31 minutes ago, swansont said:

The fix starts with throwing the fascists out of office.

Another element is to look at the points of failure and perhaps consider a redesign.

I should also add, the fact that the courts are now the final (failing) backstop, should be a reason for immense concern. Many of the clearly unlawful and unconstitutional actions should have caught by what originally were considered to be checks and balances. And clearly, we can see that those are not sufficiently independent and that too much power has been gathered over time in the office of the president. Pair that with relentless misinformation and a big dash of cowardice and lack of morals and we got us a nice recipe for an autocratic system (or what one might call an illiberal democracy).

I think MigL has asked at one point (I forgot the context) what is wrong with populism, as after all a democracy do what is popular. As it turns out, there are folks who are willing to give up their freedom and power just to feel that their grievances are being addressed.

As Ben Franklin said (or variations from others) "democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner" i.e. you must have rights of the minority robustly in place.

The founding fathers anticipated someone like Trump becoming president, and put in place safeguards against the possibility, but they did not anticipate that a majority of congress and the supreme court would be willing, if not eager, accomplices.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

As Ben Franklin said (or variations from others) "democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what's for dinner" i.e. you must have rights of the minority robustly in place.

The founding fathers anticipated someone like Trump becoming president, and put in place safeguards against the possibility, but they did not anticipate that a majority of congress and the supreme court would be willing, if not eager, accomplices.

Do you think it would secure democracy better if there were 13 judges on the SC? It would be packing it now, but only by one judge in ratio terms? Doing that would rebalance the difference and possibly make pulling McConnell's stunt of engineering it full of Conservatives more difficult in the future.

23 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Do you think it would secure democracy better if there were 13 judges on the SC? It would be packing it now, but only by one judge in ratio terms? Doing that would rebalance the difference and possibly make pulling McConnell's stunt of engineering it full of Conservatives more difficult in the future.

Maybe, and then republicans put 19 justices on the SCOTUS when they retake power and our banana republic continues its slide.

It seems really not democratic at all if president can be charge of the DOJ and Supreme Court. And the president can appoint judges seems really not democratic. I’m surprised the laws allow for this sort of thing.

It raises red flags also when a president fires judges he does not like.

35 minutes ago, Moon99 said:

And the president can appoint judges seems really not democratic.

Well the check there is the senate which has to consent to the appointment. The founding fathers seemed to have envisioned a system where the executive, legislative and judicial system were all participating in governance. They did not expect that folks would simply cede their powers so willingly.

9 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Do you think it would secure democracy better if there were 13 judges on the SC? It would be packing it now, but only by one judge in ratio terms? Doing that would rebalance the difference and possibly make pulling McConnell's stunt of engineering it full of Conservatives more difficult in the future.

I do; I like the idea of appointing one every 2 years and having a 26 year term (or every 4 years/36 year term if we stay at 9) so every president gets the same opportunity. (congress should add ethics oversight, too)

The number justices hasn’t always been 9, and there are now more federal districts. We should expand the court and add representatives in the House to have closer to equal representation there.

12 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Do you think it would secure democracy better if there were 13 judges on the SC? It would be packing it now, but only by one judge in ratio terms? Doing that would rebalance the difference and possibly make pulling McConnell's stunt of engineering it full of Conservatives more difficult in the future.

FDR wanted to do that, back in the thirties. My guess is term limits would work better. There is debate on whether or not that requires an amendment to the Constitution (needs a supermajority) or just an act of Congress. This has ping ponged for years.

48 minutes ago, TheVat said:

FDR wanted to do that, back in the thirties. My guess is term limits would work better. There is debate on whether or not that requires an amendment to the Constitution (needs a supermajority) or just an act of Congress. This has ping ponged for years.

Right.

13 hours ago, CharonY said:

Well the check there is the senate which has to consent to the appointment. The founding fathers seemed to have envisioned a system where the executive, legislative and judicial system were all participating in governance. They did not expect that folks would simply cede their powers so willingly.

So what can be done about judges that bring politics into courts. Because judges are not suppose to be liberal or conservative they suppose to interpret the law.

It sad that Trump is filling the courts with his right wing Mega judges. And sad thing is Trump will not be last there be other Trump just as bad.

It sad when judges are not suppose to be liberal or conservative but the courts have just been other edition of congress now.

Did the founders not know the judicial system would just be other branch of congress by bringing politics to courts.

On 7/28/2025 at 11:50 AM, TheVat said:

Because those subordinates lack the same criminal immunity as the President, this constraint may now be all the more important

Unfortunately, when combined with Presidential pardon power, those subordinates DO have criminal immunity in actual practice.

1 hour ago, npts2020 said:

Unfortunately, when combined with Presidential pardon power, those subordinates DO have criminal immunity in actual practice.

Yes I would see the constraint as more in that Turnip lackeys can be publicly indicted and prosecuted - so it would serve as a spotlight on malfeasance at least. Even if they walk, there can be reputational consequences after the MAGA pathogen has run its course. Which I still believe will happen. If MAGA spends the next 4-8 years shredding the economy and social safety net, some of those zombies will wake up.

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

Yes I would see the constraint as more in that Turnip lackeys can be publicly indicted and prosecuted - so it would serve as a spotlight on malfeasance at least. Even if they walk, there can be reputational consequences after the MAGA pathogen has run its course. Which I still believe will happen. If MAGA spends the next 4-8 years shredding the economy and social safety net, some of those zombies will wake up.

One can only hope. I am not that optimistic but we shall see. I might vote for whoever promises to raze the $200 million ballroom Mr Trump wants to add on to the White House..

19 minutes ago, npts2020 said:

One can only hope. I am not that optimistic but we shall see. I might vote for whoever promises to raze the $200 million ballroom Mr Trump wants to add on to the White House..

This is another US problem, one that probably deserves its own thread, but we have zero continuity as a country. One side works for 4-8 years to achieve their goals, after dismantling what the other side did for the last 4-8 years. The the first side gets back in power and starts undoing things. Such a stupid, stupid waste of resources!

Weird, I have this notification that Swanson replied to a post an hour ago and it keeps sending me here, but I don't see the reply.

29 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Weird, I have this notification that Swanson replied to a post an hour ago and it keeps sending me here, but I don't see the reply.

I misread something, making my response moot, so I deleted the post. The notification thing might be from the latest software; I’ve noticed that if I edit out a typo, the typo persists in the preview of the post. Kind of annoying how it doesn’t handle such modification.