Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Indeed, just because people disregard the law does not mean we should simply do away with it.
What is clear though that enforcement of the Hatch act is severely flawed, since the sitting administration can effectively let itself off the hook for breaking it. This was of course always an issue, but previous administrations at least had the self restraint to actually follow their own laws, or at least not break them too blatantly.
If we can learn anything from this administration, it is that norms and traditions are not laws, and mean nothing when those in power do not care about upholding them.
Hope shines brightest in the darkest times
It may be time for a change on that. As much as I don't like the thought, I believe we may need to rethink how impeachments work. Just being impeached does nothing. Removal of powers like executive orders upon being impeached however, would be a pretty big punishment for impeachment.
While that could be abused, it also doesn't seriously impede the president's powers. It means a president impeached but not convicted is basically defanged, they can't really do anything that bypasses Congress, reeling them in.
Edited by ScubaWolf on Aug 29th 2020 at 12:42:12 PM
"In a move surprising absolutely no one"![]()
Beyond the dubious constitutionality that sounds risky, remember that being impeached just requires a majority of the House. What happens when a Republican house decides to impeach a Democratic President for violating (their highly partisan) view of the Constitution?
Edit: Lol, a
has striked.
In unrelated news, Biden's campaign has firmly rejected Spencer's endorsement
So much for the tolerant left
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 29th 2020 at 9:55:29 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji YangIf impeachment came with the ability to block executive orders then I doubt they would have waited around for a pretext.
Heck, under this suggestion impeachment would be better for the Republicans than the actual Senate verdict. Guilty or not guilty, you end up with a president, possibly the promoted VP, who has their executive order powers restored. If you keep the impeachment process ongoing then you've screwed the president indefinitely.
, ![]()
So we shouldn't try to fix any problems this administration has caused in the honor system? We shouldn't even try to fix loopholes? That's the impression you're giving me, that we should give up and just let anybody who wants to abuse them, anybody who wants to ignore the honor system, do so. In that particular case then the US is a lost cause, and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. If you're not going to fix the leaky holes in the boat it's going to keep flooding.
Edited by ScubaWolf on Aug 29th 2020 at 1:07:20 PM
"In a move surprising absolutely no one"Right. We have to be exceptionally careful not to create problems that are worse than the ones we're trying to solve.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"We definitely need to fix the abusive power the Presidency has. However, removing Executive Orders through Impeachment would be a bad idea, especially in the face of a Natural Disaster or a Terrorist Attack.
An idea I do support to reduce the power of the Presidency is that their Cabinet Picks should be subject to the House as well as the Senate; Specifically, the House should be able to remove any Cabinet Executives for any reason. This is how the Radical Republicans were able to Impeach Andrew Johnson, but then it was made Illegal by the Supreme Court. I believe this should be a power that the House has, with or without impeaching the President.
Term limits don't help either. This has been discussed to death. What they do is creating a revolving door between private and public positions that guarantees:
- No long-term planning in Congress.
- Constant influx of newbie legislators who need to learn the system and are easy prey for lobbyists and entrenched bureaucrats.
- Less incentive to compromise or cross the aisle because you and your opposition will be gone soon enough anyway.
Edited by Fighteer on Aug 29th 2020 at 1:18:02 PM
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'd like to point out that a lot of the issues we're facing aren't just because of the collapse of traditions and honor systems. We've gotten to where we are because the Congressional Republicans actively refuse to enforce the rules already on the books. The best written constitution with the best checks and balances wouldn't mean squat if the branch that's supposed to be checking the other is saying, "Meh, I don't feel like it."
So we shouldn't try to fix any problems this administration has caused in the honor system? We shouldn't even try to fix loopholes? That's the impression you're giving me, that we should give up and just let anybody who wants to abuse them, anybody who wants to ignore the honor system, do so. In that particular case then the US is a lost cause, and needs to be rebuilt from the ground up. If you're not going to fix the leaky holes in the boat it's going to keep flooding
No, what we're saying is that when proposing solutions it's not enough to think how they'll stop a future Trump. We also need to see how Republicans will abuse it and whether or not it will result in more costs than benefits.
Abolishing the filibuster will benefit them, but it will benefit us more thus it's worth it.
Making it so impeachment reduces the powers of the President will benefit us but it will benefit them far more because only one of the two parties wants to get things done and it sure as heck isn't them.
Term limits don't help either. This has been discussed to death. What they do is creating a revolving door between private and public positions that guarantees:
A million times this.
The Political Science profession has decades of data on term limits, they may be superficially logical and attractive but it's just that, superficial. They're bad from every non-corporate POV, and even some corporations might want a legislature that governs effectively.
Edited by Fourthspartan56 on Aug 29th 2020 at 10:30:20 AM
"Einstein would turn over in his grave. Not only does God play dice, the dice are loaded." -Chairman Sheng-Ji Yang

The problem isn’t just that the Act isn’t being enforced, it’s that it has no penalties for breaches beyond removal from position. So senior figures who just rotate out after Trump can’t face any actual penalties.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran