It operates under the Heritage foundation's long standing belief that Unitary executive theory gives Presidents unlimited power. ...
I could go on and on.
What happens if hypothetically Trump is replaced by a Democrat. Would you be ok with any of your outlined "beefs"? Trump isn't going to be president forever, ya know. It would take a very long time to overturn all of the checks and balances for him to operate in the way you are imagining. I agree that if this were hypothetically what Trump wanted (I don't believe he does), it probably isn't a good thing for democracy. Even if he tried, there are too many things in place to stop him.
Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution), Civil Service Reform Act (Title 5 U.S.C.), Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Dodd-Frank Act (2010), Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Impoundment Control Act of 1974, are all good places to start.
To centralize executive power, a comprehensive overhaul of existing legal frameworks would be required. This would involve repealing or amending numerous statutes, altering constitutional interpretations, and potentially enacting new legislation to redefine the roles and powers of federal entities. Such extensive changes would likely face substantial legal challenges and most likely take decades, not 4 years.
Why should anyone want to allow ANY additional centralize executive power? That is a slippery slope, especially if you believe the other party will get back in power and do more of the same. The safe thing is to distribute power widely so abuse is easier to stop.
It does not take decades if the checks and balances break down. Thus far, Congress has done nothing to uphold their own power. Rs are essentially laying their power at Trump's feet and bowing. Courts are issuing rulings blocking EOs, but the Trump admin is ignoring them. SCOTUS is staying or ruling in his favor. So the C&Bs are not working.
The Zelensky plan up until Trump educated him on reality was to fight until Ukraine took back all its land.
Yet neither he nor any of the idiots like you have any idea how that will happen.
Yeah, such a horrible plan - defend yourself.
By the way dummy, you responded using the wrong name. Why do you switch back and forth between this one and the gnarly one?
Sometimes you even the two handles to agree with yourself. You're not fooling anyone and it's weird.
What's weird is you accusing me something that isn't real. I don't know who these people are you all keep associating me with. I've agreed to end name calling and be civil. I believe agip can attest to that.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
What happens if hypothetically Trump is replaced by a Democrat. Would you be ok with any of your outlined "beefs"? Trump isn't going to be president forever, ya know. It would take a very long time to overturn all of the checks and balances for him to operate in the way you are imagining. I agree that if this were hypothetically what Trump wanted (I don't believe he does), it probably isn't a good thing for democracy. Even if he tried, there are too many things in place to stop him.
Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution), Civil Service Reform Act (Title 5 U.S.C.), Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Dodd-Frank Act (2010), Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Impoundment Control Act of 1974, are all good places to start.
To centralize executive power, a comprehensive overhaul of existing legal frameworks would be required. This would involve repealing or amending numerous statutes, altering constitutional interpretations, and potentially enacting new legislation to redefine the roles and powers of federal entities. Such extensive changes would likely face substantial legal challenges and most likely take decades, not 4 years.
Why should anyone want to allow ANY additional centralize executive power? That is a slippery slope, especially if you believe the other party will get back in power and do more of the same. The safe thing is to distribute power widely so abuse is easier to stop.
It does not take decades if the checks and balances break down. Thus far, Congress has done nothing to uphold their own power. Rs are essentially laying their power at Trump's feet and bowing. Courts are issuing rulings blocking EOs, but the Trump admin is ignoring them. SCOTUS is staying or ruling in his favor. So the C&Bs are not working.
Not working to your favor. These are all elected people. The majority of Americans didn't like how it was previously going. It wasn't working.
The Zelensky plan up until Trump educated him on reality was to fight until Ukraine took back all its land.
Yet neither he nor any of the idiots like you have any idea how that will happen.
Yeah, such a horrible plan - defend yourself.
By the way dummy, you responded using the wrong name. Why do you switch back and forth between this one and the gnarly one?
Sometimes you even the two handles to agree with yourself. You're not fooling anyone and it's weird.
A plan that has a 0% chance of success is as horrible as a plan can get.
I have 2 names. Both are registered and neither of them are gnarly.
77 million people think you're an idiot and you're so g*ddamn stupid you think more than 1 person online disagreeing with you means its the same person using multiple accounts.
What happens if hypothetically Trump is replaced by a Democrat. Would you be ok with any of your outlined "beefs"? Trump isn't going to be president forever, ya know. It would take a very long time to overturn all of the checks and balances for him to operate in the way you are imagining. I agree that if this were hypothetically what Trump wanted (I don't believe he does), it probably isn't a good thing for democracy. Even if he tried, there are too many things in place to stop him.
Appointments Clause (Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution), Civil Service Reform Act (Title 5 U.S.C.), Federal Reserve Act of 1913, Dodd-Frank Act (2010), Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Impoundment Control Act of 1974, are all good places to start.
