Rivalarrival @ Rivalarrival @lemmy.today Posts 3Comments 3,581Joined 2 yr. ago
A lawless president is a president for life.
There are ways to rein in the court, even with life terms. We can't get rid of the life terms without an amendment. But we could pack the court. Add 10 justices today, and it doesn't really matter what the other 9 have to say about it.
More realistically, I think we shouldn't fill empty seats on the court. I think that when a justice dies, the court should just move on without them.
A new justice should be appointed in the 11th and 35th month of each presidential term, regardless of the court's current size. That puts the the nomination as far away from an election as possible, while guaranteeing each president has some influence on the court. The average term is about 26 years; the longest term has been 36. I would expect the court size to average about 13 members, and probably not exceed 18. A single president could only appoint 4 members in two terms.
I would also establish a line of succession in the circuit courts, to automatically reconstitute a court that falls below 5 members, or to hear cases the SCOTUS is conflicted out of. Since any circuit court judge could find themselves on the supreme court, the senate's confirmation to the circuit court is also a confirmation to SCOTUS. The president has a small pool of qualified nominees that are pre-confirmed and thus can't be blocked.
Theoretically, they could. I mean, they hold the power of appellate review. They can acquit anyone for any reason. There is nothing in the constitution preventing them from announcing that they will acquit someone taking a specific action.
But shenanigans beget shenanigans, and I'm sure Congress and future presidents would have something to say about it. Impeachment and court packing are both feasible.
For instance, if someone says the words "Heil Hitler" while raising their hands in a traditional Nazi salute, there isn't exactly room for a fascist to go "weeeeelllll
Then "HH" isn't a violation. "88" isn't a violation. They avoid the specific phrases, speak their hatred in any other terms not explicitly listed.
They laugh at the pointlessness of your law, then someone - maybe you, maybe them - expands that law to cover more and more hateful words. Then one of you takes the next step, and allows the government to decide an unlisted word is hateful.
It will, however, heavily reduce the chances of them coming into power,
No, it won't. All you are doing is granting them powers to use against you when they do come into power.
Do you even understand the concept of fascism? It is an authoritarian ideal. Fascists thrive on the exercise of political power over others. They need the power to oppress, to subjugate. They need you to become oppressive. They need you to exercise your power to suppress them, so that when they do manage to get elected, you have set that precedent for them to use against you.
The way you destroy the Nazis is by ensuring your society values liberal ideals, and summarily rejects authoritarianism in all its forms. You can't out-auth a fascist without becoming a fascist yourself.
That's OK, so long as you are a black man in business attire.
He did not say "my company":
BUSINESS WOMAN: ... Which... car company do you work for?
JACK: A major one.
But following your logic,
You're not following my logic.
I guess all laws shouldn't exist then.
That conclusion does not arise from my arguments.
After all, if we give the government the ability to do anything against any citizen, they might use it in a bad way!
I am saying that the law should be objective. "The speed limit is 35mph" is an objective law. Yes, it can be abusively enforced, by allowing some people to go 55, while stopping others at 36.
Contrast, "Disturbing the peace", a purely subjective law. Cops apply that law to do pretty much anything they want, to anyone they want, at any time they want, with zero consequences. The only objective factor is your presence in public: It's pretty hard to argue you were disturbing the peace from the comfort of your own home.
Concepts as nebulous and vague as the ones we are talking about here are as broadly and subjectively enforced as "disturbing the peace". The Nazis could claim you are in violation of your laws if you support "pedophiles" (by which they mean "trans"). Or supporting "enemy invaders" (by which they mean "immigrants"). Even mentioning "Luigi" could qualify as a violation.
Never give the government a power that you would not give to the Nazis.
And yet, we're both wearing plastic bags...
My point is that synthetic fiber is the area we have to focus on to address your primary concern.
Tires are, indeed, a major source of microplastics, but tires are used outdoors, and you probably spend most of your time indoors.
Check your lint trap: those are the kind of microplastics you have in your brain.
First off, your link is about 80% tracking information. You can remove the "?" and everything that follows it.
You are correct. The value of those shares should be considered income and taxed at the time of transfer. If they were, the 91% top-tier tax bracket would catch most of their excess income. Since that isn't happening, we need additional measures.
Capital gains tax should be higher than income tax. It is patently absurd that sitting around waiting for your money to make more money is taxed less than busting your ass for 40+ hours a week. With capital gains taxed higher than income, businesses will want to pay a larger percentage of their workers with shares rather than simple income.
More importantly, we need a specific type of wealth tax. We don't need to tax all wealth: We need to tax financial assets. Registered securities. The vehicles that the ultra wealthy use to exponentially transfer wealth out of the economy.
We should tax registered securities at 1-3% per year. Natural persons holding less than $10 million in securities are exempt. That keeps 99% of taxpayers from owing this tax.
The securities tax should be paid in shares of the security, transferred directly to the IRS. By paying directly in shares, they don't have to find a buyer; the don't have to liquidate them, so they won't be dragging down prices for everyone else. The IRS will sell off these shares over time, such that IRS liquidation sales never comprise more than 1% of total traded volume.
Securities are shares of the "means of production". A securities tax will drive ownership of those shares toward the working class.
- What you want is the government to enforce what you think the standards should be.
- What you will get is the government enforcing what the government thinks the standards should be.
I disagree with the fundamental premise of your argument, and I cite the results of the last election is the foundation of my own.
*Zerk fitting
Correct me if im wrong but the only course of action to remove a president in the US is to have them impeached, right? Or is there a version of the no confidence vote that other country's have been using?
There are at least 6 ways for a sitting president to be removed from office:
- Expiration of term
- Resignation
- Impeachment
- Section 3 of the 25th Amendment (Temporary, voluntary relinquishment due to disability)
- Section 4 of the 25th Amendment (Involuntary declaration of disability, confirmed by Congress)
- Death, either by natural causes or assassination.
#3 and #5 have never been fully exercised.
Subsequently, if impeachment is the course, would it make anything better having Vance take over?
Vance doesn't have the personality cult behind him. But, he could get one if he supported a 25th Amendment challenge to the Donvict.
The first rule of firefighting is the first rule of firefighting.
Please post a picture of the tag on the shirt you are wearing right now.
The overwhelming majority of microplastics in your body are polyester fibers, and most of those originally came from textiles.