. . . and congressional leaders were warning that if he pushed ahead, they might have no choice but to support a 25th Amendment process if Vice President Vance and the Cabinet declared him unfit.
To be clear, the test under the Twenty-fifth Amendment is whether the president is “unable” to carry out his duties, not whether he is “unfit.”
Maybe US lawmakers can now use the next two weeks to frame a 25th amendment removal proceeding.
The Twenty-fifth Amendment process starts with the VP and the cabinet, not lawmakers. Lawmakers can of course convey to the VP and cabinet members that Congress will have their back, but it’s not a proceeding they start.
Indeed. Surely you've all had enough of this awful man?
I really wish shipmates would take just three seconds to think about how things like this might land American shipmates. I mean, we all want him gone, but these sorts of comments start to feel like piling on.
Again (and again, and again) please, PLEASE stop talking as if every American is an idiot who doesn't realize the truth about Trump and, if we'd only wake up and understand it, Trump would be out of office???????????? Hope exactly am I to make that work?
I am one woman, disabled, with no money and no particular power or office, burdened
By the needs of a large immigrant community. What precisely are you suggesting I do? That I am not doing already?
Again (and again, and again) please, PLEASE stop talking as if every American is an idiot who doesn't realize the truth about Trump and, if we'd only wake up and understand it, Trump would be out of office???????????? Hope exactly am I to make that work?
I am one woman, disabled, with no money and no particular power or office, burdened
By the needs of a large immigrant community. What precisely are you suggesting I do? That I am not doing already?
I am with you, Lamb Chopped. In fact, at least as far as the war is concerned, 60+ percent of Americans are with you. 85 Democratic Congresspeople too.
The deal of it is, our system of government doesn't allow for an immediate change. We have to limp along until mid-terms to begin to see some real change. Even then, we could still have a demented president for the remainder of his term.
I have to say (as an observer from across the pond) that Trumps second term seems to show that the beloved Constitution is now pretty much broken beyond repair. He has shown that if unscrupulous people throw enough money about, all the branches of government can be bought and twisted. Even after Trump is gone, will things ever go back to "normal"? Has Trump shown that the US constitution is now not fit for purpose?
You might also consider the point that the British government made repeatedly to its people during WWII--namely, that spreading despondency is a major hindrance to the war effort. And I tell you from America that comments like "Your beloved Constitution is destroyed and your country will never recover from Trump" are the surest way to dishearten those of us who are fighting and tempt us to just give up, roll over, and die.
And I tell you from America that comments like "Your beloved Constitution is destroyed and your country will never recover from Trump" are the surest way to dishearten those of us who are fighting and tempt us to just give up, roll over, and die.
Or start throwing things. That one in particular comes across as a smug “we knew it wouldn’t work.”
Not helpful, especially when it’s coupled with ignorance about how our system works.
You might also consider the point that the British government made repeatedly to its people during WWII--namely, that spreading despondency is a major hindrance to the war effort. And I tell you from America that comments like "Your beloved Constitution is destroyed and your country will never recover from Trump" are the surest way to dishearten those of us who are fighting and tempt us to just give up, roll over, and die.
Please don't.
I'm gonna suggest something more radical and constructive.
Why not take a leaf from the French and dissolve and reconstitute the Republic? They've had the balls to do it four times. Four times. Four times they've had the humility and the resolve to say "Nope. Got it wrong, let's have another go."
The mechanisms are built into your constitution. Why don't you use them?
Surely there are constitutional lawyers who understand how this process can be initiated, and can help guide the People through the process.
It's clear that the current mode of operation is no longer workable or serving We the People.
If you need help summoning the courage ask the French for moral support. They gave that and financial aid to you in the Revolutionary war I'm sure they would have some wisdom to impart.
It seems to me that trump's achievement has been to highlight weaknesses in the constitution. With non-partisan goodwill, this is surely something that can be fixed.
