Alarmist nonsense and absolute melodrama.
If you want the instability of France, then move there. It’s no picnic. I assure you.
I wonder why you don’t backdate the fall of the constitution to the dates other presidents made the same kind of travel restrictions, exactly the same kind of travel restrictions. It’s within their remit. If you didn’t complain about a Muslim ban under the last President (who I liked personally, and whose photo sat on my desk for 8 years, because he was my President) then why now?
Because there was confusion at the result of a terribly rolled out EO and subsequent injunction? Or was it because there was interdepartmental rivalry that led to a not immediate block but rather that it took an entire day for the court decision to take effect? Because much of DHS is incompetent or has a workplace macho culture problem? Is that news to you? Please. Put your handkerchief back in your pocket. This is just too much.
The constitution hasn’t fallen, and it is rubbish that it no longer applies. Do you read your own writing? The first travel ban failed. Why? A judge ruled that it failed and the executive complied. The second also failed? There was no crisis. The Executive complied.
If Trump hadn’t backed down… This would not have been a mere constitutional crisis; it would have been an armed standoff. There would have been no good ending.
The Spartans also sent Phillip II a message once. IF.
But he did back down. It was not a crisis or an armed standoff. It was interaction in the traditional means with some keystone cops in the middle. The executive complied. As they mostly have done. It has always been this way. Judicial Review is not an enumerated power, it is an assumed tradition from the first. The fabric of the constitution was tested it as it has been before. It bent, it held. The mast was true. Even if the President is quite a rogue, and he certainly is.
But you are sitting under the mast with soiled breeches hyperventilating. Get a hold of yourself.
That moment demonstrated just how fragile our system really is.
It has always been that fragile. At any court decision there has always been the possibility that the President might just eye down the court and say “Make me.” And we don’t know what would happen next. That design flaw or feature has always been there. You realizing that isn’t the end of the constitution or a crisis. It’s part of your education about the miracle that America managed to make it this far. Further proof of the double edged knife that is America’s exceptional history. But it’s actually nothing new, and certainly not a reason to make a new Republic along French lines. We should be more like the French Republics? Jesus wept. Do we get a Bourbon or a Bonaparte in the middle as well? The idea is just so stupid you have brought out the meanest side of me.
And certainly nobody grants legislatures the power to draw their own electoral districts!
And further more before you start talking about the US making a new republic and copying our cousins across the sea, at least know what those cousins are up to. I have said it before, In France the legislatures are empowered to redraw districts with no checks on them at all. This is done on purpose because the purpose of the Republic is above all to preserve the Republic against Communatairism and small identities that could threaten it.
Germany also certainly allows redistricting to a point. The SPD in Berlin used it in the early naughts to continually dominate over the PDS until the PDS gave up and formed die Linke. Gerrymandering is not forbidden in Germany, it’s not a huge issue here because of the proportional system of voting. There are not specific laws against it. On the contrary.
So the two largest Democracies here on the continent would certainly allow themselves if they were in the mood, to redistrict the place.
If you want to compare the US to Europe, learn about Europe before you embarrass us further and prove that we don’t only not understand Europe, but that we can’t even be bothered to learn about them.
Impeachment will not happen yet because he hasn’t been caught committing or having committed high crimes and misdemeanours, yet.
The things that you say Trump has done are illegal, are not actually illegal, yet. It’s literally a case of, “that’s just your opinion, man” until a court says otherwise. It’s supremely (see what I did there) ironic that you talk about the necessity of the courts for the longevity of our systems, and then make your own decisions about what several untested phenomena sans precedent actually mean. For instance, there’s no regulation on the President’s assets and how they can be handled. They have always voluntarily put them in trust. That’s not the law. It’s a custom. Until the courts say one of his businesses in trust violates the domestic emoluments clause, by interpretation, your argument has no legal weight. The sky is not falling.
He’s not above the law, he’s not breaking the law until the courts say he is, and then if they do he is liable and the administration may indeed fall. My gut prediction is that that is not going to happen. Not like that.
2018 might be the Gegenschlag, if the American public decides they’ve had enough. If they haven’t, it won’t be.
But if everyone is continually whipped into a panic by the fear mongering machine that Medium has become then we’ll all die of fright well before then.
Kyle Smith at the New York Post (of all publications) called it on the 20th of November and you are still not listening.
If the Post has your number you are doing it wrong. You are doing it wrong. Stop.