I get what you are saying, especially the initial part, but this theory is kind wild when you consider the nature of political power. J.D. Vance (nor Kamala Next) isn’t going to surrender their turn in front of the power pellet that easily!
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hard Power and Soft Power
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
I guess. I'm a dumb helo pilot who misses finer points of constitutional law all the time. I thought you were arguing at one point that the 16th amendment was the precursor for unconstitutional federal agencies.
He can’t work quickly enough. Assholes never seem to die, while some of the greatest Americans I know have passed on too quickly.
Here is the article in Politico from a few weeks ago - the author is James Romoser, the legal editor of Politico and J.D. from Georgetown.
In regards to the 12th amendment, the Politico article states:
Here in the U.S., a different part of the Constitution arguably complicates the loophole. The 12th Amendment, ratified in 1804, says that no one “constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President.” So if Trump were disqualified from serving a third presidential term under the 22nd Amendment, then he also wouldn’t seem to be eligible to become vice president under the 12th — and in that case, the loophole wouldn’t work.
But that’s just the thing: The 22nd Amendment doesn’t say Trump would be ineligible to serve as president for a third term. It just says he is ineligible to run for a third term (or, more precisely, to be elected to a third term). So the 12th Amendment’s eligibility provision doesn’t seem to foreclose Trump using the loophole.
“You could make a case that it’s pretty clear that a twice-elected president is still eligible,” Peabody says. “You could also make a case that it’s murky. But I don’t find the argument terribly convincing that it’s a slam dunk that he isn’t eligible.”
Any thoughts on the multiple discussions during the previous administration to expand the Supreme Court (while under a Democratic President and Democratic Senate) to 13 Justices?
Also, any thoughts on the end run of the Constitution that is the National Interstate Voter Compact? As of this year, 17 states and DC have already ratified it, the intent of which is to make the Electoral College irrelevant and only the Popular Vote would count?
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia
On a related note, here are the projections for the 2026, 2028 and 2030 senatorial elections:
Democrats’ Tricky Path to Winning Back the Senate
In the shadow of Donald Trump’s victory last November was another development that seemed to receive less much attention at the time: Republicans flipped four Senate seats, giving them a majority.
www.liberalpatriot.com
And here are the projected Electoral College changes following the 2030 census:
Big Changes Ahead for Voting Maps After Next Census
New population estimates from the Census Bureau suggest sharp gains and losses that could reshape the country’s politics after 2030.
States losing congressional seats and electoral college votes:
CA: 4, NY: 2, IL: 1, OR: 1, MN: 1, PA: 1, RI: 1, WI: 1
States gaining congressional seats and electoral college votes:
TX: 4, FL: 4, NC: 1, UT: 1, ID: 1, AZ: 1
In other words, Trump's 312 to 226 victory over Harris would be 322 to 216 if the states voted the same way in 2032 if those projections hold.
Last edited:
It makes sense. There are 13 appellate courts. One judge per court. I'd like to see term limits on the judges. 13 years each, so a new judge per year.
The right thing to do is to change how the electoral college works. No 'winner take all', allocate the electoral votes for a state as per the popular vote in the state, allow fractional electoral votes. Small states still get disproportionate share in a weighted popular vote. Candidates now have to campaign everywhere and not just battleground states. The idea that we have battleground states in the first place is a failure.
He could be a secretary or what not, just not eligible to succeed to the presidency if it were to come to that. Haven’t checked this admin to see if any of the successors are non native born, but under Biden, for example, Mayorkas is not native. Thus if it came to his turn for succession he would be skipped.
I don’t think there is a real taste, on either political party side, to take that step. Even the democrats dismissed it when FDR considered it.
As for the demographic changes coming, one must consider if those movements might not change other states. While I think the old “red” vs “blue” paradigm is fading away in favor of temporary “consensus coalitions” it has to be said that flooding Texas with California democrats could shift the metrics there a bit. I can remember when California and Colorado were reliably republican. Of course, if California moderate democrats are fleeing California then it lends to creation of ever-shifting coalitions.