No doubt when his Orangeness is no more there will need to be a discussion about how to add safeguards that might reduce the risk of such a situation in future, but trying to have that now looks an awful lot like starting to give directions by saying "ooh, well I wouldn't start from here."
Suffice to say that I believe the better angels of the US's collective character can ultimately win this fight with the darker impulses, and I hope you will all find it in you to keep fighting in whatever ways are available to you, not least because if America falls liberal democracy in general may not survive.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, nor do I know one, nor do I have any money. And leading a mass movement of any sort is off the table for an urban missionary caring for immigrants. There simply are no replacements for our positions right now.
If you all think it good, you might try praying that God will raise up such a person/people. I doubt our Anerican shipmates will be so called, but there are millions of other Americans.
Why not take a leaf from the French and dissolve and reconstitute the Republic? They've had the balls to do it four times. Four times. Four times they've had the humility and the resolve to say "Nope. Got it wrong, let's have another go."
The mechanisms are built into your constitution. Why don't you use them?
Surely there are constitutional lawyers who understand how this process can be initiated, and can help guide the People through the process.
I’m a retired lawyer whose practice involved a great deal of constitutional law.
The mechanisms for “dissolving and restarting the Republic” are not built into the US Constitution. The Constitution contains no dissolution clause. We fought a Civil War to establish the principle that the United States is, in the words of the Supreme Court, an “indissoluble unity.”
What we have are means for amendment of the Constitution.
It may also be worth noting that France, unlike the United States, is not a federal republic. The federal nature of the United States introduces issues not present in France.
Apologies to all US Shipmates for once again appearing to blame you for Trump. I confess to having felt very shaky indeed last night, waiting for him to unleash a nuclear apocalypse - which could still happen.
No doubt when his Orangeness is no more there will need to be a discussion about how to add safeguards that might reduce the risk of such a situation in future, but trying to have that now looks an awful lot like starting to give directions by saying "ooh, well I wouldn't start from here."
Suffice to say that I believe the better angels of the US's collective character can ultimately win this fight with the darker impulses, and I hope you will all find it in you to keep fighting in whatever ways are available to you, not least because if America falls liberal democracy in general may not survive.
Thomas Jefferson once said every generation should be able to rewrite the constitution. Jefferson wasn't necessarily saying that the Constitution should be thrown out ever 20 years, but each generation has the right to revise it.
In past cases, the constitution was amended after it has gotten to the point something no longer works. Elections were changed, slavery was eliminated, women's rights were affirmed all the way down.
In the case of Trump many people would agree the constitution is not working as intended. After he is gone, Congress will be able to consider changes to the way the constitution is working now. If two thirds of both houses agree to the recommendations, they will be forwarded to the states for ratification. 3/4 of the states will have to agree.
Now, that is indeed a very high bar, but we have reached it in the past at least 25 times.
Other than that, there are other changes that can happen, like SCOTUS deciding to eliminate gerrymandering and Congress relearning the art of compromise. Above all, future presidents will have to be held to the limits of the constitution, certain past SCOTUS decisions would have to be vacated, and congress will have to find its backbone.
Some things I think should be changed are:
Dramatically reduce concentrated federal power.
Strengthen public education as the foundation of self-rule
Guard against the concentrations of wealth and corporate power.
Protect civil liberties against both government and majorities.
Promote peace, diplomacy and limited military engagement.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, nor do I know one, nor do I have any money. And leading a mass movement of any sort is off the table for an urban missionary caring for immigrants. There simply are no replacements for our positions right now.
Your missionary caring is fighting in this context, as far as I can see. I meant my words as encouragement to keep doing what you're doing, not to imply that there is more you or anyone else in this thread should personally be doing.
I have to say (as an observer from across the pond) that Trumps second term seems to show that the beloved Constitution is now pretty much broken beyond repair. He has shown that if unscrupulous people throw enough money about, all the branches of government can be bought and twisted. Even after Trump is gone, will things ever go back to "normal"? Has Trump shown that the US constitution is now not fit for purpose?
