ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
Oh surely give them the chance to do the right thing first. We need a list of people to name and shame.
Under the US Constitution...
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
The Left is incapable of doing the "right thing." We have several centuries of evidence to prove it.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
What we have is so far from what the constitution lays out that you can't infer any such thing from my contempt of the status quo.
That's a loaded question. I get to decide that apparently.
Also somebody once told me: refusing to dignify a loaded question isn't 'contradictory epistemological stances'; it's intellectual integrity.
That's interesting, you have yet to mention what this mysterious 'contradiction' even is.
Overreach is the name of the game. Stretch it till it breaks, and hope the other side is the one who breaks it.
Irrelevant ramblings not seen hereafter were ignored.
Blame it on a particular set of senators of course. Tell congress to recess so interim appointments can be made if they want it to change.
Beureacrats who continue to act as employees of the united states after having been dismissed by the sole leader of the executive branch are impersonating officers of the united states, a crime, and a threat to the constitution.
Letting that stand would be lawlessness regardless of what SCOTUS might think. We've already seen what happens when you defy SCOTUS. You pretend to obey and come back at it with some meaningless rearrangement of your law or order and keep doing the exact same thing.
The case makes its way through the courts up to SCOTUS who tells you "bad boy, down" and that's all. They have no punishments to hand out, no deterrence, no matter how obvious the defiance is.
Don't misconstrue, this is not a prediction, it's an observation that there is so much more room to bend and stretch the constitution before Trump even comes close to being a worse offender than the deep state and the left-tribe officials have already been.
When forcing the obedience of the unelected to the elected is called despotism the dystopia is already far too real.
He has, and if the deep state hacks (there is that phrase again) in the senate want to pretend they aren't then they can learn to 'negotiate'.
It is the whim of 60 million men backed by the further trust of 17 million more men. Their whim is that the constitution be restored by rooting out the unconstitutional concentration of power in unelected bureaucrats. Anyone who opposes appointments because the oppose that purpose is a domestic enemy of the constitution and the people.
WinterBorn
Verified User
The entire process is set up to make sure no one person has too much power.
To remove the checks & balances would cause a huge backlash. Besides, Trump still has legal battles to fight on his own, namely his mishandling of classified documents and election interference. He could well be sentenced to time in prison.
Publius
Well-known member
Well, I did detect a number of autocratic/authoritarian fantasies, so, 'scuse me for noticing.
No, it's a rhetorical question with a tongue-in-cheek tone. In case you didn't know, rhetorical questions are not questions, especially if they are delivered tongue-in-cheek. Oh, I dunno, I should have thought 'Banana Republican' was the tip off.
Moot point, see above.
I should think it was obvious? You dream of liberty and your commentary presents an authoritarian dystopia. Viola! A contradiction in terms!
Ah, so the strategy is to play chicken with democracy itself? Bold, if by 'bold' you mean recklessly idiotic. Stretching it 'till it breaks' isn’t a game; it’s a gamble with the very fabric of governance, one where the losers are the people left picking up the pieces of your little authoritarian experiment. Hope, you say? Hope is no substitute for a plan, especially one built on tearing down checks and balances that have kept this country running for over two centuries. If your answer to every institutional safeguard is 'break it,' then your proposal isn’t a vision -- it’s a tantrum with delusions of grandeur
Nothing needs to be changed. What we might see is Trump attempting to adjourn both chambers of Congress under his misunderstanding of Article II, Section 3, claiming some 'extraordinary occasion' to push through his appointments. Such a move would undoubtedly trigger a legal challenge, and it would be fascinating to see how the Supreme Court -- especially in light of their ruling in NLRB v. Noel Canning -- handles it. In that case, they pushed back on Obama's attempt at recess appointments under far different circumstances. The real question is whether this Court will stay consistent or twist itself into pretzels to accommodate Trump's overreach. Either way, the constitutional stakes are huge. Pass the popcorn; this one’s going to be quite a show
Oh, so now we’re redefining lawlessness to mean anything you don’t like about the judiciary or bureaucratic process? Fascinating. First, your assertion that dismissed bureaucrats would be 'impersonating officers' is laughably detached from reality. Bureaucrats serve under specific legal protections, and firing them -- especially en masse -- without proper cause would result in lawsuits, injunctions, and quite possibly, more chaos than your fever dreams could handle.
Second, your casual dismissal of SCOTUS as toothless shows either ignorance of the Constitution or willful disregard for it. The courts don’t exist to hand out 'punishments' like some kangaroo tribunal. They interpret the law, and their rulings shape the boundaries of power in this country -- a fact that seems to elude you in your haste to crown Trump the sole leader of the executive branch, as though the rest of the government is just window dressing.
