...so it's possible, at least theoretically, to vote in a party's primary even if you've registered as not having an affiliation with a party?...
This is true. In Washington State we have a modified open primary. In the primary you vote for whoever the hell you want, and the top two vote earners, regardless of party, advance to the finals. So conceivably you could have two Democrats in the general, or two Republicans, or (god forbid) two Libertarians.
@orfeo Australian political parties are moving towards a primary system. If memory serves me, the Nationals trialled it in the state electorate of Tamworth. The ALP has trialled it in Victoria and the NSW ALP branch had it under consideration.
@orfeo Australian political parties are moving towards a primary system. If memory serves me, the Nationals trialled it in the state electorate of Tamworth. The ALP has trialled it in Victoria and the NSW ALP branch had it under consideration.
Think of it as the kind of unregistered though potentially very strong affiliation you’d have with a football team you supported. States will vary, but in mine they just ask you which party’s ballot you want at the primary. You aren’t signed up anywhere unless you’re a donor or particularly gung ho. When I stopped being a Republican, there was no way of de-registering, because in this state there is no registering either. About the only thing they won’t let you do is to take multiple ballots at a primary—you do have to choose one. But nobody knows or cares if it’s the same party you took last election.
I gather California is notorious, even in an American context, for having votes on anything and everything.
On ballots where I live in California: president, senator, house rep, governor, state assembly rep, state senator, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, school superintendent, attorney general, insurance commissioner, controller, treasurer, auditor, board of equalization (tax board), supreme court judges, appellate court judges, local judges, mayor, city council, school board, city attorney, city prosecutor, city auditor, and ballot measures at the state, county, and city levels (mostly state). Unless I forgot something. Fortunately they don't all come at once.
I gather California is notorious, even in an American context, for having votes on anything and everything.
On ballots where I live in California: president, senator, house rep, governor, state assembly rep, state senator, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, school superintendent, attorney general, insurance commissioner, controller, treasurer, auditor, board of equalization (tax board), supreme court judges, appellate court judges, local judges, mayor, city council, school board, city attorney, city prosecutor, city auditor, and ballot measures at the state, county, and city levels (mostly state). Unless I forgot something. Fortunately they don't all come at once.
The ballot measures was part of what I was thinking of. A podcast I listen to was contrasting the large number of constitutional (and other) measures that Californians are asked to vote on, in comparison to some other states where they might average a couple per year (and apparently research indicates that having relatively few such measures means you get better engagement).
I'm struggling to think of any executive position we vote on. Of course in our system Ministers are executives as well as members of the legislature, but it's the legislature side that involves an election. I suppose city councils have an element of both too.
I'd never dream of having a vote about school positions as a member of the general public. Schools do often have a parents and citizens group, but any voting as to takes charge of that would just happen amongst the people who turn up to meetings.
@orfeo Australian political parties are moving towards a primary system. If memory serves me, the Nationals trialled it in the state electorate of Tamworth. The ALP has trialled it in Victoria and the NSW ALP branch had it under consideration.
A primary is not a ballot of party members.
It was not a party members' ballot at Tamworth - members of the public were permitted to participate in the ballot. I believe the Victorian example was the same. NSW current procedure for rank-and-file preselection is definitely a party ballot.
I gather California is notorious, even in an American context, for having votes on anything and everything.
On ballots where I live in California: president, senator, house rep, governor, state assembly rep, state senator, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, school superintendent, attorney general, insurance commissioner, controller, treasurer, auditor, board of equalization (tax board), supreme court judges, appellate court judges, local judges, mayor, city council, school board, city attorney, city prosecutor, city auditor, and ballot measures at the state, county, and city levels (mostly state). Unless I forgot something. Fortunately they don't all come at once.
How on earth can any ordinary elector have a clue who is even remotely likely to be a competent school superintendent, auditor, insurance commissioner, prosecutor or any sort of judge? Or, for that matter, who has the integrity for these sort of jobs and who doesn't?
Ordinary application and interview processes don't always lead to the best person being appointed, but doing this by popular vote looks like a complete disconnect between the appointment process and who gets appointed.
I either mark nothing at all for candidates whose names I don't recognize and who have not campaigned, or I mark "No" (if the question is should they continue in office) on the theory of "go back to doing what you did before, and let someone else have a job for a change."
It's perhaps not sufficient but in our state the Secretary of State's office compiles a "voter's guide" in which opponents and proponents of initiatives, and the candidates for office, can give their stump speeches.