It's not the constitution, or money. It's the lack of commitment, on the part of key players like members of Congress, to the constitution in the face of populist support for a president willing to disregard it. That commitment was needed before the president could put his sycophants in charge of interpreting and enforcing the law.
Apologies to all US Shipmates for once again appearing to blame you for Trump. I confess to having felt very shaky indeed last night, waiting for him to unleash a nuclear apocalypse - which could still happen.
Thank you, @Bishops Finger. And I know we can all identify with feeling very shaky yesterday and last night. I certainly did.
Thomas Jefferson once said every generation should be able to rewrite the constitution. Jefferson wasn't necessarily saying that the Constitution should be thrown out ever 20 years, but each generation has the right to revise it.
Unfortunately for Jefferson—who was in Paris and was not a member of the Constitutional Convention—and for the position he advocated, Madison’s argument to the contrary won out, and Jefferson’s view was not reflected in the Constitution as ratified. As a result, whether Jefferson had a point is irrelevant to how things actually work.
Thomas Jefferson once said every generation should be able to rewrite the constitution. Jefferson wasn't necessarily saying that the Constitution should be thrown out ever 20 years, but each generation has the right to revise it.
In past cases, the constitution was amended after it has gotten to the point something no longer works. Elections were changed, slavery was eliminated, women's rights were affirmed all the way down.
In the case of Trump many people would agree the constitution is not working as intended. After he is gone, Congress will be able to consider changes to the way the constitution is working now. If two thirds of both houses agree to the recommendations, they will be forwarded to the states for ratification. 3/4 of the states will have to agree.
Now, that is indeed a very high bar, but we have reached it in the past at least 25 times.
Other than that, there are other changes that can happen, like SCOTUS deciding to eliminate gerrymandering and Congress relearning the art of compromise. Above all, future presidents will have to be held to the limits of the constitution, certain past SCOTUS decisions would have to be vacated, and congress will have to find its backbone.
Some things I think should be changed are:
Dramatically reduce concentrated federal power.
Strengthen public education as the foundation of self-rule
Guard against the concentrations of wealth and corporate power.
Protect civil liberties against both government and majorities.
Promote peace, diplomacy and limited military engagement.
I know, I sound like a libertarian.
But realistically how likely is ANY of this going be happening? As far as I can see, only if there is a massive Democrat victory across the country. The most likely outcome is a victory but not big enough to achieve the kinds of fundamental changes that now seem essential. Just to name one - an end to gerrymandering of all kinds.
Re-writing the Constitution seems, on the face of it, a good idea, however impracticable it may in fact be.
Rather like switching a country off, as you do when your PC plays silly buggers, and then switching it back on again.
If only...
Rewriting the Constitution strikes me as a horrible and very dangerous idea. We live in a country that elected Trump in the last presidential election. I mean, we’re talking about a MAGA crowd who’d like to see the right to citizenship and the right to vote curtailed (including women losing the right to vote), whites get preferential treatment, the press and the right to protest stifled, and some sort of Judeo-Christian/Christian Nationalism protected by law. Do we really want to put all that up for negotiation by starting over?
Appropriate and targeted amendments are one thing. But why anyone thinks a new, rewritten constitution would be better than the imperfect one we have now completely baffles me.
Rewriting the Constitution strikes me as a horrible and very dangerous idea. We live in a country that elected Trump in the last presidential election. I mean, we’re talking about a MAGA crowd who’d like to see the right to citizenship and the right to vote curtailed (including women losing the right to vote), whites get preferential treatment, the press and the right to protest stifled, and some sort of Judeo-Christian/Christian Nationalism protected by law. Do we really want to put all that up for negotiation by starting over?
Appropriate and targeted amendments are one thing. But why anyone thinks a new, rewritten constitution would be better than the imperfect one we have now completely baffles me.
Entirely agree. What I think we need, assuming that we somehow get through this, are trials. I will never forgive Ford for pardoning Nixon. Everyone in the Trump administration with decision-making power should have their record inspected, and if there is evidence they broke the law or did something unconstitutional, they should go on trial. Ditto for everyone in the military from, let's say for the sake of argument, the colonels on up. Full employment for lawyers for however long it takes.