And finally, your smug little 'deep state' boogeyman isn’t an argument; it’s a crutch. If every legal check on executive overreach is just 'the left-tribe,' then you’re not defending constitutional principles -- you’re rooting for a dictator in training wheels. If the Constitution has room to 'bend and stretch,' it’s only because people like you are trying to strangle it into submission. Spare us the victim act; Trump’s track record isn’t some noble counterbalance to government malfeasance -- it’s a roadmap to authoritarian collapse.
Ah, yes, the 'whim of 60 million men' -- a poetic flourish that completely ignores the bedrock of constitutional governance. Let me remind you, the Constitution was not designed to be a popularity contest, nor was it written to cater to mob mentality. It exists to safeguard a system of laws, not to act as a rubber stamp for the whims of the executive or his most fervent followers. The 60 million you reference don’t grant Trump divine right to trample over the checks and balances established to prevent exactly this kind of authoritarian fantasy.
And this nonsense about 'rooting out the unconstitutional concentration of power in unelected bureaucrats'? That’s rich, coming from someone who apparently believes the solution is concentrating power in the hands of one man. Unelected bureaucrats are not the enemy; they’re public servants tasked with implementing the policies crafted by the people’s elected representatives. But sure, let’s declare anyone who opposes turning the executive branch into a monarchy a 'domestic enemy.' That’s not the language of constitutional patriotism -- that’s the rhetoric of despotism.
Your so-called 'whim' is not a mandate. It’s a tantrum dressed up as populism, and it flies in the face of everything the framers designed to protect this nation from tyranny. If you think the Constitution exists to crown a singular ruler, then it’s not the bureaucrats you should fear -- it’s your own complete misunderstanding of the document you pretend to revere.
We did that a long time ago when Presidents started ruling by decree as if they are kings, to include starting and conducting wars.
ADreamOfLiberty
Verified User
"commentary presents as" sounds pretty weaselly to me. No contradiction has been identified.
First, replace "democracy" with "rule of law".
Then:
Necessary, in exactly the same way that escalation in cold and hot war is necessary.
The plan is to scare people into remembering why we don't try to imprison political dissidents with novel legal theories. Since the "fabric" of the country was being dragged down into certain fascism a risk of tearing it is preferable.
It is preferable not only for the chance that we pull it back into stable liberty, but also preferable for the rest of humanity who would not have a terribly powerful fascist state to contend against even if there is a tear.
Strawman
The constitution is the supreme law of the land. All laws and liability purported to contradict it are either being misinterpreted or are themselves null and void.
There is a fringe argument that congress can keep paying people the president has dismissed under power of the purse, but there is no shred of an argument that such people retain authority to act on behalf of the United States. There are three branches of government, not four.
All attempts to create a second executive branch which is self-regulated and self-appointed under authority of congress alone is unconstitutional and seditious. Claiming that there are officers beyond the authority of POTUS (outside congress and the courts) is such a claim. Anyone who makes plans with others to promote and advance this state of affairs is engaged in a seditious conspiracy, thereby creating justified cause to invoke the insurrection act.
All the above is a far more rational and clear interpretation of law than what has been called "criminal convictions" and "criminal indictments" of a certain Donald Trump in these last ~2 years.
No, it shows the willful disregard of the deep blue cities intent on gun control for the constitution. As does their bold claims of "sanctuary status" which rather obviously step over the line into aiding and abetting federal fugitives.
I am just painting a picture of what it would look like if the right-tribe had as little regard for the constitution as the left-tribe. That is exactly what the right-tribe needs to do until the nation as a whole yields, screams "uncle", and agrees to return to the original plan.
The lawfare of the last six years could have fooled me.
You might want to read the constitution.
The rest of the government is congress and the courts. Everything else is deep state swampland created under the umbrella of the executive branch (there is no where else to add it).
Shifting the context/goalpost fallacy.
You said "The Constitution wasn’t written to serve the whims of one man"
It's not the whim of one man. Now it's not the whim of 60 million men.
I'd say the constitution was designed to preserve the rights of man, in which case the 1 man and the 60 million men are still on the right side of the constitution and morality.
Laws with secret unaccountable courts, secret unaccountable police, vast quantities of money stolen only to have federal agents refuse to help people with MAGA signs, laws about holding government secrets that are only applied to one man and his allies, laws about immigration that are sidestepped with loopholes, laws about insurrection which are not enforced, laws about the freedom of protest which are ignored, laws about the right to keep and bear arms that are trampled on.
