Under the US Constitution...

WinterBorn said:
Neither party has impressed me in recent years.

The dems are nuts, but they will fight the repubs every chance they get. That is why our system is broken. It is more about party politics than selecting leaders for the people.
Click to expand...
Dems are working for same oligarchy that put Trump in office.
 
Hume said:
They do. Oligarchy is close to dictatorship. Rule by the wealthy.
Click to expand...

No, they do not. They do not want Trump to have unfettered power. That would make him more powerful than they are.

And we have been basically ruled by the wealthy for decades. Look at how many millionaires there are in Congress. Even better, look at what they were worth before and after being elected to Congress.

Members of Congress make $174k a year. Good money. But not millionaire level.
 
WinterBorn said:
No, they do not. They do not want Trump to have unfettered power. That would make him more powerful than they are.

And we have been basically ruled by the wealthy for decades. Look at how many millionaires there are in Congress. Even better, look at what they were worth before and after being elected to Congress.

Members of Congress make $174k a year. Good money. But not millionaire level.
Click to expand...
Look, Trump is all about capitalism.
 
Hume said:
Missing the point. He ADVOCATES for the oligarchy.
Click to expand...

In other words, he does what he is told?

His advocating for the oligarchy does not mean he is in control of that oligarchy.

It also does not mean he can sidestep constitutionally required senate confirmations.
 
WinterBorn said:
In other words, he does what he told?

His advocating for the oligarchy does not mean he is in control if that oligarchy.

It also does not mean he can sidestep constitutionally required senate confirmations.
Click to expand...
He already escaped punishment for a violent overthrow of the government attempt. We are way past this.
 
ADreamOfLiberty said:
I propose that the Trump admin should give as much deference to this "spirit as defined by court rulings" as has been given to rulings such as NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Which is to say ignore it repeatedly.

Operate without an official cabinet if you have to. Trump still has near absolute authority over the executive branch. He can simply use his chosen cabinet as proxies for direct orders.

Really get that executive order pipeline going (those aren't found in the constitution BTW, it is implied that POTUS can make an order at any time). They could make an app just for his chosen cabinet. They draft an order and it's automatically sent to Trump to sign. Anyone who ignores the order can be instantly fired upon direct authority of the president.

What are the courts going to do about that? Injoin the executive branch from obeying the president until such time as he appoints a cabinet the senate will accept? What happens if the senate refuses to consent to any appointment? The deep state just keeps churning on it's own?

I don't think so. Use the military to escort the fired personnel out of the buildings and guard the buildings so they can't come back in. Use the military to secure the networks of these three letter agencies to prevent fired individuals from continuing to connect.

There is always a next step, and given how people just voted SCOTUS will not stand in the way of the president. They will not die on the hill of "The guy you just elected isn't allowed to fire the entrenched bureaucrats you hate so that he can enforce the law of the land".
Click to expand...
It really sounds like you hate the constitution. What are you, a Banana Republican? And you have the gall to choose 'dream of liberty' as your avatar? What a contradiction.

Your proposal isn’t just a fever dream of executive overreach -- it’s a full-blown blueprint for authoritarian chaos. Let’s dismantle this nonsense piece by piece, shall we?

First, your comparison of recess appointments to NYSRPA v. Bruen is laughable. Trump, or any president, ignoring rulings like Bruen would involve not enforcing laws as SCOTUS has instructed. Recess appointments are entirely different -- they involve filling critical positions to maintain government functionality, as constrained by both the Constitution and the courts. Ignoring these rulings doesn’t flex executive power -- it invites gridlock, undermines governance, and creates legal and political landmines.

Second, your fantasy about Trump operating without an official cabinet and ruling via app-based executive orders is detached from reality. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution and subsequent case law exist for a reason: to ensure that key roles in the executive branch are filled with Senate-confirmed, accountable individuals. Substituting this constitutional framework with "Trump signs whatever his team drafts" doesn’t streamline governance -- it erodes constitutional checks and balances. And what happens when even your own allies in Congress push back on such a blatant power grab? That’s a recipe for implosion, not efficiency.

Third, your suggestion that courts can’t intervene is a gross misunderstanding of how our system works. Courts absolutely can and have blocked executive actions that violate the Constitution, even those tied to personnel decisions. Firing bureaucrats is one thing; using the military to enforce these firings crosses into outright lawlessness. SCOTUS might defer to presidential authority in some cases, but they are not likely to condone turning the military into Trump's personal HR department.

Finally, let’s talk about the political fallout. You imagine some dystopian "deep state" keeping Trump from enforcing laws, but in reality, Americans -- even many Republicans -- don’t want a presidency untethered from accountability. Deploying the military to secure federal buildings and networks isn’t a "next step"; it’s the endgame of a presidency spiraling into despotism.

So, what will the courts do? They’ll uphold the Constitution, which includes checks on presidential power. What happens if the Senate refuses to confirm appointments? The president finds qualified candidates who meet constitutional standards or negotiates with Congress -- a cornerstone of democracy. And if your idea is to bulldoze through these barriers with executive orders and military muscle, the answer isn’t "what happens next" but rather "how quickly does this collapse under its own hubris?"

In short: stop confusing governance with authoritarian fantasies. The Constitution wasn’t written to serve the whims of one man; it was designed to preserve a system of checks and balances that you so clearly misunderstand.
 
WinterBorn said:
Historic mandate? He won by an estimated 1.6% of the popular vote.

He won, but his margin of victory puts him at 16th in presidential elections since WWII.


No, he does not just "get his people". They go through the same process every other administration does.
Click to expand...


I guess it's a matter of perspective.

Say, have you heard about "recess appointments", by any chance?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top