4 ms·

That's relevant only as long as they're following the constitution. Were the tariffs under emergency powers constitutional? Was it constitutional to send the Na

by goku12 1y ago

That's relevant only as long as they're following the constitution. Were the tariffs under emergency powers constitutional? Was it constitutional to send the National Guards to the cities without the permission of the corresponding state governor? You need to acknowledge the reality before seeking a solution.

HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago
True, but it seems that the system of federal government is now showing it's weakness - a single point of failure that can easily be abused and broken by someone determined to do so. It seems that Trump is intent on systematically destroying the government, department by department, whether by incompetence and/or design. The constitution does not appear well suited to handle this challenge, and the republicans anyways don't appear inclined to hold their man in check to abide by the division of powers that the constitution lays out. Maybe it's time for the individual states to assert control and challenge the federal assumption of powers that are not constitutionally given to them.
- jfengel 1y ago
  I'd argue that it's a failure of democracy rather than federalism. Trump is not a single person -- he was elected by a majority, and if that election were re-run today it would likely have the same result. His party holds majorities in both houses of Congress. I see little evidence that there is widespread opposition from his supporters. The Constitution was designed for some resistance to tyranny-of-the-majority, but it was not absolute. It took decades of effort to subvert it -- most notably by focusing on the Supreme Court. When the majority is that deeply opposed to the minority, then it may be time to reconsider whether this specific federation can continue. Which is too bad -- establishing hard borders would weaken everybody. But the union itself no longer appears sufficiently united to make any kind of system work.

by goku12 1y ago

HarHarVeryFunny 1y ago

True, but it seems that the system of federal government is now showing it's weakness - a single point of failure that can easily be abused and broken by someone determined to do so. It seems that Trump is intent on systematically destroying the government, department by department, whether by incompetence and/or design. The constitution does not appear well suited to handle this challenge, and the republicans anyways don't appear inclined to hold their man in check to abide by the division of powers that the constitution lays out. Maybe it's time for the individual states to assert control and challenge the federal assumption of powers that are not constitutionally given to them.

jfengel 1y ago
I'd argue that it's a failure of democracy rather than federalism. Trump is not a single person -- he was elected by a majority, and if that election were re-run today it would likely have the same result. His party holds majorities in both houses of Congress. I see little evidence that there is widespread opposition from his supporters. The Constitution was designed for some resistance to tyranny-of-the-majority, but it was not absolute. It took decades of effort to subvert it -- most notably by focusing on the Supreme Court. When the majority is that deeply opposed to the minority, then it may be time to reconsider whether this specific federation can continue. Which is too bad -- establishing hard borders would weaken everybody. But the union itself no longer appears sufficiently united to make any kind of system work.