4 ms·

What makes it a coup? Trump was elected on a platform of government reform and that's what he is doing.

babyshake 2y ago
If you are elected on a platform of a coup (illegal reform), it doesn't make what you do any more legal. Some of what Trump is doing is not illegal, but some of it appears to be illegal.
- throwawaythekey 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - Juliate 2y ago
    Hu… no, it is not « normal ». It displays a wild disconnect from the duties of the position (to protect the Constitution, among which).
    - throwawaythekey 2y ago
      > During his four years as president, Democrat Joe Biden experienced a sustained series of defeats at the U.S. Supreme Court... "I think it is the toughest series of defeats since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s had many New Deal programs declared unconstitutional," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-dealt-biden-historic-series-defeats-2025-01-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-dealt-bide... I'm not particularly trying to argue if it's good or bad, just that presidents often stretch the law to apply their agenda. I would tend to side more on the bad side, but it seems necessary due to senate dysfunction.
      - Juliate 2y ago
        Doesn't make it more normal. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
        throwawaythekey 2y ago
        I guess it depends on what you mean by normal. The point I am trying to make is it is common for Presidents to do things which are later deemed illegal.
        Juliate 2y ago
        "Normal" is defined by norms (constitution, laws, regulations). What you're trying to say is "usual" - if it is, indeed, usual for each of your presidents to do so.
        throwawaythekey 2y ago
        My bad for using an ambiguous term but please note that "usual" is the first listed definition for normal in many dictionaries. Using norms to mean rules seems to be more archaic. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal
DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
What makes it a coup is that Trump is acting completely illegally. He was elected president, not dictator. He does not have the legal authority to create a new government department, DOGE, to appoint Musk as its head without Senate advice and consent, and to give it full power over all other agencies.
- rapsey 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
    Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution is crystal clear on this subject. DOGE and Musk's appointment are blatantly illegal.
    - ithkuil 2y ago
      But clickety click, Barba Trick: it's not formally a department, so there is now law stopping the president from creating this informal advisory thing. It's not clear exactly what it is. But they just put the word "department" in the name and ran with it. What may be illegal is when this advisory "thing" starts getting access to various important cogs of the government and intimidate federal workers by leveraging the fact that the president apparently can just fire federal employees who are in 'policy-influencing' positions. That's again one of those cases where the law may not be ready to counteract blatant abuse because historically so much has been up to democratic norms, and here we have a clique that is using norm violation as their battle cry
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- lIl-IIIl 2y ago
  That doesn't make it a coup. "Coup" has a definition, which is to unseat a government through illegal means, or to stay in power through illegal means. For example, January 6th could be considered an attempted coup. But just acting illegally a coup does not make.
rapsey 2y ago
[flagged]
reshlo 2y ago
A leader who is democratically elected, and then violates or exploits loopholes in the law to give themselves powers that they are not supposed to have, is engaging in a self-coup. The US Constitution grants Congress, not the executive branch, the power to determine how the federal government’s money is spent. Elon Musk’s team within the Executive Office of the President have reportedly gained full admin access to the payment system of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service at the Department of the Treasury, which is responsible for the majority of the federal government’s payments, and are using that access to prevent certain payments from being made. Among other things, they are also attempting to close down the US Agency for International Development, which was established and funded as an independent agency by an act of Congress.
- throwawaythekey 2y ago
  > The US Constitution grants Congress, not the executive branch, the power to determine how the federal government’s money is spent. With regards to the constitution specifically the power of the purse seems a little vague. In 1974 the Impoundment Control Act was passed as a response to, and to prevent, presidents from unilaterally impounding. https://protectdemocracy.org/work/impoundment-threat-explained/ https://protectdemocracy.org/work/impoundment-threat-explain...
- whatthesmack 2y ago
  > exploits loopholes in the law This is a very interesting way of saying "following the law."
  - reshlo 2y ago
    It’s a way of saying “following the letter of a poorly drafted law while being aware of, and not following, its intended spirit”. Just because the law accidentally technically allows you to do something doesn’t mean you should, or that it should be considered morally acceptable to do so.
guelo 2y ago
The pardoning of the J6 rioters that broke into the capitol, and now trying to fire all law enforcement that were involved in their prosecution feels like the end of the rule of law. Law will now be whatever Trump says. It's a coup.
- whatthesmack 2y ago
  > the J6 rioters that broke into the capital I would encourage you to learn more about that day. Most people that were charged did not go into the building. And the few that did were literally waved in by police, including many being escorted around inside by police.
navane 2y ago
Many dictators, including the famous great, started out by being elected into government.
- throwawaythekey 2y ago
  In my mind democratically elected and coup are antonyms. If you are against trumps style of cleanup then I would probably stick to illegal, although that is TBD, radical or destructive.
  - SauciestGNU 2y ago
    I would encourage you to check your priors wrt definitions. Ergodan was democratically elected, then staged an auto-coup and now Turkiye is a weakened democracy. Who knows if Erdogan will stand down if he loses election. Many dictators start with elections then seize powers they are not granted through election.
  - MagnumOpus 2y ago
    Self-coups are common and widespread in the last hundred years. If you cannot list at least a few, your history lessons have failed you. And no, being elected to a public office is no blank cheque to dismantle checks on that office by other branches of government.
    - throwawaythekey 2y ago
      I understand that a self-coup could happen but to describe it as already happening seems premature... there are some things that will go to the courts sure but even democrats agree the courts are likely to find in Trump's favour. Does that mean that the real coup happened when Trump picked the supreme court justices? Perhaps, but again it was very legal, and not particularly out of step from previous norms. If you compare that to germany in the 1930s, a common example of a self-coup, you'll see some similarities but also large differences... > The Reichstag building... caught fire... Hitler immediately accused the Communists of being the perpetrators... Using this justification, Hitler persuaded Hindenburg to enact the Reichstag Fire Decree. The decree abolished most civil liberties, including the right to speak, assemble, protest, and due process... the Nazis declared a state of emergency and began a violent crackdown against their political enemies... Hitler submitted a proposal to the Reichstag that if passed would immediately grant all legislative powers to the cabinet... allow Hitler's government to act without regard to the constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 (Edited for brevity)
Hatchback7599 2y ago
[dead]

