Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[(poco) Sforzando]

You were astonished that a former president of Mexico found that unacceptable?  A beef about that seems obvious.  I was more amused by the reference to Hitler.  I guess someone had to do it.

Guess irony has to flagged as such, or it will be missed. The Hitler reference is old news.

[drogulus]

At least you know to compare the US to another empire.  Empires come, empires go.

    The comparison is with the Repub empire, not the U.S. No, it won't be like the lobbyists will be unemployed. I'm sure they'll be just as busy. The office holders will adjust, join a new White Panther Party, or maybe it will still be called Republican, and it will be like Polaroid or Westinghouse.

[Brian]

It would be interesting to know what Brian and others would amend. I have my candidates, which I never expect to see in my lifetime or even my next 6-7 reincarnations.

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens recently wrote an excellent little book proposing six amendments. Though the book is a good one, it is legal and has technical language in the argumentation. You can read his exact language for the six amendments at this link. #2 is absolutely essential; #3 and #6 strike me as very good ideas; #1 and #4 do not have headline-writing public implications (aside from the odd Kim Davis) but are valuable safeguards; #5 might be a controversial point of view (death penalty).

In addition to those suggestions, I find it odd that judges are partisan political figures, frequently elected rather than appointed; I would prefer if judges and their selection process were less partisan. It might be good to effect rule changes which allow "third parties" to grow in strength and grow out of their current uselessness; it might also be a good idea for primary elections to be nonpartisan, and proceed with the top two vote-getters from any political party, although I think this can be done on the state level.

[kishnevi]

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens recently wrote an excellent little book proposing six amendments. Though the book is a good one, it is legal and has technical language in the argumentation. You can read his exact language for the six amendments at this link. #2 is absolutely essential; #3 and #6 strike me as very good ideas; #1 and #4 do not have headline-writing public implications (aside from the odd Kim Davis) but are valuable safeguards; #5 might be a controversial point of view (death penalty).

In addition to those suggestions, I find it odd that judges are partisan political figures, frequently elected rather than appointed; I would prefer if judges and their selection process were less partisan. It might be good to effect rule changes which allow "third parties" to grow in strength and grow out of their current uselessness; it might also be a good idea for primary elections to be nonpartisan, and proceed with the top two vote-getters from any political party, although I think this can be done on the state level.

Here in Florida local judges are elected in nonpartisan contests and appellate judges are appointed by the governor from a list of candidates supplied by a supposedly nonpartisan commission. 

As a result, partisanship is far more pronounced in appointed judgeships than elected ones.  The GOP dominated legislature has been waging low level warfare against the state Supreme Court in particular.  This is due to the fact that the SC tends to be more liberal... But also tends to actually pay attention to the law, something the legislature does not do.

We also have a fairly newish antigerrymandering amendment, which the legislature has been doing its best to ignore.

[Todd]

The Hitler reference is old news.

How many other heads of state have compared Trump to Hitler?  I get it, lefties in the US have made this comparison before, but I'm referring to people of substance.

The comparison is with the Repub empire

You certainly live in your own world.

[(poco) Sforzando]

How many other heads of state have compared Trump to Hitler?  I get it, lefties in the US have made this comparison before, but I'm referring to people of substance.

Thank you for referring to us lefties as being without substance. I always thought my left-handedness was a sign of creativity.

[Todd]

I always thought my left-handedness was a sign of creativity.

Neato.

[Todd]

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens recently wrote an excellent little book proposing six amendments.

1 - Makes sense, though would run into opposition among people concerned with federalism.

2 - Assuming this is the language, it's DOA.  I'm no fan of gerrymandering, but states set their own election rules, would fight to keep that power, and this would be an intense fight with not as much gain as hoped for.

3 - Too broad.  There would need to be enacting legislation submitted in tandem to define such words as "supporters".  As written, and without definitions, it should die a painful death.

4 - Don't see the need, and it could backfire on its supporters.

5 - Not needed.  The death penalty is slowly dying.  I oppose the death penalty, but see no need for an amendment.

6 - DOA.

That's a lot of amendments all at once, and would add fuel to culture war fires.  Best to choose one or two, get those through, and then move from there.

[(poco) Sforzando]

5 - Not needed.  The death penalty is slowly dying.  I oppose the death penalty, but see no need for an amendment.

Here I agree (surprise) with Todd. A SC ruling if it carried would cover the same ground, and indeed Breyer and Ginsburg in minority opinions have already interpreted the death penalty to be a likely violation of the eighth amendment as it now stands. Any amendment that simply tacks on a "such as" clause is not really amending the Constitution but rather interpreting it, which is the SC's role to start with.

As for amending the 2nd, my understanding is that the amendment originally applied to state militias, which all able-bodied men from any state were required to join (barring religious objections). "The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States." While it seems to me that a truly originalist reading (unlike a Scaliaist reading) would restrict the amendment to service in these state militias (the amendment being written in the form of "X being true, Y is true"), it also seems to me that gun ownership for private use is also allowed under the 9th and 10th amendments, and so I reluctantly accept it as constitutional.

Don't like gerrymandering either, but don't know a solution. All I know is that as a resident of the NY 2nd, I awoke one day in 2013 to find I was no longer represented by Steve Israel (D), for whom I had voted, but by Pete King (R), for whom I had not. It's only since then that I found that, compared to some of the R crazies, King is relatively sane.

[Todd]

As for amending the 2nd, my understanding is that the amendment originally applied to state militias, which all able-bodied men from any state were required to join (barring religious objections).