In our household the voters (and the kids before they were eligible often joined us, and are now very conscientious about their votes) sit down with the ballots when they arrive, and the voter's guide, and our laptops to look up things1, and work through the races and the initiatives one by one, chewing it over between us, until we all vote. We don't all vote for the same people or the same way, but we have definitely considered every item we vote for, and the reasons why we voted as we did.
--- 1Candidate websites, newspaper articles and recommendations, union websites, etc. etc.
...so it's possible, at least theoretically, to vote in a party's primary even if you've registered as not having an affiliation with a party?...
As with much in America, it depends on what state you're in. In states with open primaries any registered voter can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary, but not both. (Third parties usually decide their candidates at conventions rather than via primary elections.) In states with closed primaries only registered members of each party can vote in that party's primary. There are a few states that do top-two elections, sometimes referred to as "jungle primaries". A list of which states do what (and which states use hybrids of these options) can be found here.
How on earth can any ordinary elector have a clue who is even remotely likely to be a competent school superintendent, auditor, insurance commissioner, prosecutor or any sort of judge? Or, for that matter, who has the integrity for these sort of jobs and who doesn't?
It depends what your view of those positions is. Do you think those people are civil servants - administrators who implement policy in a competent fashion - or are they responsible for providing political direction.
There's plenty of politics involved in running US school districts - deciding which pupils to allocate to which schools, which schools to expand and which schools to close, whether to fund this program aimed at students from deprived backgrounds, or English learners, or whether to spend the money on a shiny new football stadium for the flagship high school instead.
There's plenty of politics involved in running US school districts - deciding which pupils to allocate to which schools, which schools to expand and which schools to close, whether to fund this program aimed at students from deprived backgrounds, or English learners, or whether to spend the money on a shiny new football stadium for the flagship high school instead.
Also, most importantly, choosing curricula and textbooks.
That’s political in the U.K., but the policy decisions for schools are made by either the local council, or the department of education. Likewise legal policy by the ministry of justice. So we exercise political control via the council and general elections. We, in theory, expect those implementing policy to exercise political neutrality.
For the executive positions in California, these are public figures who campaign, talking about their experience, values, priorities, just like other candidates. For example: The current superintendent of public schools was a state assemblyman from the east bay in NorCal (which is not the rich part), before that was on a city council in a not-rich east bay city, and his first professional life was in social services. And he's Black. His opponent in 2018, who also lost in 2014, is a white venture capitalist who previously worked on Wall Street and was the CEO of Green Dot, a chain of charter schools (charter schools are publicly funded and chartered by local school districts but run by non-profits). I found this an easy choice to make.
But the judges are hard to figure out, and sometimes I skip them because I'm out of time to research them. They don't campaign, and they don't have websites, but various entities research them and make recommendations. I've found the easiest way to make decisions about judges is to look up the ultra-conservative voting recommendations and vote the other way; the LA Times recommendations tend to be rather middle of the road, and the progressives are of course frequently not organized enough to put out good guides.
The state of California mails out a thick booklet ahead of every election that covers the ballot measures: for each measure you get a summary of the status quo, what the measure would do, projected fiscal impact if any, arguments for and against, and the full text. This can be a lot to read; there were 12 measures on the Nov 2020 ballot. There is a lot of campaigning around some of them, but one of the things that helps is looking at who writes the arguments for and against -- if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn is for something and California Common Cause is against it, it's going to be an easy decision. If California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters (very sensible people!) don't agree, I'm going to have to read carefully and mull things over.
There's plenty of politics involved in running US school districts - deciding which pupils to allocate to which schools, which schools to expand and which schools to close, whether to fund this program aimed at students from deprived backgrounds, or English learners, or whether to spend the money on a shiny new football stadium for the flagship high school instead.
Also, most importantly, choosing curricula and textbooks.
And that's something American parents can have Strong Opinions (tm) about. They want a say in control over what their kids taught at school--especially anything related to origins and evolution; sex, gender, sexuality, etc.; religion; and views of history.
God help any school board that goes against parents' wishes.
--Echoing the various American Shipmates posting on pg. 7.
--In my area, we get voter's guides for both local and state. As Ruth said, they can be thick and daunting. (Filling out a long ballot of many pages is also daunting, especially if you're standing in a voting booth!)
