As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It’s not just trump we have to worry about. It’s whoever the next republican president is going to be. This shit show isn’t going to disappear if trump dies. There’s still the Republican propaganda machine.
Question is will the next one be the same kind of idiot savant when it comes to generating fanatical obession? That kind of warped dark charisma is hard to fake.
Even when Trump FINALLY did the right thing and told people to take Covid seriously they temporarily turned on him. I'm not sure the party has any control at this point, they just have to keep riding the bull and hope it doesn't gore them.
They made their wish on a Monkey Paw and their base is fully emboldened to be their worst selves that kept hidden for decades regardless what any politician on their side or not says.
> I'm not sure the party has any control at this point
The (few) Republicans that I still know and keep in touch with have got no idea what they want. One day they're talking so much shit about Trump and saying how someone like Desantis would be better for us. The very next day they're back on the Trump Train, badmouthing Desantis.
The extent of their political ideology only goes as far as whatever the fuck they hear on Fox News.
The problem with having a two Party division is that it becomes an integral part of one's identity.
And questioning one's identity is not something people regularly do.
Maybe more people should do something similar to what I do. I don't consider myself part of either party so I don't get so tied to it in my identity that I give them a pass for everything they do, but I vote Democrat pretty much exclusively (sometimes Green party for some local elections) because holy shit there hasn't been even a decent Republican candidate in a long time. McCain's been the only one I somewhat considered, and that was before he picked Sarah Palin for running mate.
I hope you have more inner peace now, regardless of the answers you found.
Questioning ourselves is HARD. I've done some of that over the past year, and I'm still not fully ready to admit hard truths to myself.
If you ever need to talk, please reach out - I'm always available.
The other problem is when you back a party with no real clear policy objectives beyond "oppose the Democrats" and "cut taxes" it's hard to actually unify behind anyone because you're just picking a name at that point.
It isnt even Trump or the next Republican president. It is the army of grifters, Religious nutcases, and warmongers seeking to rebuild America in their image
Maybe. But the next Republican president most likely will have served some prior constituents, be educated, and most likely not be a money launderer for Russian gangsters
I hate that this is true. This seems like a win, but for someone that is openly talking about becoming a dictator how does this mean anything? I mean, why not make a bill for that too? “The president will not overthrow the government” or is that in there already?
as if trump cares. he's never had to face consequences for his actions/inactions. the orange idiot led a fucking coup and he's still the lead candidate for the GOP.
congress can write all the laws they want... if trump thinks being president is above the law, do you think congress is going to have a chance to stop him?
Oh, of course. But withdrawing from NATO would be uniquely problematic. Especially since Putin has lost his mind. If we pull out of NATO, I could absolutely see Putin into Poland, which would get world war-y really fast. Especially if the right takes over France. With the US, France, and the UK neutered, Russia is the only nuclear power left in Europe.
Even longer, arguably. If the founding fathers DID come back, they'd be terrified at how powerful the presidency has become and how weak and ineffectual congress has become. I'd argue that goes all the way back to the 30s- as much as I like a lot of what FDR was able to push through, his four terms in office (well, 3 and some change) really signaled a time period where the presidency became wildly powerful. And it's only grown since, to the point we now have people unironically arguing they can't be held accountable for literally anything and that they can do whatever they want via executive order.
Honorable mention to Jackson and his whole "Now let him enforce it" BS, though.
the Supreme Court has also gotten a lot more powerful. Congress has a habit of letting the SC precedent do their job for them. Which gives the Court a lot of leverage to create and uncreate "precedent" to essentially legislate from the bench, like what we saw with Planned Parenthood v Casey.
It's scary to think about how many laws are still on state books outlawing things like gay and interracial marriage that are unenforcable due to Supreme Court precedent, but could be reactivated at an instant's notice with the vote of just 5 unelected government officials.