Thank you, folks. I was freaking TERRIFIED last night, and I still am, really.
I called my Congressional rep and senators yesterday with the intention of using the script from 5calls which had the phrase "deep concern" in the first sentence, at which point I went entirely off-script, using the word "terrified" and begging them to do anything legally in their power. My rep's office has a real live person picking up the phone during business hours, and he was so nice I almost cried.
My district representative is a deep trump supporter. I have sent emails to him. He has never relied. On the other hand, the two Senators my state has are strong Democratic leaders.
Thank you, folks. I was freaking TERRIFIED last night, and I still am, really.
I called my Congressional rep and senators yesterday with the intention of using the script from 5calls which had the phrase "deep concern" in the first sentence, at which point I went entirely off-script, using the word "terrified" and begging them to do anything legally in their power. My rep's office has a real live person picking up the phone during business hours, and he was so nice I almost cried.
I don’t frighten easily but I was very much with you both, as representatives of the great majority of US citizens. I guess more than half the world was frightened.
That’s the trouble with Trump rhetoric. You can never know for sure just how far he will go.
From your very helpful post in Purgatory, I surmise that Vance is now playing a high stakes game. Probably waiting for the right time.
I don’t frighten easily but I was very much with you both, as representatives of the great majority of US citizens. I guess more than half the world was frightened.
That’s the trouble with Trump rhetoric. You can never know for sure just how far he will go.
From your very helpful post in Purgatory, I surmise that Vance is now playing a high stakes game. Probably waiting for the right time.
You got that right, my friend.
If y'all don't do something the rest of us are going to live the consequences right along with you.
The Hopi prophecy seems to be coming true before our very eyes. The first time the Great Spirit took the world in his left hand and shook it (WWI). The second time the Great Spirit took the world in his right hand and shook it (WWII).
The third time, the Great Spirit takes the world in both hands and shakes it, and no one will be exempt.
Correct me if I am wrong but from here it looks as though there is very little wrong with the Constitution, it is just that Trump et al just use it when it suits them and ignore it when doesn’t. Is it more of a case of forcing a President to follow the constitution?
I don’t think there’s much wrong either. The separation of powers built into the Constitution can only work if those who have that power use it to constrain an uppity POTUS. The fact that Congress and the SCOTUS are not sufficiently active in doing that (rather the reverse) is not a Constitutional problem.
Correct me if I am wrong but from here it looks as though there is very little wrong with the Constitution, it is just that Trump et al just use it when it suits them and ignore it when doesn’t. Is it more of a case of forcing a President to follow the constitution?
Agreed - the problem is not the Constitution, but that a substantial number of powerful people (not just the President) don't want to follow it. "Culture eats policy for breakfast" - only if most people broadly respect the rules will the rules do any good.
Just returned home from an across state trip for Easter. This meant crossing sections of the state twice that have voted heavily for Trump. I know where the Trump signs would typically be up. This time I saw only one Trump sign and that was north of Seattle. One place that usually had Trump flags and various hard right signs had them all taken down. One other farm that had a big Trump sign nailed to its barn still had the sign, but it had faded quite a bit. Definitely got the impression his star is diminishing across the state. Could be because they realize he is now a lame duck. Just did not see any current GOP candidate signs anywhere--correction, there was a GOP Sheriff sign near Othello.
Pretty standard for mid term.
Disillusion sets in when the government in power can't deliver.
Just returned home from an across state trip for Easter. This meant crossing sections of the state twice that have voted heavily for Trump. I know where the Trump signs would typically be up. This time I saw only one Trump sign and that was north of Seattle. One place that usually had Trump flags and various hard right signs had them all taken down. One other farm that had a big Trump sign nailed to its barn still had the sign, but it had faded quite a bit. Definitely got the impression his star is diminishing across the state. Could be because they realize he is now a lame duck. Just did not see any current GOP candidate signs anywhere--correction, there was a GOP Sheriff sign near Othello.