The "General Information" section alone can keep you busy for a while, before you even get to "Candidate Information" (and statements, and endorsements) and "Local Ballot Measures".
(Filling out a long ballot of many pages is also daunting, especially if you're standing in a voting booth!)
I fill out the sample ballot at home, then just copy it in the voting booth. Of course now that we've got mail in voting available to everyone in the state, we can just do that. It felt weird to vote sitting in my living room with my feet up, but it was easy.
In regards to violence in the next few days: the FBI is warning of violent protests planned for DC and all 50 state capitols next week. At least this time it will probably be taken seriously.
The Republicans are doing everything they can to fuck with the Biden presidency. The Senate is not in session, so for the first time in decades they will not confirm any Cabinet officials prior to Jan 20. We won't have a Secretary of State, or any of the rest of them. McConnell is gambling with the security of the country for political gain.
Republicans in Congress who objected to the results of a legal election are now calling for unity and healing. They announced to us all that they don't really believe in democracy if it means they don't always win, and they want unity and healing. We'll have unity and healing when they acknowledge their wrongdoing and make amends. Maybe.
Republicans in Congress who objected to the results of a legal election are now calling for unity and healing. , , , We'll have unity and healing when they acknowledge their wrongdoing and make amends.
I'm afraid we're in for a long wait. Meanwhile, they can unite behind the effort to rid the country of the worst President ever before he does any more damage, like pardon those who attacked the Capitol.
Regarding having a functional cabinet, could Biden not name a number of acting Secretaries (hence not requiring confirmation) and then have them confirmed when the Senate gets around to it after dealing with the current Augean fiasco?
Regarding having a functional cabinet, could Biden not name a number of acting Secretaries (hence not requiring confirmation) and then have them confirmed when the Senate gets around to it after dealing with the current Augean fiasco?
The Vacancies Act says that you can appoint anyone serving in a Senate approved position to any other vacant position requiring Senate approval. At this point I'd guess that almost all Senate-approved executive branch officials are Trump appointees.
Liz Cheney has come out in favour of impeaching Trump which feels important.
Reports here described her as the 3rd-ranking Republican in the House of Reps, and heavily influential, in that her saying this effectively gives permission to others to also be in favour.
Some think that this is a deliberate move to start the process of splitting into clear Trump and non-Trump factions.
Which, given the parallel move by various rather hefty corporations to explicitly not give any funding to those Reps who didn't back the election results, is a split that could definitely gain momentum.
It's not surprising, though. If Pence invokes the 25th amendment now, the first question that would be asked of him would be "why didn't you do this sooner? You've known all along he was like this and yet you've just enabled him."
I see no great signs that Trump´s mental state has deteriorated significantly in the last week. His problem (malignant narcissism) has always been there.
I don't think the 25th amendment is really appropriate anyway. It's clearly intended for the situation where the President is incapacitated through illness. That's not really the problem here. If Trump is to be removed it should be through impeachment, not through the misapplication of an amendment.
Liz Cheney has come out in favour of impeaching Trump which feels important.
Reports here described her as the 3rd-ranking Republican in the House of Reps, and heavily influential, in that her saying this effectively gives permission to others to also be in favour.
You may remember that her father (along with every other living former Secretary of Defense) published an editorial on January 3 in the Washington Post warning the U.S. military not to participate in a coup. The Cheney family seems united in regarding Trump as an urgent danger.
I don't think the 25th amendment is really appropriate anyway. It's clearly intended for the situation where the President is incapacitated through illness.
It doesn't actually say that. Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment says (in part):
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Nothing about illness there, just that the President* is unable to perform his duties. The exact reason is not specified. It could be physical illness, or mental illness, or that he is morally incapable of following his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".
For those who are interested the House is currently debating impeachment. You can watch it live on C-SPAN (or YouTube).
I think that's a really dangerous interpretation @Croesos as "morally incapable" is in the eye of the beholder. Think how gleefully it might have been applied to Bill Clinton.
And besides being dangerous it also seems ridiculous, at least as ridiculous as interpreting the 2nd amendment to mean "anyone can have as many assault rifles as they like" (I know, I know).
I think that's a really dangerous interpretation @Croesos as "morally incapable" is in the eye of the beholder. Think how gleefully it might have been applied to Bill Clinton.
Applied by Al Gore and a majority of Clinton's cabinet? They don't seem like a particularly gleeful bunch.