Irrespective of original intent, or, more important, current views on the original intent, the Heller and McDonald decisions in practice interpret the Second Amendment to guarantee an individual right to bear arms.  Now any attempt to curb perceived gun ownership rights can be viewed as antithetical to the Constitution, and a proposed amendment could be attacked as only the second one, after the Eighteenth, with the express purpose of curbing individual liberty.  There are other, less divisive ways to approach gun control.

[drogulus]

     The obligation to regulate and restrict an individual right to bear arms does not rest on the assumption that no such right exists. If that were the case then the court would be obligated to respect a right to own a tactical nuclear weapon, if only for self defense. Now I might want to push the right that far, just for mischief, but I would think if an appeals court upheld a restriction on private ownership of plutonium weapons, the SC might not even review it. The precedent established, we can then confiscate the guns of Red State morons just like Obama planned all along.

[Mookalafalas]

Thank you for referring to us lefties as being without substance. I always thought my left-handedness was a sign of creativity.

  Don't take it personally. When someone realizes that the party he is so committed to has chosen Donald Trump to be it's intellectual leader, there is bound to be some bitter lashing out.  Of course it's a shock to everybody...imagine the party of Perry, Bachman, the pizza guy, Bush, Reagan, Palin, etc., choosing to be led by Trump?!

[The new erato]

Now you're just being an ironic smartass!   

[(poco) Sforzando]

  Don't take it personally. When someone realizes that the party he is so committed to has chosen Donald Trump to be it's intellectual leader, there is bound to be some bitter lashing out.  Of course it's a shock to everybody...imagine the party of Perry, Bachman, the pizza guy, Bush, Reagan, Palin, etc., choosing to be led by Trump?!

"We have created a monster, and he is us."

(For good measure, however, conservative columnist Ross Douthat in the NY Times yesterday had a piece on how Trump is also an outgrowth of Obama-politics: "But Trumpism is also a creature of the late Obama era, irrupting after eight years when a charismatic liberal president has dominated the cultural landscape and set the agenda for national debates. President Obama didn't give us Trump in any kind of Machiavellian or deliberate fashion. But it isn't an accident that this is the way the Obama era ends — with a reality TV demagogue leading a populist, nationalist revolt." Needless to say, Times readers soundly thrashed Mr. Douthat, as they always do: "This is without doubt THE dumbest column from Douthat yet. What a harebrained, ignorant, dumb way to try and deflect from the self-destruction of the Conservative movement . . . . ")

[Mookalafalas]

"We have created a monster, and he is us."

(For good measure, however, conservative columnist Ross Douthat in the NY Times yesterday had a piece on how Trump is also an outgrowth of Obama-politics: "But Trumpism is also a creature of the late Obama era, irrupting after eight years when a charismatic liberal president has dominated the cultural landscape and set the agenda for national debates. President Obama didn't give us Trump in any kind of Machiavellian or deliberate fashion. But it isn't an accident that this is the way the Obama era ends — with a reality TV demagogue leading a populist, nationalist revolt." Needless to say, Times readers soundly thrashed Mr. Douthat, as they always do: "This is without doubt THE dumbest column from Douthat yet. What a harebrained, ignorant, dumb way to try and deflect from the self-destruction of the Conservative movement . . . . ")

Yeah, I read it.  Didn't find it very convincing, however.  There have been lots of charismatic and influential presidents.  Do we say FDR created McCarthy? Eisenhower caused JFK? JFK and LBJ somehow spawned Nixon? Reagan is the father of Clinton?

[Madiel]

Don't like gerrymandering either, but don't know a solution.

Independent electoral commissions.

[Todd]

When someone realizes that the party he is so committed to has chosen Donald Trump to be it's intellectual leader

Two questions: 1.) When was this selection made?  2.) When are Presidents the intellectual leaders for either party? 

Independent electoral commissions.

Hard to get in the US.  The committees would invariably be bi-partisan.

[Brian]

Two questions: 1.) When was this selection made?  2.) When are Presidents the intellectual leaders for either party? 

Todd's post is rather terse, but he makes a good point. I doubt that the two parties' intellectual leaders have been the same as their political leaders at any point since 1960. Barry Goldwater did have a big influence on his party, but otherwise, the thinkers tend to stay offstage.

[drogulus]

     When Douhat gets into the deflection game you know how pervasive the sickness has become. Is Obama too charismatic for Repubs, did he drive them insane? I say Repubs can't escape responsibility for their derangement, blaming Obama for it is a symptom, not a diagnosis.

[Brian]

     When Douhat gets into the deflection game you know how pervasive the sickness has become. Is Obama too charismatic for Repubs, did he drive them insane? I say Repubs can't escape responsibility for their derangement, blaming Obama for it is a symptom, not a diagnosis.

Well, Obama's demeanor is not entirely blameless. He has been consistently and rightly criticized for being aloof and unwilling to engage in the actual business of politics, and he never really covered for this by having Diamond Joe Biden do the PR legwork for him. To be sure, Obama has had it more difficult than any previous president, between 24-hour scrutiny and his race, and I think there's a lot of stuff he felt unable to say or do because he is a black man.

But I doubt the Republicans ever had it in mind to play fairly with him or to collaborate with him on major compromise legislation. The Tea Party's total disavowal of the principle of compromise - and of the principle of governance - thoroughly ended that hope, as did the probably 5-10% of voters who are genuinely unhappy with Obama's skin color.