A system of laws where congressmen become insanely wealthy off of the laws they pass but I am a criminal for having a bush above 12" in the front yard.
You can keep that "system of laws", you can call it "the constitution" but the constitution is a document that is written in English not a secret code and I have read it. There is nothing in there about this nonsense and plenty of reason to think that the framers would make immediate war on what you call a "system of laws".
The chief executive officer actually having authority over the executive branch as proscribed by the constitution is a very small step in the right direction and the idea that you think it is trampling past checks and balances is both hilarious and disgusting.
One elected man over the branch of government he was elected to control.
Speak for yourself.
The public no longer wishes to be "served" in this way.
Strawman
Last edited:
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
I don't see how recess appointments could cause a "huge backlash", since there is Constitutional authority and ample precedents exist - several presidents have employed them - some quite prolifically.
As for your "lawfare", good luck with that one.
WinterBorn
Verified User
The term "lawfare" is laughable.
If there were crimes committed, Trump should be tried. Just like everyone else.
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
WinterBorn
Verified User
I do not work for the Justice Dept.
But your anger at Trump being held accountable for breaking laws shows plenty.
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
I suspect you don't work anywhere. Am I correct?
I don't recall expressing any anger. Are you OK?
Publius
Well-known member
"Your commentary" (your post to which I replied) was specific., the antithesis of the 'weasel word' (which doesn't mean what you appear to think it means). The contradiction was spelled out, so reread my comment.
Hmmm, well, your verbal gymnastics are as fascinating as they are disingenuous. Escalation in war may have its grim logic -- tit-for-tat brinkmanship with nuclear arsenals and troop deployments -- but applying that rationale to the very fabric of governance? That’s not just reckless; it’s an active betrayal of the principle you claim to defend: the rule of law.
Rule of law isn’t some disposable component of democracy; it’s the foundation upon which democracy stands. And yet, here you are, twisting it into a justification for breaking the system entirely. Escalation, you say, as though eroding constitutional norms and daring opponents to enforce them is some noble gambit rather than the equivalent of setting the house on fire to prove you own the matches.
You’re not protecting the rule of law; you’re assaulting it under the guise of necessity. Because, make no mistake, when you treat laws as tools to be bent, stretched, and snapped at will, you’ve already replaced the rule of law with the rule of power. And if the strategy is to "hope the other side breaks," then it’s not a strategy at all -- it’s an admission that you’ve abandoned the ideals of democracy and governance for a nihilistic free-for-all.
So let’s not pretend this is about preserving anything. What you're advocating is a slow-motion coup disguised as tactical savvy. It's not necessary, Liberty; it’s cowardly. And when democracy finally calls your bluff, don’t expect history to judge you kindly, and history will NOT be kind to Trump, unless providence steps in and saves him through some miracle, and I won't be holding my breath.
Ah, Liberty, where to even begin? Your argument, a version of 'deconstruct the administrative state', reeks of that peculiar blend of arrogance and delusion reserved for those who think they can destroy a thing to save it. Let me spell this out for you in language as direct as your logic is convoluted: you’re not defending liberty -- you’re desecrating it.
The plan, you say, is to "scare people into remembering." Scare them into what, exactly? Submitting to a worldview that justifies lawlessness in the name of order? You invoke the specter of fascism as though it’s a get-out-of-jail-free card for tearing down the very safeguards that keep fascism at bay. This isn’t courage; it’s cowardice cloaked in faux pragmatism. And frankly, the idea that your brand of chaos is preferable to "certain fascism" is as laughable as it is tragic.
But let’s take your argument at face value. You claim this is all to save the "fabric of the country" -- by tearing it. Do you hear yourself? You’re not just gambling with democracy; you’re throwing the dice while lighting the table on fire and calling it strategy. And the people you claim to protect? They’ll be the ones choking on the ashes of your so-called plan.
And for the "rest of humanity" -- the ones who, in your fever dream, benefit from watching this country tear itself apart -- don’t kid yourself. The world doesn’t need America reduced to a smoking ruin of its principles. It needs America to stand firm, to prove that liberty and democracy can endure, even when tested by the likes of you and your reckless experiments.
So no, Liberty, your "plan" is neither noble nor necessary. It’s the desperate justification of someone who’s mistaken nihilism for strategy. And when the history books recount this era, they won’t remember you as a defender of liberty -- they’ll remember you as one of its most reckless saboteurs.