No, no more than Pence has applied it to Trump! But you could imagine Gingrich and co. saying "O how dreadful that Al Gore will not remove Clinton via the 25th amendment..."
@TurquoiseTastic This isn't a clinical term, but I think that, especially in view of the events of last Wednesday, one could make a forceful argument that Trump has been struck by an incapacitating political/moral turpitude (sounds rather Victorian, actually) that imperils the Republic. Of course, that would put the members of cabinet in the uncomfortable position of saying that the many who hired them cannot be trusted to act in the best interest of the state.
There is no doubt the Capitol was left purposefully understaffed as far as law enforcement and there was no federal effort to provide support even as things turned very dark. This contrasts sharply with all of other major protests we have attended.
A lot has been made of the contrast to the overwhelming police presence at Black Lives Matters protests in the fall, and this is certainly true. But there was also A LOT more federal law enforcement presence at every single previous protest we have attended in DC.
Most of these protests involved tens of thousands of mostly white, middle-aged people (meaning race wasn’t the only reason for the disparate police presence). Even the March for Science had far more police for a non-partisan event featuring “Bill Nye the Science Guy.”
By contrast, there was a tiny federal police presence at “Stop the Steal” despite weeks of promises of violence spread on social media by well-known far-right radicals, many of whom had long histories of inciting violence.
That's an excerpt from a longer (but by no means long) Twitter thread by someone who claims to be a longtime observer of DC demonstrations.
Investigations are imminent, to determine whether the Capitol Police were undermanned and unprepared for the threat posed by two days of rallies against the results of the 2020 election, but the answer as to why troops posted blocks away were unable to respond to the siege is as simple ― or as complicated ― as a morass of bureaucracy.
Simply put, the National Guard only shows up to D.C. when they’ve been invited, and the Capitol Police did not extend that invitation until after the breach, according to a source with knowledge of the process, who was not authorized to speak about it on the record.
The Independent is reporting that at least one member of Congress found that panic buttons in her office that had been working were unaccountably not there when it looked like she might need them.
The Independent is reporting that at least one member of Congress found that panic buttons in her office that had been working were unaccountably not there when it looked like she might need them.
Ayanna Pressley of Massachussetts, according to the Boston Globe.
Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey has alleged that some of her colleagues were leading groups around the Capitol on January 5 doing what she termed "reconnaissance for the next day". She didn't specify which of her colleagues were doing this nor why she thought those being given the tour were involved in the next day's lynch mob.
There is no doubt the Capitol was left purposefully understaffed as far as law enforcement and there was no federal effort to provide support even as things turned very dark. This contrasts sharply with all of other major protests we have attended.
A lot has been made of the contrast to the overwhelming police presence at Black Lives Matters protests in the fall, and this is certainly true. But there was also A LOT more federal law enforcement presence at every single previous protest we have attended in DC.
Most of these protests involved tens of thousands of mostly white, middle-aged people (meaning race wasn’t the only reason for the disparate police presence). Even the March for Science had far more police for a non-partisan event featuring “Bill Nye the Science Guy.”
By contrast, there was a tiny federal police presence at “Stop the Steal” despite weeks of promises of violence spread on social media by well-known far-right radicals, many of whom had long histories of inciting violence.
That's an excerpt from a longer (but by no means long) Twitter thread by someone who claims to be a longtime observer of DC demonstrations.
That's not secession. That's treason: "levying War against the United States, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Liz Cheney has come out in favour of impeaching Trump which feels important.
Reports here described her as the 3rd-ranking Republican in the House of Reps, and heavily influential, in that her saying this effectively gives permission to others to also be in favour.
Some think that this is a deliberate move to start the process of splitting into clear Trump and non-Trump factions.
Which, given the parallel move by various rather hefty corporations to explicitly not give any funding to those Reps who didn't back the election results, is a split that could definitely gain momentum.
That is excellent news, any links? And what will the impact be? How much money are we talking about? What companies aren't doing that an need boycotting?
One of the things that's really starting irritating me is the repetitive claim by Republicans in the impeachment debate about how no witnesses have been heard. Everyone in that room is a witness!
Comments
This is true. In Washington State we have a modified open primary. In the primary you vote for whoever the hell you want, and the top two vote earners, regardless of party, advance to the finals. So conceivably you could have two Democrats in the general, or two Republicans, or (god forbid) two Libertarians.
A primary is not a ballot of party members.
