4 ms·

This is the executive's power. There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years besides try to change Trump's mind (or pray he does som

This is the executive's power. There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years besides try to change Trump's mind (or pray he does something impeachable).

coldtea 10y ago
>There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years Actually mass protests to the level of e.g. the French May of 68 might very well bring down a government. But that is for a determined population.
- tajen 10y ago
  Except in France, May 68, De Gaulle (conservatist) wasn't ousted, he even came back in favourable position after 3 days off the grid: He threatened to use the État d'Urgence against the strikers, dissolved the Assembly and the new election yielded 353 of 486 seats in his favour. People, at the end, voted for security.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    In De Gaulle's case yes. But this has not been the case in every mass protest movement in all countries (plus, France voted, which is much larger than Paris, where the demonstrations were mostly held).
  - marcosdumay 10y ago
    > the new election yielded 353 of 486 seats in his favor That's probably why the protests didn't work. People in power are incredibly well informed and can predict those things reasonably well.
- matt4077 10y ago
  I keep being surprised by the power that such protests actually have. You'll read all sorts of statements like "what should anybody care about a bunch of hippies on the streets etc.", and in the US there also seems to be an undercurrent of regarding all protests as illegal, or highlighting the smallest incidents that could possibly scare the "soccer mum" demographic. But then there are frequent examples of protests accomplishing everything from regime change (arab spring) to less-obvious but still substantial changes (see for example the G7/G8 agendas from before and after the meetings started to be a focus for mass demonstrations). Even Occupy, which has probably been the subject of more derision than any other movement, has actually had a major impact: The 99%/1% has become one of the leading narratives of politics in the US and Europe.
RandomInteger4 10y ago
Technically congress or the supreme court can overturn executive orders, and this has happened in the past.
kazagistar 10y ago
Well, he is a bit of a populist, so if you convince enough people, he'll probably go with the flow, on some things at least.
sjy 10y ago
According to the Brookings Institution memo on the Emoluments Clause[1]: > if Mr. Trump enters office in what would obviously constitute a knowing and indeed intentional violation of the Emoluments Clause and then declines to cure that violation during his tenure, Congress would be well within its rights to impeach him for engaging in “high crimes and misdemeanors.” So, it is conceivable that he could be removed within the next four years if he loses the support of Congress. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_1216...
- mikeash 10y ago
  The discussion about whether this or that is kind of irrelevant. While the Constitution outlines the sort of offenses Congress may impeach for, it also provides no oversight. There's nobody who can prevent Congress from impeaching for an insufficient offense, nor is there anybody who can force Congress to impeach if they don't want to. Ultimately, all that matters is whether Congress decides to do it. If they do, then it happens. If they don't, it doesn't. The specific offenses and wording of the Constitution will no doubt matter when it comes to how the individual members of Congress think about the issue, but no more than that. In particular, it doesn't really matter what the Constitution says or how a judge would interpret it, only how the various members of Congress understand it, or choose to interpret it. I think it's fairly likely to happen, in any case. He and Congress don't see eye to eye on many things, and it may not take too long at all before he pisses them off sufficiently to have them get fed up with it. I imagine they'd rather be dealing with Pence anyway.
coredog64 10y ago
There was plenty of time to do something about it. We've been slouching into an imperial presidency for a long time. Democrats could have trimmed it back when they held Congress and the White House. Instead they cheered when Obama said "I have a phone and a pen." They dismantled checks and balances for temporary tactical advantage because they thought their opponents were a "rump party, mainly confined to the South".
erikpukinskis 10y ago
> pray he does something impeachable I think it's more than that, it has to be impeachable AND Senate Republicans have to dislike it enough to upset their boss, right? Without Senate Republicans' support there can be no impeachment hearing can there?
- rezashirazian 10y ago
  What if he blatantly breaks the law? Is there anything the supreme court can do?
  - erikpukinskis 10y ago
    They have no ability to bring a criminal case against anyone without the cooperation of the executive branch, which Trump controls. Citizens could file civil lawsuits against the federal government to get injunctions against him. But even then I believe the only repercussion for him not following those injunctions would be Congress impeaching him. Basically, in order to get charged with a crime the executive branch has to do it. Since the president is the head executive, there has to be a special case for him/her: Congress can bring charges I.e. impeachment proceedings.

