So a small government means a king?
We're in the endgame now
Submitted 1 month ago by Bogus5553@lemm.ee to [deleted]
https://lemm.ee/pictrs/image/93aec7b1-dde6-4bc2-be7b-2b9ab7d0a5f9.png
Comments
SatansMaggotyCumFart@lemmy.world 1 month ago
normanwall@lemmy.world 1 month ago
[deleted]ignotum@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Branches are too big, the one orange leaf of government
PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Correct. Conservativism comes from a means of fanboying for the monarchy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism
UnfortunateShort@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I meam, this is true, but labeling all modern conservatives fans of monarchy is disingenuous. There are also fans of unregulated capitalism, racism, facism und probably many other -isms going around!
Trebuchet@lemm.ee 1 month ago
RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Enkers@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
What could be smaller than just 1 person?
jellyfishhunter@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Just a decapitated head?
WhiskyTangoFoxtrot@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The English beheaded their king for claiming to be above the law more than a century before the USA was founded.
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
Can’t get smaller than one man.
Hoimo@ani.social 1 month ago
I think instead of having less representatives in government, we should make government smaller by having physically smaller representatives. Like children, or gnomes.
WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
The courts need to start deputizing large numbers of bailiffs to enforce their orders. Forget relying on funding from Congress for it; I’m sure they’ll have plenty of volunteers. Musk and his goons refuse to comply with court orders? Haul them into court at the point of a bayonet. I’m sure you’ll have no shortage of patriotic Americans also willing to donate weapons to arm these new bailiffs.
The courts need to seriously build out their capacity to enforce orders independent of the executive branch. They need muscle.
Jerkface@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Today, the primary responsibilities of
U.S. Marshals include protecting federal judges and witnesses,
transporting federal prisoners, apprehending federal fugitives, and
managing assets seized from criminal enterprises.
Oh, sweet.
The
President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoints U.S.
Marshals for a 4-year term.
Oh. Oh no.
WoodScientist@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Exactly. That’s why my point is that there may be other mechanisms for courts to deputize or recruit people to serve as enforcers for the court.
JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 1 month ago
Whoa now, that’s a bit reactionary.
The reason for the shit show is that it’s all based on good faith. And if a power hungry dictator tries to control the executive…well, the legislative is supposed to keep him in check.
It’s also based on the presumption that the people wouldn’t willingly elect, let alone re-elect, a blatantly corrupt president and Congress that enables them…or at least have few enough bad ones to be able to break party lines and put a stop to it.
Ideally, enough Republicans on Congress would have enough of a spine to actually put country before party and stop this shit. Start impeaching judges and presidents. Don’t let anything else get done.
Nope. They all sold out on their party. Fucking despicable. Not even worth spitting on.
I can’t wait till someone spills the beans on whatever kompromat or bribes or imperius curse has got such a tight grip on the party.
CommissarVulpin@lemmy.world 1 month ago
I came to a bit of a realization. Every time you think of some possible new government function, or legislation, or resolution to an issue, you cynically think of every way it could be abused, right? You’re confident that greedy, self-aggrandizing politicians or businessmen will use it to further their own power and wealth. The concept that someone will act in good faith is absent. It’s infantile, it’s naive. The world is cruel.
I think this represents a fundamental breakdown of the trust in our government. The US has been coasting on good faith for almost 300 years, and the wheels are falling off. It’s a vicious cycle, where if you don’t trust that other people will do the right thing, you’re less likely to do the right thing yourself. I don’t know if this cycle can be ended, or even if it has an end.
Saleh@feddit.org 1 month ago
The Legislative and Judiciary can only keep the Executive in check, if the people with guns in the Executive are willing to listen to them, rather than the superiors giving them orders.
You have “Legislatives” in dictatorships too. but when they refuse to obey the military any longer, they either get disappeared, get a sham process over something they allegedly did, or at best you get a civil war.
Or how Cersay Lannister said in Game of Thrones: “Power is Power”. When push comes to shove, the question is who do the people with guns listen to. Everything around it is just fluff. Unless large parts of the Military and Police defect and take care of their superior and then hand power back to the normal institutions, or there is a peoples uprising and subsequent civil war, the power will not go back.
Demdaru@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Wait. Isn’t there military side of court that does literary this? And what’s more, it has access to heavier penalties because military can be more heinous?
JustAnotherKay@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Non judicial punishments and courts martials make up the american military legal system.
NJPs are basically your commanding officer saying “you did this wrong, you’re grounded. Half pay and stay in your room for a month”
Courts martials are an actual legal proceeding with a military judge who says “you did this wrong, straight to jail. Do not pass go, do not collect $200”
All this to say, yes. In fact, there are jobs in the military that can be legally punished with execution if they aren’t performed diligently even during peace times.
underwire212@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Yeah that pesky balance of powers thing is such a nuisance and all.
IndustryStandard@lemmy.world 1 month ago
It is very annoying how it keeps appearing every time Democrats are in charge and they suddenly will not get anything done.
FiremanEdsRevenge@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Zachariah@lemmy.world 1 month ago
did you drop a “them”?
PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Sadly, no. That’s the quote.
ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Vance, being a lawyer, knows which words have meaning.
That’s why he wrote ‘tell’ ‘command’ and ‘control’ instead of ‘rules’ ‘orders’ or ‘directs’.
Worx@lemmynsfw.com 1 month ago
Wait, different circumstances have different laws? Tell me more!
Would a traffic warden tell a surgeon how to operate? Would a traffic warden tell a footballer how to kick? The how come a traffic warden can tell me where I can park my car?
zarathustra0@lemmy.world 1 month ago
What a woke perspective.
Akasazh@feddit.nl 1 month ago
The fucker even got a law degree
thermal_shock@lemmy.world 1 month ago
He’s showing disinformation (lies) so his dumbass followers have something to argue for, and to create distractions for the real crimes.
Playing dumb and saying dumb shit is the new fascism!
ameancow@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Which is why he’s deliberately choosing ambiguous and non-binding language in this tweet. If questioned later (I presume at the Hague) he can then say “well, I said ‘command’ not ‘rule’ so I wasn’t speaking about actual legal rulings, just you know, like when a judge tells someone to do something, not a ruling…”
some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 1 month ago
No checks and balances when JD was learning social studies. We need to have a word with his teachers. The other acceptable answer is “fuck you, you’re not made of teflon and we know what you’re doing.”
Schlemmy@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
He’s not wrong in what he says but I’m quite sure he means something different.
witten@lemmy.world 1 month ago
The word “legitimate” is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that quote…
HKPiax@lemmy.world 1 month ago
European here. I’ve seen this quote everywhere, what does it mean?
Windex007@lemmy.world 1 month ago
JD is drawing false equivalence, to lead to the conclusion that law doesn’t matter.
Does a judge plan a military operation? No. But they can establish if it is legal.
That’s their whole job, to establish if actions violate the law. If they violate the law, they can order them to stop.
Judges don’t write the law. You don’t like the judge’s ruling? Change the law. Judges don’t write the laws, they just interpret the ones that exist.
JD is arguing that judges (and by extension, the law, and by extension the fundamental concept of the rule of law) don’t apply to him and Trump. It’s literally an argument for monarchy.
wjrii@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Yup. The word “legitimate” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there, and he’s just hoping that no one asks the follow up, “How do we determine whether a use of power is legitimate?”
Draces@lemmy.world 1 month ago
JD Vance and Trump are doing a power grab to ignore checks and balances that are very basic elementary school level things that their supporters are going to suddenly pretend aren’t a thing
5714@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 month ago
They never really constitutionalised their Supreme Court, which happens to be the cornerstone of their judicative. Now the executive is grabbing power over the judicative, which would essentially deactivate rule of law and separation of powers, basics of democracy.
postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 1 month ago
This is the vice president overlooking the ‘check and balance’ for the executive branch of government defined in the Constitution.
Isa@feddit.org 1 month ago
Oh f*ck indeed! 🫣
rational_lib@lemmy.world 1 month ago
If you were to try to drive someone else’s car, that would be illegal
If you were to try to get money from a bank account that’s not yours, that’s also illegal
Vice Presidents aren’t allowed to fuck couches.rickyrigatoni@lemm.ee 1 month ago
IF A JUDGE TRIED TO TELL A BOOZE CRUISER HE CAN’T DRINK AND DRIVE, THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.
samus12345@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Not well. I say you nuke the site from orbit. It’s the only way to be sure.
Schlemmy@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
He’s not wrong. A judge can rule if there’s a trial and that judge will always have to apply the law.
octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
It’s like these people have never read a book in their lives.
By about age 12 I had a reasonable grasp of our nation’s checks and balances, a cornerstone of our democracy.
SnotFlickerman@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 month ago
JD Vance has a law degree from Yale.
octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
I’m not surprised Vance knows what he’s doing.
I’m surprised the people who voted for him don’t, especially given how often I see a Trump sticker paired with a “We the People” window tint.
TokenBoomer@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Exactly. He should be disbarred in Ohio.
PunnyName@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Just like the Bible, they love the idea of the Constitution, but they haven’t actually read it.
They have someone else interpret it for them, so they don’t have to think.
bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Or better yet, use the parts they like to forward their agenda and casually disregard/forget the parts they don’t like. It’s a buffet of rules for thee but not for me.
UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Conservatives who say they love the Constitution are a bit like Prosperity Gospel preachers who say they love the Bible.
They don’t see this statement as an expression of ideology. They see it as a psychological hack to disarm their audience.
The idea of a politician with principles used to be the punchline to a sitcom comedy routine or the climax of a utopian drama.
It’s dizzying to see people blindly trust what has always been a pool of con artists and hustlers, both along conservatives (who doge-edly insist Trump is the Real Deal) and liberals (who keep screaming “hypocrite!” at a party that flaunts its hypocrisy)
octopus_ink@lemmy.ml 1 month ago
I’m talking primarily about the voters, which it’s becoming increasingly clear I need to specify.
Arghblarg@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
Oh, they know exactly what they’re doing. They are attempting (and apparently succeeding) to bulldoze their way through an administrative coup.