LeBaron wrote:Copehead wrote:LeBaron wrote:
That’s what impeachment is for.
The head of state is not the personification of law, he is the chief executive and one of his duties is enforcement of federal law (written by the legislative branch and interpreted by the judicial branch). This is why he cannot, as a legal matter, obstruct justice. However, the House and Senate can decide that he has comported himself in such a lawless fashion to subject himself to impeachment.
But if the legislature will not impeach?
The remedy is with the people. The entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate is up for election every two years. Failing that, the people revoke the executive’s license to enforce the laws by electing someone else as President at the next opportunity.
Let's hope so, the checks and balances work for normal times let's hope they still work now with around half the population disenfranchised or unwilling to engage, perhaps you need this monster to re-engage people in the political process, but it is probably better to have a positive driver rather than a negative one. Give people something to vote for and they will vote.
That is why I distrust the - don't scare the horses - attitude that is prevalent on here and in US "left" politics. Trying to pander to a center that may no longer even be there. Scare the horses and try and engage with the millions who have given up on politics. Worked, after a fashion, in the UK, didn't even need a charismatic leader just one who didn't dissemble and speak in platitudes.
Western politics has become incredibly polarized, the Republicans realize this, they don't pander to the imaginary center they energise their, relatively small, base and act completely with out scruples when in power to disenfranchise the opposition. I wonder when the Democrats will realize the game has changed?
Moorcock, Moorcock, Michael Moorcock, you fervently moan.
Bear baiting & dog fights a speciality.