Pretty standard for mid term.
Disillusion sets in when the government in power can't deliver.
Aka Keir Starmer and Albanese in Australia
Nobody was enthusiastic about Starmer in the first place.
Correct me if I am wrong but from here it looks as though there is very little wrong with the Constitution, it is just that Trump et al just use it when it suits them and ignore it when doesn’t. Is it more of a case of forcing a President to follow the constitution?
Yep, that’s pretty much it. The president is ignoring the Constitution, and his cultists in Congress are twiddling their thumbs and looking elsewhere while he does so instead of behaving like a co-equal branch of government.
Correct me if I am wrong but from here it looks as though there is very little wrong with the Constitution, it is just that Trump et al just use it when it suits them and ignore it when doesn’t. Is it more of a case of forcing a President to follow the constitution?
Yep, that’s pretty much it. The president is ignoring the Constitution, and his cultists in Congress are twiddling their thumbs and looking elsewhere while he does so instead of behaving like a co-equal branch of government.
I think the top end of the judicial branch also have questions to answer in that regard. Trump appointments explain a lot of that, but not all.
Correct me if I am wrong but from here it looks as though there is very little wrong with the Constitution, it is just that Trump et al just use it when it suits them and ignore it when doesn’t. Is it more of a case of forcing a President to follow the constitution?
Yep, that’s pretty much it. The president is ignoring the Constitution, and his cultists in Congress are twiddling their thumbs and looking elsewhere while he does so instead of behaving like a co-equal branch of government.
I think the top end of the judicial branch also have questions to answer in that regard. Trump appointments explain a lot of that, but not all.
Absolutely! I left them out mainly because the judicial branch can’t initiate anything on its own; it can only deal with cases brought before it. And bringing cases isn’t happening with USDOJ in its current state.
Meanwhile, Israel continues to pound Lebanon, life goes on in a rather battered Iran, and the Abu Dhabi oil chief confirms that the Strait of Hormuz is NOT open.
So much for Total Victory, Regime Change, and all the other shite spouted by Trump and his Orcs.
What will the would-be Destroyer Of Civilisations do now? Invade Cuba? No-one seems to want to play with him any more...
Melania Trump has apparently out of the blue put out a 6-minute statement saying she was never Epstein's friend, never knew about his crimes, etc etc, and that Epstein's victims should have the opportunity to testify before Congress if they want. I really wonder what shoe is about to drop that makes her and/or her lawyers think she needs to put some distance between herself and that whole mess.
It's on YouTube, easy to find, for anyone interested.
Melania Trump has apparently out of the blue put out a 6-minute statement saying she was never Epstein's friend, never knew about his crimes, etc etc, and that Epstein's victims should have the opportunity to testify before Congress if they want. I really wonder what shoe is about to drop that makes her and/or her lawyers think she needs to put some distance between herself and that whole mess.
It is an oddly specific denial. Has anyone accused her of anything? It's got that "I absolutely, categorically did not have intimate contact with the brindled goat in the field next to my house" feel to it, hasn't it?
Grain of salt or not, there have been cases in English law where media have been successfully prosecuted for circulating rumours that they said were untrue. Please don't circulate rumours about litigious people if you can't cite a reputable (= can afford to have libel lawyers check their stuff) source.
Grain of salt or not, there have been cases in English law where media have been successfully prosecuted for circulating rumours that they said were untrue. Please don't circulate rumours about litigious people if you can't cite a reputable (= can afford to have libel lawyers check their stuff) source.
Dafyd Hell Host
My apologies. Wasn't even thinking about it from a legal angle.
Melania Trump has apparently out of the blue put out a 6-minute statement saying she was never Epstein's friend, never knew about his crimes, etc etc, and that Epstein's victims should have the opportunity to testify before Congress if they want. I really wonder what shoe is about to drop that makes her and/or her lawyers think she needs to put some distance between herself and that whole mess.
