Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

Beware of charging RINO.

[North Star]

2) Bernie Sanders: Lets the BLM chick bully him off his own stage. Can't wait to see him cave on something important. I seriously question anyone taking a... forgive me... a
                                 Socialist for President of the USA... I mean, it goes against the sheer concept of the Western... it's just un-American.... I don't get you people at all.

I agree - Sanders is as un-American as, say, Teddy Roosevelt.

[Pat B]

Beware of charging RINO.

Does Romney think that any Trump supporter will change their mind because of anything Romney says? If so then he is even more clueless than I realized.

I liked this line: "Panicked GOP leaders say they still have options for preventing the billionaire from winning the GOP nomination - just not many good ones." If they're trying to get Rick Perry to run on a 3rd party ticket then their options must be poor indeed. What's next, trying to lock Trump up at Guantanamo?

[Todd]

Does Romney think that any Trump supporter will change their mind because of anything Romney says?

I think Romney is being a team player.  I'd bet he'd be the third party candidate the Republicans would put up if they go that route.  The goal would be to deny Trump the White House.  Romney (or Perry or anyone else) wouldn't need much of the vote to accomplish that.  Romney has the advantage of being well-known nationwide, if not well-liked.  If Romney tries to take Trump on at the convention, that will only work if Trump doesn't have the majority of delegates.  It also saves Rubio for 2020 and beyond.

[Madiel]

This post is seriously non-sensical.  Legislation is law.

Well, seeing as this has slipped into my own professional area... legislation is one part of the law.

[Todd]

Well, seeing as this has slipped into my own professional area... legislation is one part of the law.

Perhaps you might have an understanding of Mr Leoni's theory?  As described previously in this thread, legislation is considered different from law itself.  A nutshell description would be helpful.

[Madiel]

Perhaps you might have an understanding of Mr Leoni's theory?  As described previously in this thread, legislation is considered different from law itself.  A nutshell description would be helpful.

Well, I don't know anything about Mr Leoni, but even from the little bits on Wikipedia about him and that book, I can see some of the issues. I can just raise some of my own thoughts.

Legislation (which I write for a living) is the law on the books. But then you have to consider, what are people actually doing? Is anyone enforcing the law? Are administrators literally following what's written down, or doing something a little different? Over time things get changed because of convenience and no-one going back and checking. Sometimes things change because the written law is impractical, or even illogical.

Then you've got courts interpreting what the legislation means. Ideally everyone read the text the same way, but in practice that will never happen, even without allowing for the fact that people try to read things to their own advantage.

Does the general population support the law, does it have legitimacy in their eyes? If you want to see what happens when people are not interested in supporting the law, the rise of Uber is a perfect example. Personally I despise the company's tactics of having people disobeying the law and portraying themselves as on the side of right, and of arguing for law reform while ignoring the current law, but there's no doubt it's been highly successful.

At its core, law is supposed to be a tool for modifying and controlling human behaviour, but it doesn't always work, and sometimes politicians and others make laws mostly for the sake of being seen to have "done something" without really thinking about what they're trying to achieve and whether a law is going to help achieve it. A considerable part of my job of "writing legislation" actually involves saying to people that there are things that don't need to go into the text.

[knight66]

Well, seeing as this has slipped into my own professional area... legislation is one part of the law.

Yes, my understanding is that all legislation is law, but that laws are also created outside of legislation, for instance common law or case law.

Mike

[Todd]

At its core, law is supposed to be a tool for modifying and controlling human behaviour, but it doesn't always work, and sometimes politicians and others make laws mostly for the sake of being seen to have "done something" without really thinking about what they're trying to achieve and whether a law is going to help achieve it.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  I would think the selected part of your response is self-evident. 

Not being a lawyer, I generally only make a distinction between legislation, common law, administrative law, and maritime law, though I know there is more to it than that.  Given Florestan's prior response, displaying significant dislike for the malleable nature of legislation (and by extension, one would think, modern administrative law), that would leave common law, and sure enough the Wiki page indicates that Mr Leoni focused on common law and Roman law, or more broadly, historical law. 

Now, being an opponent of efficient government - few things cause me more fear than the thought of an efficient US Federal Government - I not only have no problem with legislation that doesn't mean anything, or doesn't work as designed, or contains ambiguous language, or, better yet, contradicts other laws, I obviously see the legislative process and legislation as good things.  (And no, I don't care about frugal government and balanced budgets.) 

As a related aside, I was therefore somewhat disappointed when I read the full text of the new Oregon tiered minimum wage law yesterday (Oregon Senate Bill 1532) as the law is only three pages long, including signature page, and precisely defines which areas fall into which tiers.  I was hoping for at least some ambiguity that could result in lawsuits.