To centralize executive power, a comprehensive overhaul of existing legal frameworks would be required. This would involve repealing or amending numerous statutes, altering constitutional interpretations, and potentially enacting new legislation to redefine the roles and powers of federal entities. Such extensive changes would likely face substantial legal challenges and most likely take decades, not 4 years.
Why should anyone want to allow ANY additional centralize executive power? That is a slippery slope, especially if you believe the other party will get back in power and do more of the same. The safe thing is to distribute power widely so abuse is easier to stop.
It does not take decades if the checks and balances break down. Thus far, Congress has done nothing to uphold their own power. Rs are essentially laying their power at Trump's feet and bowing. Courts are issuing rulings blocking EOs, but the Trump admin is ignoring them. SCOTUS is staying or ruling in his favor. So the C&Bs are not working.
Who said anyone would want that? Not me.
When the world ends within the next few years because of Trump, I'll be sure to come back and acknowledge your prophetic wisdom.
Every 4 years it's the same, new people are hired, old people are fired. You'll survive.
By the way dummy, you responded using the wrong name. Why do you switch back and forth between this one and the gnarly one?
Sometimes you even the two handles to agree with yourself. You're not fooling anyone and it's weird.
A plan that has a 0% chance of success is as horrible as a plan can get.
I have 2 names. Both are registered and neither of them are gnarly.
77 million people think you're an idiot and you're so g*ddamn stupid you think more than 1 person online disagreeing with you means its the same person using multiple accounts.
lol.
Very few women have the strength to fight off a rapist. Is your advice to them to stop fighting and get fcked?
By the way dummy, you responded using the wrong name. Why do you switch back and forth between this one and the gnarly one?
Sometimes you even the two handles to agree with yourself. You're not fooling anyone and it's weird.
A plan that has a 0% chance of success is as horrible as a plan can get.
I have 2 names. Both are registered and neither of them are gnarly.
77 million people think you're an idiot and you're so g*ddamn stupid you think more than 1 person online disagreeing with you means its the same person using multiple accounts.
lol.
I've been accused of being others on here, too. They run out of substantial debate ammo, so resort to semantics.
A plan that has a 0% chance of success is as horrible as a plan can get.
I have 2 names. Both are registered and neither of them are gnarly.
77 million people think you're an idiot and you're so g*ddamn stupid you think more than 1 person online disagreeing with you means its the same person using multiple accounts.
lol.
Very few women have the strength to fight off a rapist. Is your advice to them to stop fighting and get fcked?
You're the worst.
You've stumbled onto something here though you're probably too stupid to realize it.
If a woman cannot fight off her attacker even if she wants to she's getting raped either way. That doesn't mean it's fair... but it is reality.
To stop the rape violence from a 3rd party is required.
Ukraine is in the same situation. Ukraine cannot do a damn thing to win the war. Idiots like you demanding we give money and weapons to Ukraine is just as effective as an idiot like you offering to write a woman who's being raped a check to help her instead of stepping in and physically dealing with her attacker.
You're clearly a snowflake who voted for a woman with no policies to speak of. Congrats and your bitterness of wasting your vote on her speaks volumes about your lack of intelligence. I'm sorry relatives avoid you at parties.
You're clearly a snowflake who voted for a woman with no policies to speak of. Congrats and your bitterness of wasting your vote on her speaks volumes about your lack of intelligence. I'm sorry relatives avoid you at parties.
To be fair he disowned all his relatives because they disagreed with him on subjects he doesn't even understand.
Yes Trump says there were 40,000 people at a rally when the real number was 30,000 and you are horrified.
Biden lies about not being corrupt and using his crackhead son to sell influence and you don't care at all...
You clearly don't have a problem with lying. Stop pretending you're bursting into tears everyday because you have any morals or principles.
Your peers are celebrating the death of a baby from measles on another thread. You should get over there and get in on the liberal fun. Maybe it will cheer you up.
You're clearly a snowflake who voted for a woman with no policies to speak of. Congrats and your bitterness of wasting your vote on her speaks volumes about your lack of intelligence. I'm sorry relatives avoid you at parties.
To be fair he disowned all his relatives because they disagreed with him on subjects he doesn't even understand.
If you read project 2025 and listened to the authors speak about it, then you know that speed of purge of the federal govt is critical.
They know they cannot legally fire many of these people without advance notice or cause. But they also know legal cases can take years. Especially if they keep appealing up to SCOTUS.
And if they get reversed it won’t matter. The people are gone and moved on with their lives. Good luck trying to recreate these institutions from scratch. Musk knows this and his actions prove he knows this.