This is the executive's power. There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years besides try to change Trump's mind (or pray he does something impeachable).

coldtea 10y ago

>There is literally nothing that can be done about it for the next 4 years Actually mass protests to the level of e.g. the French May of 68 might very well bring down a government. But that is for a determined population.

tajen 10y ago
Except in France, May 68, De Gaulle (conservatist) wasn't ousted, he even came back in favourable position after 3 days off the grid: He threatened to use the État d'Urgence against the strikers, dissolved the Assembly and the new election yielded 353 of 486 seats in his favour. People, at the end, voted for security.
- coldtea 10y ago
  In De Gaulle's case yes. But this has not been the case in every mass protest movement in all countries (plus, France voted, which is much larger than Paris, where the demonstrations were mostly held).
- marcosdumay 10y ago
  > the new election yielded 353 of 486 seats in his favor That's probably why the protests didn't work. People in power are incredibly well informed and can predict those things reasonably well.
matt4077 10y ago
I keep being surprised by the power that such protests actually have. You'll read all sorts of statements like "what should anybody care about a bunch of hippies on the streets etc.", and in the US there also seems to be an undercurrent of regarding all protests as illegal, or highlighting the smallest incidents that could possibly scare the "soccer mum" demographic. But then there are frequent examples of protests accomplishing everything from regime change (arab spring) to less-obvious but still substantial changes (see for example the G7/G8 agendas from before and after the meetings started to be a focus for mass demonstrations). Even Occupy, which has probably been the subject of more derision than any other movement, has actually had a major impact: The 99%/1% has become one of the leading narratives of politics in the US and Europe.

RandomInteger4 10y ago

Technically congress or the supreme court can overturn executive orders, and this has happened in the past.

kazagistar 10y ago

Well, he is a bit of a populist, so if you convince enough people, he'll probably go with the flow, on some things at least.

sjy 10y ago

According to the Brookings Institution memo on the Emoluments Clause[1]: > if Mr. Trump enters office in what would obviously constitute a knowing and indeed intentional violation of the Emoluments Clause and then declines to cure that violation during his tenure, Congress would be well within its rights to impeach him for engaging in “high crimes and misdemeanors.” So, it is conceivable that he could be removed within the next four years if he loses the support of Congress. [1] https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_1216...

mikeash 10y ago
The discussion about whether this or that is kind of irrelevant. While the Constitution outlines the sort of offenses Congress may impeach for, it also provides no oversight. There's nobody who can prevent Congress from impeaching for an insufficient offense, nor is there anybody who can force Congress to impeach if they don't want to. Ultimately, all that matters is whether Congress decides to do it. If they do, then it happens. If they don't, it doesn't. The specific offenses and wording of the Constitution will no doubt matter when it comes to how the individual members of Congress think about the issue, but no more than that. In particular, it doesn't really matter what the Constitution says or how a judge would interpret it, only how the various members of Congress understand it, or choose to interpret it. I think it's fairly likely to happen, in any case. He and Congress don't see eye to eye on many things, and it may not take too long at all before he pisses them off sufficiently to have them get fed up with it. I imagine they'd rather be dealing with Pence anyway.

coredog64 10y ago

There was plenty of time to do something about it. We've been slouching into an imperial presidency for a long time. Democrats could have trimmed it back when they held Congress and the White House. Instead they cheered when Obama said "I have a phone and a pen." They dismantled checks and balances for temporary tactical advantage because they thought their opponents were a "rump party, mainly confined to the South".

erikpukinskis 10y ago

> pray he does something impeachable I think it's more than that, it has to be impeachable AND Senate Republicans have to dislike it enough to upset their boss, right? Without Senate Republicans' support there can be no impeachment hearing can there?

rezashirazian 10y ago
What if he blatantly breaks the law? Is there anything the supreme court can do?
- erikpukinskis 10y ago
  They have no ability to bring a criminal case against anyone without the cooperation of the executive branch, which Trump controls. Citizens could file civil lawsuits against the federal government to get injunctions against him. But even then I believe the only repercussion for him not following those injunctions would be Congress impeaching him. Basically, in order to get charged with a crime the executive branch has to do it. Since the president is the head executive, there has to be a special case for him/her: Congress can bring charges I.e. impeachment proceedings.