If you are elected on a platform of a coup (illegal reform), it doesn't make what you do any more legal. Some of what Trump is doing is not illegal, but some of it appears to be illegal.

throwawaythekey 2y ago
[flagged]
- Juliate 2y ago
  Hu… no, it is not « normal ». It displays a wild disconnect from the duties of the position (to protect the Constitution, among which).
  - throwawaythekey 2y ago
    > During his four years as president, Democrat Joe Biden experienced a sustained series of defeats at the U.S. Supreme Court... "I think it is the toughest series of defeats since Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s had many New Deal programs declared unconstitutional," said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California Berkeley Law School https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-dealt-biden-historic-series-defeats-2025-01-18/ https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-dealt-bide... I'm not particularly trying to argue if it's good or bad, just that presidents often stretch the law to apply their agenda. I would tend to side more on the bad side, but it seems necessary due to senate dysfunction.
    - Juliate 2y ago
      Doesn't make it more normal. Not sure what point you're trying to make.
      - throwawaythekey 2y ago
        I guess it depends on what you mean by normal. The point I am trying to make is it is common for Presidents to do things which are later deemed illegal.
        Juliate 2y ago
        "Normal" is defined by norms (constitution, laws, regulations). What you're trying to say is "usual" - if it is, indeed, usual for each of your presidents to do so.
        throwawaythekey 2y ago
        My bad for using an ambiguous term but please note that "usual" is the first listed definition for normal in many dictionaries. Using norms to mean rules seems to be more archaic. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/normal

DiogenesKynikos 2y ago

What makes it a coup is that Trump is acting completely illegally. He was elected president, not dictator. He does not have the legal authority to create a new government department, DOGE, to appoint Musk as its head without Senate advice and consent, and to give it full power over all other agencies.

