US Politics Thread

[ChicagoBlue]

This all stems from an 18th Century document that has been found pitifully wanting.

The Founding Fathers gave future Americans plenty of ways to allow the living breathing document to change with the times, and it did, until strict Constructionists decided they wanted their White Christian Patriarchy back and made certain 38 states would never be able to affirm any potential Amendments, unless it was an ultra-conservative change, of course!

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

With this latest decision, could the US turn into an authoritarian state under a malign figure?

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Makes Nixon’s resignation seem almost quaint now, as Watergate wouldn’t even be a crime now, would it?!

No that is something of an unintended consequence that I’ve seen a few legal commentators discuss, it basically exonerates Nixon in full. Obviously, he was pardoned so it’s always been more of a thought experiment anyway.

If the Supreme Court of today were the Supreme Court of 1972 then Nixon need not have resigned.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

And arguably its biggest flaw was to allow Congress to decide how the Supreme Court functioned. You know, the bit that’s supposed to be independent.

I’m sure it made sense at the time.

It did make sense at the time , and for a long term worked effectively and in the best interests of the nation.

But that was in a world that is unrecognisable today.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

The Founding Fathers gave future Americans plenty of ways to allow the living breathing document to change with the times, and it did, until staunch Constructionists decided they wanted their White Christian Patriarchy back and made certain 38 states would never be able to affirm any potential Amendments, unless it was an ultra-conservative change, of course!

Isn’t the fact that the Constructionists were allowed to hijack the process in that way damning of the USC itself?

 

[ChicagoBlue]

I wonder if they’ll maintain that if individual States decide they’ve had enough of the shitshow and want to secede from the Union.

I suspect not.

Secession is not as easy as it sounds, as it’s not something a State can unilaterally accomplish.

 

[ChicagoBlue]

And arguably its biggest flaw was to allow Congress to decide how the Supreme Court functioned. You know, the bit that’s supposed to be independent.

I’m sure it made sense at the time.

Im not sure I understand what you mean, as its the other way around, if I thought I understood the checks and balances.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

A President can only pardon Federal crimes, not State crimes. One can commit a Federal crime in any State, but State crimes are particular to the respective State.

That bit I did know - that's why I was asking.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Secession is not as easy as it sounds, as it’s not something a State can unilaterally accomplish.

I know it’s not, but I wouldn’t rule efforts to accomplish it out within the next couple of decades if things carry on like this.

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

With this latest decision, could the US turn into an authoritarian state under a malign figure?

I guess a more technical answer is yes providing the Supreme Court rubber stamps it.

There’s a presumption of immunity on all official actions which means provided the President of the time can convince the Supreme Court he is acting in his official capacity then he has a free pass. That scope is deliberately poorly defined.

The catch seems to be that any President can force through a change to the Supreme Court and fill it with the required number of yes men.

Their safety net of everybody being equal under the law is gone, they are one bad actor away from the edge.