On ballots where I live in California: president, senator, house rep, governor, state assembly rep, state senator, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, school superintendent, attorney general, insurance commissioner, controller, treasurer, auditor, board of equalization (tax board), supreme court judges, appellate court judges, local judges, mayor, city council, school board, city attorney, city prosecutor, city auditor, and ballot measures at the state, county, and city levels (mostly state). Unless I forgot something. Fortunately they don't all come at once.
Depends on the state.
The ballot measures was part of what I was thinking of. A podcast I listen to was contrasting the large number of constitutional (and other) measures that Californians are asked to vote on, in comparison to some other states where they might average a couple per year (and apparently research indicates that having relatively few such measures means you get better engagement).
I'm struggling to think of any executive position we vote on. Of course in our system Ministers are executives as well as members of the legislature, but it's the legislature side that involves an election. I suppose city councils have an element of both too.
I'd never dream of having a vote about school positions as a member of the general public. Schools do often have a parents and citizens group, but any voting as to takes charge of that would just happen amongst the people who turn up to meetings.
It was not a party members' ballot at Tamworth - members of the public were permitted to participate in the ballot. I believe the Victorian example was the same. NSW current procedure for rank-and-file preselection is definitely a party ballot.
Ordinary application and interview processes don't always lead to the best person being appointed, but doing this by popular vote looks like a complete disconnect between the appointment process and who gets appointed.
In our household the voters (and the kids before they were eligible often joined us, and are now very conscientious about their votes) sit down with the ballots when they arrive, and the voter's guide, and our laptops to look up things1, and work through the races and the initiatives one by one, chewing it over between us, until we all vote. We don't all vote for the same people or the same way, but we have definitely considered every item we vote for, and the reasons why we voted as we did.
---
1Candidate websites, newspaper articles and recommendations, union websites, etc. etc.
As with much in America, it depends on what state you're in. In states with open primaries any registered voter can vote in either the Democratic or Republican primary, but not both. (Third parties usually decide their candidates at conventions rather than via primary elections.) In states with closed primaries only registered members of each party can vote in that party's primary. There are a few states that do top-two elections, sometimes referred to as "jungle primaries". A list of which states do what (and which states use hybrids of these options) can be found here.
It depends what your view of those positions is. Do you think those people are civil servants - administrators who implement policy in a competent fashion - or are they responsible for providing political direction.
There's plenty of politics involved in running US school districts - deciding which pupils to allocate to which schools, which schools to expand and which schools to close, whether to fund this program aimed at students from deprived backgrounds, or English learners, or whether to spend the money on a shiny new football stadium for the flagship high school instead.
Also, most importantly, choosing curricula and textbooks.
For the executive positions in California, these are public figures who campaign, talking about their experience, values, priorities, just like other candidates. For example: The current superintendent of public schools was a state assemblyman from the east bay in NorCal (which is not the rich part), before that was on a city council in a not-rich east bay city, and his first professional life was in social services. And he's Black. His opponent in 2018, who also lost in 2014, is a white venture capitalist who previously worked on Wall Street and was the CEO of Green Dot, a chain of charter schools (charter schools are publicly funded and chartered by local school districts but run by non-profits). I found this an easy choice to make.
But the judges are hard to figure out, and sometimes I skip them because I'm out of time to research them. They don't campaign, and they don't have websites, but various entities research them and make recommendations. I've found the easiest way to make decisions about judges is to look up the ultra-conservative voting recommendations and vote the other way; the LA Times recommendations tend to be rather middle of the road, and the progressives are of course frequently not organized enough to put out good guides.
The state of California mails out a thick booklet ahead of every election that covers the ballot measures: for each measure you get a summary of the status quo, what the measure would do, projected fiscal impact if any, arguments for and against, and the full text. This can be a lot to read; there were 12 measures on the Nov 2020 ballot. There is a lot of campaigning around some of them, but one of the things that helps is looking at who writes the arguments for and against -- if the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn is for something and California Common Cause is against it, it's going to be an easy decision. If California Common Cause and the League of Women Voters (very sensible people!) don't agree, I'm going to have to read carefully and mull things over.
And that's something American parents can have Strong Opinions (tm) about. They want a say in control over what their kids taught at school--especially anything related to origins and evolution; sex, gender, sexuality, etc.; religion; and views of history.
God help any school board that goes against parents' wishes.
@Golden Key - Ain't that the truth. And a place where Republicans have made huge gains in the last 20 years.