Although long term voting analysis indicates that neither party is really favored by the population vote, this seems even less likely to pass, my humble opinion, than the court packing scheme but for different reasons. Small states like their access to even a modicum of power and the EC gives them that.
As for the demographic changes coming, one must consider if those movements might not change other states. While I think the old “red” vs “blue” paradigm is fading away in favor of temporary “consensus coalitions” it has to be said that flooding Texas with California democrats could shift the metrics there a bit. I can remember when California and Colorado were reliably republican. Of course, if California moderate democrats are fleeing California then it lends to creation of ever-shifting coalitions.
Last edited:
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
This made me look for shits and giggles... the 1972 and 1984 elections were really something.
Also, the split for Carter / Ford was East / West, not North / South like it is now (with some exceptions).
CA and NY didn't turn perma-blue until 1992 (heh, that rhymes).
The cognitive dissonance campaign continues. Have you been asleep for the last 10 years?
It's all bizarre. Witnessing the total undercut of UKR. Weird constitutional arguments of 3rd terms on this site. Defense of the Musk DOGE stuff.
Hard to watch TBH.
I’ll leave this guy right here…
Definitely some American values in this official White House post…
Who says it's a waste -- people who are ideologically opposed to it? Or people who have actually analyzed what the money is used for, and how effective it is towards meeting that goal? Which of those buckets do you think DOGE falls into?
$39B divided into 330,000,000 is about $116.
Again, we choose what to fund and what not to. For the most part, we have the ability to fund just about anything we want. "We can't take care of our own because USAID spends $39B" is a zero-sum game fallacy.
Where do people think American exceptionalism comes from? Where do you think our values are manifested? You don't think USAID contributes to those things, or to our goals of soft power?
When it comes to Economics, people are worried about the wrong stuff consistently. There is literally an entire field of Economics that explores just how irrational people are and why they behave the way that they do.
Nothing quite says "the party of limited government" like the White House mandating how a city runs its transportation policy, I guess?
Nope, thus my comment…EDIT…
My comments here are not dissonant. We are entering a period of change as profound as the Great Depression and change is coming because the voters want it. I’ve already noted the old two-party system is being replaced (maybe in the short term of 10 or 20 years) by a new era of more temporary coalitions of voters. Those who prefer the status quo and a “take it easy” approach are in for a few rough years…those who want to rip off all the old boards and rebuild are, in fact, ready for the churn and disruptions. The “Orange Man Bad” or “Other voters are illiterate” approach is fine if that is how you feel, yet I am quite intellectually capable of finding Trump a social baboon while at the same time recognizing what is happening and looking for greater reasoning in what if going on than a simplistic black vs white outlook. In my opinion some of what Trump has done is horrible and some of it is necessary. In the end, however, I respect the will of the voters and their ability to tack the state left or right as needed - even the uneducated ones.
Last edited:
By all outward appearances, the voters.
That’s a week worth of groceries for a single mom…now do that for every agency year, after year, after year. This is how the average voter thinks (in fact, a billion dollars is incomprehensible to most). Trying to do the technocrat thing won’t work with the current electorate.
No argument here…right now it looks like this is what “we” wants.
So….end the vote and leave it to the brilliant economists who have us trillions of dollars in debt to a communist country? Asking for a friend?
We’ve already shown Trump as the clown in today’s (or was it last night’s) Truth Social post. The man is a circus barker but he has changed politics as we know it for a long, long time.
Yup, I wish every state had the Maine/Nebraska model. I’d have to dig, but recently found a study where some think tank analyzed every election since 2000 if we had that model what the results would be like. Romney likely would have won in 2012, rest no real changes. That being said obviously the candidates would have had to campaign differently so likely not the exact same results, but I think it’s ultimately a better balance. CA Republicans and TX Democrats get voices.