It is an oddly specific denial. Has anyone accused her of anything? It's got that "I absolutely, categorically did not have intimate contact with the brindled goat in the field next to my house" feel to it, hasn't it?
And she doesn't defend her husband at all. Put together with the NY Times reporting about how JD Vance was so very opposed to Trump's war, it feels like some of the biggest rats might be looking for the sinking ship's exits. Though that's probably just wishful putting together on my part.
Comments
The Twenty-fifth Amendment process starts with the VP and the cabinet, not lawmakers. Lawmakers can of course convey to the VP and cabinet members that Congress will have their back, but it’s not a proceeding they start.
I really wish shipmates would take just three seconds to think about how things like this might land American shipmates. I mean, we all want him gone, but these sorts of comments start to feel like piling on.
I am one woman, disabled, with no money and no particular power or office, burdened
By the needs of a large immigrant community. What precisely are you suggesting I do? That I am not doing already?
I am with you, Lamb Chopped. In fact, at least as far as the war is concerned, 60+ percent of Americans are with you. 85 Democratic Congresspeople too.
The deal of it is, our system of government doesn't allow for an immediate change. We have to limp along until mid-terms to begin to see some real change. Even then, we could still have a demented president for the remainder of his term.
Please don't.
Not helpful, especially when it’s coupled with ignorance about how our system works.
I'm gonna suggest something more radical and constructive.
Why not take a leaf from the French and dissolve and reconstitute the Republic? They've had the balls to do it four times. Four times. Four times they've had the humility and the resolve to say "Nope. Got it wrong, let's have another go."
The mechanisms are built into your constitution. Why don't you use them?
Surely there are constitutional lawyers who understand how this process can be initiated, and can help guide the People through the process.
It's clear that the current mode of operation is no longer workable or serving We the People.
If you need help summoning the courage ask the French for moral support. They gave that and financial aid to you in the Revolutionary war I'm sure they would have some wisdom to impart.
Just a suggestion.
AFF
Suffice to say that I believe the better angels of the US's collective character can ultimately win this fight with the darker impulses, and I hope you will all find it in you to keep fighting in whatever ways are available to you, not least because if America falls liberal democracy in general may not survive.
If you all think it good, you might try praying that God will raise up such a person/people. I doubt our Anerican shipmates will be so called, but there are millions of other Americans.
The mechanisms for “dissolving and restarting the Republic” are not built into the US Constitution. The Constitution contains no dissolution clause. We fought a Civil War to establish the principle that the United States is, in the words of the Supreme Court, an “indissoluble unity.”
What we have are means for amendment of the Constitution.
It may also be worth noting that France, unlike the United States, is not a federal republic. The federal nature of the United States introduces issues not present in France.
This.
In past cases, the constitution was amended after it has gotten to the point something no longer works. Elections were changed, slavery was eliminated, women's rights were affirmed all the way down.
In the case of Trump many people would agree the constitution is not working as intended. After he is gone, Congress will be able to consider changes to the way the constitution is working now. If two thirds of both houses agree to the recommendations, they will be forwarded to the states for ratification. 3/4 of the states will have to agree.
Now, that is indeed a very high bar, but we have reached it in the past at least 25 times.
Other than that, there are other changes that can happen, like SCOTUS deciding to eliminate gerrymandering and Congress relearning the art of compromise. Above all, future presidents will have to be held to the limits of the constitution, certain past SCOTUS decisions would have to be vacated, and congress will have to find its backbone.
Some things I think should be changed are:
Dramatically reduce concentrated federal power.
Strengthen public education as the foundation of self-rule
Guard against the concentrations of wealth and corporate power.
Protect civil liberties against both government and majorities.
Promote peace, diplomacy and limited military engagement.
I know, I sound like a libertarian.
Your missionary caring is fighting in this context, as far as I can see. I meant my words as encouragement to keep doing what you're doing, not to imply that there is more you or anyone else in this thread should personally be doing.