"Exclusive: FBI warns of potential boogaloo violence during Jan. 17 rallies" (Yahoo News).
This is long, detailed, and scary. I've only skimmed it, and the "exclusive"ness was as of Mon. morning.
Not out of the woods yet.
:votive:
Various:
--Echoing the various American Shipmates posting on pg. 7.
--In my area, we get voter's guides for both local and state. As Ruth said, they can be thick and daunting. (Filling out a long ballot of many pages is also daunting, especially if you're standing in a voting booth!)
SF and Calif. voter's guides for Nov. 3, 2020 election.
You can read both the SF and Calif. guides there in online format; or you can download a SF PDF version, or a zip file of an SF audio version.
If you just want to read it in online format, you can also go straight to
Online Edition - San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet & Sample Ballot - Consolidated General Election - November 3, 2020
The "General Information" section alone can keep you busy for a while, before you even get to "Candidate Information" (and statements, and endorsements) and "Local Ballot Measures".
Have fun!
I fill out the sample ballot at home, then just copy it in the voting booth. Of course now that we've got mail in voting available to everyone in the state, we can just do that. It felt weird to vote sitting in my living room with my feet up, but it was easy.
In regards to violence in the next few days: the FBI is warning of violent protests planned for DC and all 50 state capitols next week. At least this time it will probably be taken seriously.
The Republicans are doing everything they can to fuck with the Biden presidency. The Senate is not in session, so for the first time in decades they will not confirm any Cabinet officials prior to Jan 20. We won't have a Secretary of State, or any of the rest of them. McConnell is gambling with the security of the country for political gain.
Republicans in Congress who objected to the results of a legal election are now calling for unity and healing. They announced to us all that they don't really believe in democracy if it means they don't always win, and they want unity and healing. We'll have unity and healing when they acknowledge their wrongdoing and make amends. Maybe.
I'm afraid we're in for a long wait. Meanwhile, they can unite behind the effort to rid the country of the worst President ever before he does any more damage, like pardon those who attacked the Capitol.
The Vacancies Act says that you can appoint anyone serving in a Senate approved position to any other vacant position requiring Senate approval. At this point I'd guess that almost all Senate-approved executive branch officials are Trump appointees.
"Pence refuses to invoke 25th Amendment" (USA Today).
Note: This is in the "Live Update" section, so new things are added and older ones move down the page. Currently, this is about 1/4 way down.
Reports here described her as the 3rd-ranking Republican in the House of Reps, and heavily influential, in that her saying this effectively gives permission to others to also be in favour.
Some think that this is a deliberate move to start the process of splitting into clear Trump and non-Trump factions.
Which, given the parallel move by various rather hefty corporations to explicitly not give any funding to those Reps who didn't back the election results, is a split that could definitely gain momentum.
I had a feeling his recovery from toady fever would quickly suffer a relapse.
I see no great signs that Trump´s mental state has deteriorated significantly in the last week. His problem (malignant narcissism) has always been there.
You may remember that her father (along with every other living former Secretary of Defense) published an editorial on January 3 in the Washington Post warning the U.S. military not to participate in a coup. The Cheney family seems united in regarding Trump as an urgent danger.
It doesn't actually say that. Section 4 of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment says (in part):
Nothing about illness there, just that the President* is unable to perform his duties. The exact reason is not specified. It could be physical illness, or mental illness, or that he is morally incapable of following his oath of office to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".
For those who are interested the House is currently debating impeachment. You can watch it live on C-SPAN (or YouTube).
And besides being dangerous it also seems ridiculous, at least as ridiculous as interpreting the 2nd amendment to mean "anyone can have as many assault rifles as they like" (I know, I know).
Applied by Al Gore and a majority of Clinton's cabinet? They don't seem like a particularly gleeful bunch.
Good question!
That's an excerpt from a longer (but by no means long) Twitter thread by someone who claims to be a longtime observer of DC demonstrations.
According to the Military Times, it involves complicated jurisdictional issues.
Ayanna Pressley of Massachussetts, according to the Boston Globe.
Congresswoman Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey has alleged that some of her colleagues were leading groups around the Capitol on January 5 doing what she termed "reconnaissance for the next day". She didn't specify which of her colleagues were doing this nor why she thought those being given the tour were involved in the next day's lynch mob.
That's not secession. That's treason: "levying War against the United States, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
That is excellent news, any links? And what will the impact be? How much money are we talking about? What companies aren't doing that an need boycotting?