rapsey 2y ago
[flagged]
- DiogenesKynikos 2y ago
  Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution is crystal clear on this subject. DOGE and Musk's appointment are blatantly illegal.
  - ithkuil 2y ago
    But clickety click, Barba Trick: it's not formally a department, so there is now law stopping the president from creating this informal advisory thing. It's not clear exactly what it is. But they just put the word "department" in the name and ran with it. What may be illegal is when this advisory "thing" starts getting access to various important cogs of the government and intimidate federal workers by leveraging the fact that the president apparently can just fire federal employees who are in 'policy-influencing' positions. That's again one of those cases where the law may not be ready to counteract blatant abuse because historically so much has been up to democratic norms, and here we have a clique that is using norm violation as their battle cry
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
lIl-IIIl 2y ago
That doesn't make it a coup. "Coup" has a definition, which is to unseat a government through illegal means, or to stay in power through illegal means. For example, January 6th could be considered an attempted coup. But just acting illegally a coup does not make.

rapsey 2y ago

[flagged]

reshlo 2y ago

A leader who is democratically elected, and then violates or exploits loopholes in the law to give themselves powers that they are not supposed to have, is engaging in a self-coup. The US Constitution grants Congress, not the executive branch, the power to determine how the federal government’s money is spent. Elon Musk’s team within the Executive Office of the President have reportedly gained full admin access to the payment system of the Bureau of the Fiscal Service at the Department of the Treasury, which is responsible for the majority of the federal government’s payments, and are using that access to prevent certain payments from being made. Among other things, they are also attempting to close down the US Agency for International Development, which was established and funded as an independent agency by an act of Congress.

throwawaythekey 2y ago
> The US Constitution grants Congress, not the executive branch, the power to determine how the federal government’s money is spent. With regards to the constitution specifically the power of the purse seems a little vague. In 1974 the Impoundment Control Act was passed as a response to, and to prevent, presidents from unilaterally impounding. https://protectdemocracy.org/work/impoundment-threat-explained/ https://protectdemocracy.org/work/impoundment-threat-explain...
whatthesmack 2y ago
> exploits loopholes in the law This is a very interesting way of saying "following the law."
- reshlo 2y ago
  It’s a way of saying “following the letter of a poorly drafted law while being aware of, and not following, its intended spirit”. Just because the law accidentally technically allows you to do something doesn’t mean you should, or that it should be considered morally acceptable to do so.

guelo 2y ago

The pardoning of the J6 rioters that broke into the capitol, and now trying to fire all law enforcement that were involved in their prosecution feels like the end of the rule of law. Law will now be whatever Trump says. It's a coup.

whatthesmack 2y ago
> the J6 rioters that broke into the capital I would encourage you to learn more about that day. Most people that were charged did not go into the building. And the few that did were literally waved in by police, including many being escorted around inside by police.

navane 2y ago

Many dictators, including the famous great, started out by being elected into government.

throwawaythekey 2y ago
In my mind democratically elected and coup are antonyms. If you are against trumps style of cleanup then I would probably stick to illegal, although that is TBD, radical or destructive.
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  I would encourage you to check your priors wrt definitions. Ergodan was democratically elected, then staged an auto-coup and now Turkiye is a weakened democracy. Who knows if Erdogan will stand down if he loses election. Many dictators start with elections then seize powers they are not granted through election.
- MagnumOpus 2y ago
  Self-coups are common and widespread in the last hundred years. If you cannot list at least a few, your history lessons have failed you. And no, being elected to a public office is no blank cheque to dismantle checks on that office by other branches of government.
  - throwawaythekey 2y ago
    I understand that a self-coup could happen but to describe it as already happening seems premature... there are some things that will go to the courts sure but even democrats agree the courts are likely to find in Trump's favour. Does that mean that the real coup happened when Trump picked the supreme court justices? Perhaps, but again it was very legal, and not particularly out of step from previous norms. If you compare that to germany in the 1930s, a common example of a self-coup, you'll see some similarities but also large differences... > The Reichstag building... caught fire... Hitler immediately accused the Communists of being the perpetrators... Using this justification, Hitler persuaded Hindenburg to enact the Reichstag Fire Decree. The decree abolished most civil liberties, including the right to speak, assemble, protest, and due process... the Nazis declared a state of emergency and began a violent crackdown against their political enemies... Hitler submitted a proposal to the Reichstag that if passed would immediately grant all legislative powers to the cabinet... allow Hitler's government to act without regard to the constitution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933 (Edited for brevity)

Hatchback7599 2y ago

[dead]