4 ms·

Serious question from a non-American: What are the checks and balances on Trump? He has the presidency, House, Senate, and can tilt the supreme court. He's got

by mcintyre1994 10y ago

Serious question from a non-American: What are the checks and balances on Trump? He has the presidency, House, Senate, and can tilt the supreme court. He's got a mandate to take action against the media and free speech on the internet. What's left? If Clinton won, the republicans would probably have held one or both houses, which seems like significant checks on power even if she could have a more friendly supreme court than Obama.

gph 10y ago
The check and balance is that he has to get all those people to agree with him. Certainly on major issues where he aligns with Republican philosophy that might happen. But he's not a dictator that can do as he will tomorrow. If he decided he wants to transfer the entire U.S. treasury into his personal bank account he wouldn't be able to. Certainly I doubt our founders thought an entire political party would control every single branch of government. But even if it does the only things that can be accomplished need to be agreed upon by that large group of people. If the will of the people is to elect a group of people into those positions that all hold the same philosophy and values, then that's just democracy. It's what we voted for. I don't know if any party has controlled all three branches of government at once, but it's not like that negates the principle of checks and balances
- mvindahl 10y ago
  I'm not sure that they put a lot of thought into the concept of political parties back then. To a large extent, modern democratic systems have been designed as a mechanism for free men to make collective decisions based upon their individual knowledge and conscience. Political parties are just another application which happens to run well on top of the same OS.
- yardie 10y ago
  You mean where republican philosophy aligns with him. If you've followed the primaries he has ripped the republican playbook to shreds. They never wanted him as their candidate and now they can't hide from him. And for a lot of politicians their success is directly tied to his support. I think we are closer to uncharted territory than a lot of people assume.
wyoh 10y ago
I don't know why you believe that, if anything his partisans were more pro-free speech than Clinton's ones.
alphydan 10y ago
He's been reading Kurt Goedel's writings on the constitution, ... so he found there are none ;)

gph 10y ago

The check and balance is that he has to get all those people to agree with him. Certainly on major issues where he aligns with Republican philosophy that might happen. But he's not a dictator that can do as he will tomorrow. If he decided he wants to transfer the entire U.S. treasury into his personal bank account he wouldn't be able to. Certainly I doubt our founders thought an entire political party would control every single branch of government. But even if it does the only things that can be accomplished need to be agreed upon by that large group of people. If the will of the people is to elect a group of people into those positions that all hold the same philosophy and values, then that's just democracy. It's what we voted for. I don't know if any party has controlled all three branches of government at once, but it's not like that negates the principle of checks and balances

mvindahl 10y ago
I'm not sure that they put a lot of thought into the concept of political parties back then. To a large extent, modern democratic systems have been designed as a mechanism for free men to make collective decisions based upon their individual knowledge and conscience. Political parties are just another application which happens to run well on top of the same OS.
yardie 10y ago
You mean where republican philosophy aligns with him. If you've followed the primaries he has ripped the republican playbook to shreds. They never wanted him as their candidate and now they can't hide from him. And for a lot of politicians their success is directly tied to his support. I think we are closer to uncharted territory than a lot of people assume.

wyoh 10y ago

I don't know why you believe that, if anything his partisans were more pro-free speech than Clinton's ones.

alphydan 10y ago

He's been reading Kurt Goedel's writings on the constitution, ... so he found there are none ;)