[Madiel]

Lawsuits cost time and money. If you are in favour of inefficient government and ambiguous law, you are actually in favour of a sizable chunk of your economy being wasted on arguments.

[Brian]

Lawsuits cost time and money. If you are in favour of inefficient government and ambiguous law, you are actually in favour of a sizable chunk of your economy being wasted on arguments.

Todd is a - anarchist is not the correct term, but maybe dysfunction-maximalist.

[Todd]

Lawsuits cost time and money. If you are in favour of inefficient government and ambiguous law, you are actually in favour of a sizable chunk of your economy being wasted on arguments.

I am fully aware of that.  One benefit is that it can delay laws being implemented.  I take the view that laws will be passed no matter what, and for bad laws, if it is not possible to prevent their passage, the next best option is to water them down/poison them/make them vague and easily actionable, to prevent efficient implementation.  Maybe courts can strike down part or all of a law.

[Madiel]

I am fully aware of that.  One benefit is that it can delay laws being implemented.  I take the view that laws will be passed no matter what, and for bad laws, if it is not possible to prevent their passage, the next best option is to water them down/poison them/make them vague and easily actionable, to prevent efficient implementation.  Maybe courts can strike down part or all of a law.

A perfect example of what I battle against every day: identifying a problem then picking an entirely inappropriate solution for it.

[knight66]

If you hope for inefficient legislation; you have also to hope you are never the victim of it not working when you need it to.

Roman law was not exactly efficiently enacted. The Senate made suggestions and then the populace voted those into law, or not. Often there was a delay. Later, Senate edict was usually just deployed and after that the emperors usurped the entire process initially doing away with the general voting rights, then telling the Senate what it was to accede to. And in general, their laws were tilted towards the needs and problems of the rich.

Mike

[Todd]

If you hope for inefficient legislation; you have also to hope you are never the victim of it not working when you need it to.

Except for legislation pertaining to emergency services (eg, fire, police), the legislation and administrative law that affects me now and will affect me in the future is almost solely centered around receiving an economic benefit of some sort, and all of the programs I would qualify for are already inefficient.  I merely advocate for a variant of what is already happening.

[Madiel]

You have a machine. It's producing poor results.

You decide the best way to prevent poor results is to try to wreck the machine.

You don't ask yourself why you had a machine in the first place.

[Pat B]

I think Romney is being a team player.  I'd bet he'd be the third party candidate the Republicans would put up if they go that route.  The goal would be to deny Trump the White House.  Romney (or Perry or anyone else) wouldn't need much of the vote to accomplish that.  Romney has the advantage of being well-known nationwide, if not well-liked.  If Romney tries to take Trump on at the convention, that will only work if Trump doesn't have the majority of delegates.  It also saves Rubio for 2020 and beyond.

A fascinating idea that I had not considered until today. Disjointed thoughts:

Romney would be a risk because he might actually pull some moderate votes from Clinton. Ditto Kasich. Perry would be better, or anybody from the Religious Right crowd. Or Rand Paul.

The GOP has convinced much of their base that Obama and Clinton represent the end of civilization as we know it. If they turn around and actively enable her to take office then I think they will have a full-fledged revolt on their hands. I think they're more likely to work towards the same goal (a Trump loss) via more subtle means -- if they think there's any danger of him actually winning -- then blame the Liberal Media (as usual) for Clinton's election.

Could a Trump nomination lead more Rs to support Gary Johnson in lieu of a Romney/Perry type? He's already in the race, and his history as a Republican governor might give them some cover. With better backing and going against Trump and Clinton I could see him getting 5% or more.

If the Rs want to win in 2020 then they better plan on finding somebody who is better at this than Rubio.

How will a Trump candidacy (and a possible 3rd-party candidacy) affect down-ballot races?

[Todd]

You have a machine. It's producing poor results.

True.

You decide the best way to prevent poor results is to try to wreck the machine.

Not true.  Many attempts to fix the machine may or definitely will make things worse.

You don't ask yourself why you had a machine in the first place.

I know why the machine exists. 

[Madiel]

Then articulate the machine's purpose for me.

[Todd]

How will a Trump candidacy (and a possible 3rd-party candidacy) affect down-ballot races?

That's by far the most important question.  The Presidency is important; Congress is more important.  I would hope Republican leadership starts focusing on how to minimize damage in Senate races.

Johnson may gain something from this, but 0.01 + 0.01 is only 0.02.  The Republicans may have to hijack the Constitution party this election season, put Romney or <insert sacrificial lamb here> in as their candidate, and steal enough votes from Trump to insure a Clinton win.  This would be a last ditch effort.  Blaming the liberal media is a safer approach. 

At this point, it's Hillary's lose.  If Trump gets the nomination, and if she loses, Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.  This should be a slam dunk victory now.