How does the POTUS “control” domestic law enforcement?
And I don’t think you have a full understanding of how the military leadership structure works if you think that there are zero checks against who become a general.
And I’m pretty sure that ignoring rule of law w/o being impeached indicates that there is more than just one person complicit in the activities.
Sure, we all have an interest. The president has vastly more power than most of us.
I’m fine with similar disclosures for congress. Note, however, that each senator has only 1/200th the power of the president and each rep only 1/870th. If we can only get disclosure from the president, that’s worth doing.
The fact that someone else fills out the form has no relevance to the decision. And, even if we might guess at their interests, facts are better than guesses.
I should have said “federal” domestic law enforcement. All these people report up to the president.
And, yes, no dictator becomes a dictator without the support of many other people. That’s one reason we have “checks and balances”. Not sure what the comment on generals means.
Did you know that Congress has to approve any appointments (and subsequent promotions) to the rank of general/admiral?
And that the chain-of-command from the POTUS goes through the Secretary of Defense (Senate confirmation required) and then to the appropriate Branch Secretary before it even hits any military officer?
And that the overwhelming majority of soldiers/sailors/marines/airmen/etc. are not the “follow orders blindly” types?
Sounds like we’ve got work to do :judge: /s
That’s all why I made the comment that our last defense against a dictator is that the people with the big guns simply refuse to follow his orders.
That’s why it’s fundamental that the US military swears their oath to the Constitution
IFYP. This wasn’t always the case before the 1970’s.
Serviceperson’s oath also entail to obey the lawful orders of their superiors and there’s extensive training on what that actually means.
I would follow the spirit of the 22nd Amendment on that. If the justice serves less than half a term they are eligible to be reappointed*. If they serve more than half the term, that counts as a term. If a justice dies 17 years into a term and the new justice only serves a single year, they ought to be eligible to serve out another 18 year term IMO.
*An issue would be whether they need to be reconfirmed. Kind of leaning towards no on that, similar to how second term cabinet members that are carryovers from the first term do not need to be reconfirmed.
States also have power here. California and Texas could make it a requirement that to appear on the ballot a candidate must release 10 years of tax returns.
You don’t even need the big guys like CA and TX most of the time. If you got red states totaling 10 EVs and blue states totaling 10 EVs OR purple states totaling 10 EVs (a very low threshold) that would probably be sufficient to get every major party candidate to release their tax returns.
That is actually debatable. The Constitution lays out the eligibility requirements for POTUS and release of tax returns didn’t make the list.
(Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for the transparency on this one, but what you suggest may not be legal. If the voters effectively require it to get their votes, that’s a different story.)
Hmmm, interesting point. But states set other requirements for getting onto the ballot: minimum number of signatures and such. That’s not in the Constitution, but it is a state requirement for getting on the ballot.
I’d assumed that states could set stricter requirements than the Constitution if they wished. But I might be wrong.
I want every president to appoint exactly two justices, with no prior constraints. I don’t want presidents picking justices because they are “young”. I don’t want “strategic retirements”.
If a justice filling out a term goes back into the pool of potential names with absolutely no advantage in an appointment for a full term, I could see saying that the short term does not automatically disqualify him/her from a full term. If filling out the partial term provides any statutory or political advantage in getting a full term, then I want to bar them from the full term.
I think it would be easy to find qualified judges to fill out a partial term with no possibility of a full term. They would be experienced appeals court judges who missed the “age window” for a regular supreme court slot. They would be happy to spend a few years on the SC, assuming they could go back to an appeals slot after the end of their SC service.
I guess in the end it would come down to a SC case, if a candidate wanted to pursue it.
I’d say the constitution does not provide for privacy of income tax returns. Congress can pass a law to release all returns of everybody, or everybody in defined classes.
Oddly, the lawyers on the SC might make a distinction between
In terms of federal law, I doubt they can force a state to explicitly remove a name from a ballot. But they could make it a requirement to be POTUS or VPOTUS that the returns must be released at least 2 months prior to the electoral college voting. (or the Electoral College cannot vote for a candidate who hasn’t released taxes at least two months earlier.)
Or in the case of an appointed VPOTUS, then at least 2 weeks prior to congress voting on the appointment.
But I still think that individual states could make it a ballot requirement. And having thought about this more since my last post, even in a solidly red or blue state, given how much attention is paid to the technically irrelevant popular vote, probably you wouldn’t want to give up those popular votes.
That is to say that even though Trump has no hope of carrying New York, if he didn’t have all of those New York Republican votes padding his popular vote total, that would be embarrassing for him. So if New York required public tax returns to get on their ballot, that would probably be sufficient to force most candidates, even Republican candidates, to release their taxes.
Did Pence release his taxes?
I wasn’t suggesting that. I go the other way. When the name is on enough states’ ballots, the Treasury automatically releases the returns.
This seems relevant to the thread
The news release gives 13 sections. They seem reasonable to me.
The first one is on pardons. Congress can try to stop outright bribery, but I think real reform there requires a constitutional amendment.
I honestly believe our laws have largely protected the country from Trump. He has thrown everything under the sun against them and he is still leaving office on January 20th (whether he leaves the White House or not is another matter). I would not mind seeing a limit on pardons during lame duck periods after elections. This keeps pardons in front of the voters where they can have a say about how they feel about them.
Supreme Court Justices should still be lifetime appointments whether you like them or not. That keeps them as above the political fray as they can be. If the President had to constantly pick them and send them to the Senate for approval it would be a huge clustereff and we would be without a full court for long stretches.
It gives voters insight into how this person makes money, and to whom he is beholden.
Who cares who actually entered the data? The tax return is a uniquely auditable document that sheds light on the financials of a candidate.
For instance, trump ran as a good businessman. Odds are, his tax returns show he lost money most years. He can lie on stage, but there are penalties for lying on your tax return.
What commercial properties does he actually own? His tax returns would shed light on that?
Re pardons: i think the power to pardon is an important check on judicial excess. And there have been some politically important pardons that i think were valuable for the nation.
Ford pardoned Nixon, ending the watergate scandal.
Carter pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers.
Obama pardoned tons of nonviolent drug offenders.
Those were all good pardons, imo.
I might restrict pardons in some way. Maybe temporal. A president can only pardon if he has a year left to serve, or is eligible for reelection. (So, if there’s a couple months left on his term and he’s not running, he’s not eligible because he’s not on the ballot and it’s too late to get on the ballot. That bit would need to be carefully when due to the electoral college and all that.)
My thought is that a president should face political repercussions for his pardons.
And his power is already limited by only being able to pardon federal crimes. For instance, if a bunch of thugs march in new York City, or Boise, based on Trump’s call to action on January 6th, and they damage property or kill people, they will be guilty of state crimes, and the president has no power to pardon them.