It's not the constitution, or money. It's the lack of commitment, on the part of key players like members of Congress, to the constitution in the face of populist support for a president willing to disregard it. That commitment was needed before the president could put his sycophants in charge of interpreting and enforcing the law.
Unfortunately for Jefferson—who was in Paris and was not a member of the Constitutional Convention—and for the position he advocated, Madison’s argument to the contrary won out, and Jefferson’s view was not reflected in the Constitution as ratified. As a result, whether Jefferson had a point is irrelevant to how things actually work.
But realistically how likely is ANY of this going be happening? As far as I can see, only if there is a massive Democrat victory across the country. The most likely outcome is a victory but not big enough to achieve the kinds of fundamental changes that now seem essential. Just to name one - an end to gerrymandering of all kinds.
Rather like switching a country off, as you do when your PC plays silly buggers, and then switching it back on again.
If only...
Appropriate and targeted amendments are one thing. But why anyone thinks a new, rewritten constitution would be better than the imperfect one we have now completely baffles me.
Even turning off your PC, and then turning it on again, is no guarantee that all will be well.
Not if it's got a virus, no. And fascism does in some ways resemble a computer virus.
Very true - it is, I admit, a poor analogy.
Entirely agree. What I think we need, assuming that we somehow get through this, are trials. I will never forgive Ford for pardoning Nixon. Everyone in the Trump administration with decision-making power should have their record inspected, and if there is evidence they broke the law or did something unconstitutional, they should go on trial. Ditto for everyone in the military from, let's say for the sake of argument, the colonels on up. Full employment for lawyers for however long it takes.
I called my Congressional rep and senators yesterday with the intention of using the script from 5calls which had the phrase "deep concern" in the first sentence, at which point I went entirely off-script, using the word "terrified" and begging them to do anything legally in their power. My rep's office has a real live person picking up the phone during business hours, and he was so nice I almost cried.
I don’t frighten easily but I was very much with you both, as representatives of the great majority of US citizens. I guess more than half the world was frightened.
That’s the trouble with Trump rhetoric. You can never know for sure just how far he will go.
From your very helpful post in Purgatory, I surmise that Vance is now playing a high stakes game. Probably waiting for the right time.
You got that right, my friend.
If y'all don't do something the rest of us are going to live the consequences right along with you.
The Hopi prophecy seems to be coming true before our very eyes. The first time the Great Spirit took the world in his left hand and shook it (WWI). The second time the Great Spirit took the world in his right hand and shook it (WWII).
The third time, the Great Spirit takes the world in both hands and shakes it, and no one will be exempt.
I don't hope this is the third time.
AFF
Agreed - the problem is not the Constitution, but that a substantial number of powerful people (not just the President) don't want to follow it. "Culture eats policy for breakfast" - only if most people broadly respect the rules will the rules do any good.
Pretty standard for mid term.
Disillusion sets in when the government in power can't deliver.
Aka Keir Starmer and Albanese in Australia
Nobody was enthusiastic about Starmer in the first place.
I think the top end of the judicial branch also have questions to answer in that regard. Trump appointments explain a lot of that, but not all.
So much for Total Victory, Regime Change, and all the other shite spouted by Trump and his Orcs.
What will the would-be Destroyer Of Civilisations do now? Invade Cuba? No-one seems to want to play with him any more...
It's on YouTube, easy to find, for anyone interested.
It is an oddly specific denial. Has anyone accused her of anything? It's got that "I absolutely, categorically did not have intimate contact with the brindled goat in the field next to my house" feel to it, hasn't it?
Mind you, she could well have come up with the general gist IYSWIM, but English isn't her first language.
I'd take all of this with a truckload of salt, myself.
Dafyd Hell Host
My apologies. Wasn't even thinking about it from a legal angle.
And she doesn't defend her husband at all. Put together with the NY Times reporting about how JD Vance was so very opposed to Trump's war, it feels like some of the biggest rats might be looking for the sinking ship's exits. Though that's probably just wishful putting together on my part.