"Strawman"? That's rich considering my pointing out your hypocrisy can't possibly be a strawman; it’s exposing the glaring contradiction in your argument. You bemoan "lawlessness," yet advocate tearing down institutions when they don’t serve your right wing agenda. That’s not defending liberty -- it’s weaponizing chaos. If calling out your selective outrage stings, maybe it’s not my argument you should question, but your own.
I swear, the audacity of your legal acrobatics is matched only by the breathtaking ignorance they reveal. You declare the Constitution the "supreme law of the land," and then proceed to butcher it beyond recognition. Let’s unpack this slow-motion train wreck of an argument.
First, your claim that Congress paying dismissed bureaucrats amounts to sedition is a masterpiece of legal fiction. The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power of the purse. If they choose to fund positions the President has recklessly vacated, it’s not sedition -- it’s governance. The separation of powers isn’t a suggestion; it’s the bedrock of our system. But of course, in your echo chamber infected mind, any limit on executive power is an affront to liberty, because what’s more "constitutional" than authoritarianism, right? (Sarcasm intended).
Second, this nonsense about a "second executive branch" is a strawman so flimsy it collapses under the weight of its own absurdity. Bureaucrats aren’t a rogue army; they’re public servants operating under laws passed by Congress, upheld by the courts, and accountable to the American people. If their authority is "unconstitutional," then every regulation, every policy, and every safeguard enacted over decades would be as well. And, of course, that IS what you are saying, you guys on the right ever so foolishly equate 'government' with 'socialism', the right's favorite boogeyman when all arguments are failing. What you’re proposing isn’t clarity -- it’s anarchy, it's chaos.
And invoking the Insurrection Act? Oh, that’s rich. You’re suggesting that checks and balances -- the very system the Founders designed -- amount to sedition and justify the President unleashing military force? That’s not a rational interpretation of law; it’s a manifesto for tyranny wrapped in a flag.
Finally, dragging Trump’s criminal indictments into this as though they’re remotely comparable is the rhetorical equivalent of a desperate Hail Mary. Let’s be clear: Trump isn’t being prosecuted for protecting liberty; he’s being held accountable for undermining democracy itself. Trying to conflate the two is as transparent as it is pathetic.
So, Liberty, spare us the lectures on constitutionality. Your argument isn’t a defense of law -- it’s an attack on the very system that ensures we remain a nation of laws, not men. And history won’t remember you as a champion of liberty; it’ll remember you as a willing accomplice to its unraveling.
Sheesh, your argument boils down to a tantrum dressed as strategy. Advocating that the "right-tribe" abandon constitutional fidelity until the nation "screams uncle" isn’t patriotism -- it’s nihilism. The Constitution isn’t a tool for tribal warfare; it’s a framework that balances competing interests, including the courts you so casually dismiss. What you’re really saying is, "If we can’t win, we’ll burn it all down." And that, Liberty, isn’t defending the Constitution -- it’s betraying it.
You might want to take note that your "read the Constitution" line -- is but another thought-terminating cliché (phrase) dressed up as an argument. I’ve read it, and nowhere does it crown the president as an unaccountable monarch. Checks and balances are the foundation, and the judiciary’s role is to ensure no branch -- including the executive -- runs amok. Maybe it’s you who needs to reread the Constitution, because "because I said so" isn’t a governing principle.
Thanks to the incessant inculcation of a demagogue and his surrogates, your thinking has devolved into a bucket of slogans and thought-terminating clichés. Your disdain for the so-called 'deep state' -- yet another right-wing buzzword -- is as predictable as it is misguided. The agencies you dismiss as 'swampland' aren’t rogue entities; they’re the infrastructure that ensures the laws passed by Congress and upheld by the courts are executed. Without them, government isn’t some streamlined constitutional ideal; it’s chaos. Sure, there’s always room for efficiency, improvement, etc., but your nihilistic dismissal of it all is just delusion masquerading as philosophy.
[...12k limit reached...refer to original comment]
WinterBorn
Verified User
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
WinterBorn
Verified User
Yep, so I say. And who would know better?
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
Please pardon me if I remain skeptical.
I seem to recall that you are a confirmed liar.
WinterBorn
Verified User
I would love to see these lies that confirmed me as a liar.
Feel free to provide any evidence.
Diogenes
1 account to rule them all
You didn't confess to having lied repeatedly and for a protracted period about being "Solitary" on this forum?
WinterBorn
Verified User
I was here under the moniker "Solitary" for several years. I changed my moniker, as people often do. No biggie.