4 ms·
well you see, the congress and supreme court have decided that no, actually, this is what they want to happen.
by Kapura 1y ago
well you see, the congress and supreme court have decided that no, actually, this is what they want to happen.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago[flagged]
- unethical_ban 1y agoBait post. Make a point. edit for clarity: My point is that faux-witty slights at communities to suggest nothing is wrong with a government is intellectually shallow and appeals to authority without making any point itself.
- bloomingeek 1y agoGood point and needs to be said.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoThese are questions of governance, not debate club. Appeals to authority are the only valid arguments.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 1y agoYou misunderstand what an argument from authority is if this is your justification for it. It's not "authority" meaning they can tell you what to do but instead meaning they are an expert on the subject matter. It is valid when a consensus of experts all say the same thing but if there is not an expert consensus then it starts to become more questionable. In this context, if many independent legal experts and scholars are looking at the decisions being made by the three branches of government and saying there could be bad ramifications, the argument from authority falls flat; there is another authority saying the first authority is wrong.
- bloomingeek 1y agoI would argue the three branches should rarely be aligned with each other. They should follow the Constitution AND keep checks and balances on each other. Neither of the branches should have absolute power over the others. This opinion, although not an expert one, is because of what is currently happening in the US and the lack of wisdom being employed.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y ago[flagged]
- AnimalMuppet 1y agoIf the bill is outside what the Constitution allows, then yes, that is exactly what is supposed to happen. And it has happened, several times. If you want the bill, first amend the Constitution.
- ahmeneeroe-v2 1y agoAgreed but this is not at all what was being discussed.
- unethical_ban 1y agoThe point of checks and balances is not obstruction for the sake of obstruction. It is that no branch should be subservient or overly deferential to the other branches. For example, Congress should not do everything the president wants just because he's the president as is happening now. Congresspeople have said out loud that the job of Congress is to ask "how high" when the president says "jump". Congress last year backtracked on immigration reform because the Republican candidate demanded it. Congress just took vacation early because the president needs a break from the stress of being on a sex traffickers contact list. Congress has allowed the executive to destroy congressionally mandated departments without challenge. Each body of government should be protective of their own power and responsibility and fight against other branches illegally usurping it. I recommend reading Federalist 51, and perhaps 53 and 76. Also John Adams "Thoughts on Government".