I really strongly disagree, and I think the crux of the disagreement comes down to this, "If you believe in the rule of law, you should believe in the rule of this law! It’s important! Why do all other laws matter except the one that would disbar fascists from power?"
One of the precise questions at play is what is the proper process to e…
I really strongly disagree, and I think the crux of the disagreement comes down to this, "If you believe in the rule of law, you should believe in the rule of this law! It’s important! Why do all other laws matter except the one that would disbar fascists from power?"
One of the precise questions at play is what is the proper process to enact that constitutional provision and who should enforce it. I don't actually think the best way to handle questions of constitutional interpretation is for the president to announce his opinion and then instruct the justice department to arrest people.
I think appointing Marrick Garland looks like a mistake but, in general, I think it's a good idea for the president to appoint an AG who will go through the proper procedures of building a court case.
Additionally that specific constitutional clause was adjudicated in Trump v Anderson:
I don't like the Supreme Court's decision; I think the Colorado Supreme Court was correct but I also don't think the president should just bypass the courts to decide for himself.
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
But, beyond that, I just don't think that "swift decisive executive action" is the tool to build the sort of politics I want to see. It has it's place; I don't want to dismiss it out of hand, but I don't think it should be given a central place.
The things I am most concerned about -- Climate Change, labor rights, building a more inclusive society and economy, public health, etc . . . are all ones that require sustained long term cooperation to address. I'm feeling pessimistic about that right now but, at the same time, I don't see a way around it; the challenge is figuring out how do we build a politics that is capable of supporting long term cooperation.
I really strongly disagree, and I think the crux of the disagreement comes down to this, "If you believe in the rule of law, you should believe in the rule of this law! It’s important! Why do all other laws matter except the one that would disbar fascists from power?"
One of the precise questions at play is what is the proper process to enact that constitutional provision and who should enforce it. I don't actually think the best way to handle questions of constitutional interpretation is for the president to announce his opinion and then instruct the justice department to arrest people.
I think appointing Marrick Garland looks like a mistake but, in general, I think it's a good idea for the president to appoint an AG who will go through the proper procedures of building a court case.
Additionally that specific constitutional clause was adjudicated in Trump v Anderson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._Anderson
https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-wins-colorado-ballot-disqualification-case-us-supreme-court-2024-03-04/
I don't like the Supreme Court's decision; I think the Colorado Supreme Court was correct but I also don't think the president should just bypass the courts to decide for himself.
The obvious point of reference to support my position would be "A Man For All Seasons" -- https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060665/quotes/
"This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!"
But, beyond that, I just don't think that "swift decisive executive action" is the tool to build the sort of politics I want to see. It has it's place; I don't want to dismiss it out of hand, but I don't think it should be given a central place.
The things I am most concerned about -- Climate Change, labor rights, building a more inclusive society and economy, public health, etc . . . are all ones that require sustained long term cooperation to address. I'm feeling pessimistic about that right now but, at the same time, I don't see a way around it; the challenge is figuring out how do we build a politics that is capable of supporting long term cooperation.