Hard Power and Soft Power

[sevenhelmet]

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.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/01/31/trump-defy-constitution-third-term-00200239

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.”

Ugh. This is exactly the sort of legal double-speak that gradually erodes Constitutional standards. I wish both parties would stop trying to consecrate their guy as King... thinking back to the "four more years" chants from 2016. This isn't going to end well.

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?

I hate court packing schemes.

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?

So NY and LA's guy or gal will be elected POTUS, forever. Cool. Guess where all the campaign and lobby dollars will be flowing? I consider the electoral college to be ballast against dense population centers having all the power over the large areas in between. What works in LA won't in rural southern Kansas, for example.

A better idea is to stop trying to end-around the Constitution, and let the electors do their job.

Changes I would consider would be: Elimination of state "winner take all", making electoral voting by district, and an independent, publicly-funded committee that evaluates and adjusts the district boundaries every four years; the latter idea being to prevent gerrymandering. Not saying they're perfect ideas, but they would warrant consideration if I were King for a day (which I don't want to be... this is America, dammit!)

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

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.

www.brennancenter.org

States losing congressional seats and electoral college votes:
CA: 4, NY: 2, IL: 1, OR: 1, MN: 1, PA: 1, RI: 1, WI: 1

So noted. Glad things are projected to be updated in line with apparent population shift. It would seem runaway liberal policies might be a problem, too. Who knew?

States gaining congressional seats and electoral college votes:
TX: 4, FL: 4, NC: 1, UT: 1, ID: 1, AZ: 1

CA's loss is TX's gain. Same for NY and FL. Got it.

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.

Got it. I don't think that's a fundamental flaw in the system, even if I have major beef with the current administration. I took issue with the last one in a big way, too, and didn't cry about elimination of the EC the way others did.

 

[Griz882]

So NY and LA's guy or gal will be elected POTUS, forever.

What? I thought it would be only Harvard or Yale folks elected. (Trump being the outsider having graduated from U Pen). Will we ever elect a Brown graduate?

OK (because of the tenor here) I’m kidding…but I agree with what you’re saying.

 

[sevenhelmet]

What? I thought it would be only Harvard or Yale folks elected. (Trump being the outsider having graduated from U Pen). Will we ever elect a Brown graduate?

OK (because of the tenor here) I’m kidding…but I agree with what you’re saying.

Thanks. Taking that argument a step further, if POTUS powers were in line with what they should be, far fewer people would care about the EC. District boundaries might actually matter more though, if Congress was doing it's f#$%ing job.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Is hard power about to go soft?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892327815988859279

 

[taxi1]

Will we ever elect a Brown graduate?

Sounds racist

 

[Griz882]

Sounds racist

Careful now.

 

[PhrogPhlyer]

Nothing quite says "the party of limited government" like the White House mandating how a city runs its transportation policy, I guess?

NY was only able to implemented the "congestion pricing" scheme WITH the approval of the previous President.
Isn't that the same thing, "the White House mandating how...?
One WH said yes, this WH says no.
Works for me.

 

[CommodoreMid]

Is hard power about to go soft?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892327815988859279

Not giggity

 

[gparks1989]

This is true…and Biden did his own version of what Trump is doing. If you want to get logical people in the highest offices of the land you need only get rid of the two-party system and our primary and caucus system.

Agree on the latter, but don't agree on the former. Our two parties would better serve the American polity if they didn't end up bending to the will of the most extreme primary voters. There's nothing inherently wrong with a two party system, and frankly the Europeans don't make multi party governments seem all that appealing.

 

[Griz882]

Not giggity

Got out just in time!

 

[Griz882]

Agree on the latter, but don't agree on the former. Our two parties would better serve the American polity if they didn't end up bending to the will of the most extreme primary voters. There's nothing inherently wrong with a two party system, and frankly the Europeans don't make multi party governments seem all that appealing.

That’s a good rebuttal, and you have a point about Europe. Personally I believe the U.S. is entering a kind of post-party era. Still, if I could wave my magic “king for a day” wand I’d put in term limits of no more than 12 years in an and all federal offices with a single 6 years POTUS term. I’d also put a kind of term limit on SCOTUS with each POTUS getting to replace the oldest justices in the third year of their term.

 

[gparks1989]

....with a single 6 years POTUS term....

100% - an underappreciated idea. The Mexican model.

 

[Spekkio]

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.

Not a fan of one-off quotes...

To your first question: 60% of Republicans and 54% of independents want foreign aid cut, while even 39% of Democrats support it. So the American people say it's a waste.

To your second thing... roughly 200M Americans are working. I did say the phrase "working Americans."

To your third... no, we can't just fund anything we want. And we just went through a fight over the debt ceiling being plastered over MSM and on a perennial basis there are headlines about looming government shutdowns, so while I doubt Joe Dirt has read the CBO report... he at least knows it's a problem.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Ugh. This is exactly the sort of legal double-speak that gradually erodes Constitutional standards. I wish both parties would stop trying to consecrate their guy as King... thinking back to the "four more years" chants from 2016. This isn't going to end well.



I hate court packing schemes.



So NY and LA's guy or gal will be elected POTUS, forever. Cool. Guess where all the campaign and lobby dollars will be flowing? I consider the electoral college to be ballast against dense population centers having all the power over the large areas in between. What works in LA won't in rural southern Kansas, for example.

A better idea is to stop trying to end-around the Constitution, and let the electors do their job.

Changes I would consider would be: Elimination of state "winner take all", making electoral voting by district, and an independent, publicly-funded committee that evaluates and adjusts the district boundaries every four years; the latter idea being to prevent gerrymandering. Not saying they're perfect ideas, but they would warrant consideration if I were King for a day (which I don't want to be... this is America, dammit!)



So noted. Glad things are projected to be updated in line with apparent population shift. It would seem runaway liberal policies might be a problem, too. Who knew?



CA's loss is TX's gain. Same for NY and FL. Got it.



Got it. I don't think that's a fundamental flaw in the system, even if I have major beef with the current administration. I took issue with the last one in a big way, too, and didn't cry about elimination of the EC the way others did.

I didn't say it was probable, and I didn't say I condoned it - but to not understand the rules of the game is political malpractice. The most glaring example of not anticipating an opponent's moves that I can remember is when First Lady Hillary Clinton's campaign did not maximize delegates during the 2008 Democratic primary, Senator Obama's team maneuvered adroitly and next thing - checkmate.

 

[Randy Daytona]

Is hard power about to go soft?

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1892327815988859279

Interest on the national debt now exceeds the defense budget. https://www.cfr.org/blog/first-time-us-spending-more-debt-interest-defense