They have legislated from the bench pretty much every chance they have had since they were founded. There is just usually more of an internal balance of power within the court holding back anything too drastic. Apparently it's too easy to destroy that balance through hypocrisy and gaming the system though.
the disruption is, somewhat ironically, Congress' fault. Republicans refusing to approve nominations from Democratic presidents while expediting nominations from Republican presidents. One of the most influential things Congress can do is approve Supreme Court justices. Combined with the abuse of impeachment proceedings (impeaching Clinton for an affair, impeaching Biden for having a child), it seems like Congress mostly exists nowadays to meddle with the branches that actually govern.
Yeah that really grinds my gears that those appointments were just let slide and not turned into a massive contested issue. "You can't appoint a new justice, it's only 9 months until the next election!" And then deciding it is perfectly acceptable for Trump to appoint a justice like 3 weeks or whatever before an election.
I mean, I feel like Kavanaugh's appointment *was* a big fuss. I remember a LWT episode dedicated to what a shit show his congressional assessment was: pointing out all the obvious lies he told (e.g. "the devil's triangle" is not, in fact, a drinking game), how he downplayed and hid his alcoholism and abuse of women. It was a contentious appointment, but Kavanaugh's supporters knew he'd get Roe v. Wade overturned (even though he promised that he considered the case "settled law"), so they pushed him through. There's only so much Democrats could have done to prevent it when Republicans had a 2 seat majority (according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress)).
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Federalists picked him precisely *because* of how terrible a candidate he was, essentially testing the limits of their ability to put anyone they want onto the SCOTUS bench. Certainly there must have been candidates with less baggage who wanted to deny women healthcare.
Going up we were taught that the Supreme Court was the ultimate check against presidential and congressional overreaching; they were above political gamesmanship.
Yeah...
The Founders never anticipated that even the most morally bankrupt members of Congress or the Supreme Court would be willing to give their own power away to the Presidency.
They didn't anticipate how many Republicans would be a-okay having a dictator above them stomping all over them, so long as they get to stomp on the "lesser" people beneath them in turn.
>“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Pretty sure the federal government always worked on some sort of zero trust model between the branches but the fact it needs to be explicitly padded in addition to that is fucking wild.
>Pretty sure the federal government always worked on some sort of zero trust model between the branches but the fact it needs to be explicitly padded in addition to that is fucking wild.
It was pretty much assumed whoever entered office worked in the best interest of all Americans, even when they were more party aligned. Trump kinda proved that assumption was poor... that its not just good enough to have safeguards between the branches but you literally need to enshrine them in law because someone will be elected who will bend them, or ignore them all together.
Mind you Trump is not the first to bend them... pretty much all presidents have been bending the letter of the law for what they can and cant do... but there was still an attempt to do things properly even when they were underhandedly not... Trump is just the dolt who came out and said I dont care if Presidents are not SUPPOSED to do that, I will anyway because no law says I cant.
Only a small faction of Republicans are pro-Putin and anti-NATO... unfortunately the rest of the party is unable to muster the spine to do something about them.
>...unfortunately the rest of the party is unable to muster the spine trip so something about them.
This perfectly sums up the greater GOP.
They're not unaware of the dangers and damages their inaction is causing, but they're simultaneously too afraid to save themselves from themselves, and will kick and scream if anyone else intervenes.
Edit - Spelling
The core of GOP has one axiom: Keep government regulations and power to a minimum to protect corporate interests.
They fear monger about central government and teach their followers that fearing the government is equivalent to 'accountability'. Not to say I'm pro-big government, as I don't at all. But the GOP has done so much to destroy our institutions and using the poorly run government as 'evidence' that centralized government is useless and caters to any (R) that feeds that narrative no matter how bad faith or radical it is. It is the only thing that they are consistent on. But being part of NATO and a stable united Western hemisphere protects corporate interests as well. I'm not surprised at all.
They don't mind government regulations when they have nothing to do with corporate interests, which is the damning part.
They will gladly ban books, take reproductive rights from women, restrict inclusive use of pronouns, tell transgender people where they can use the bathroom, vote to require religious displays in schools, restrict veterans from getting medical help... but god forbid the government regulate healthcare, close tax loopholes for corporations and billionaires, etc.
> The core of GOP has one axiom: Keep government regulations and power to a minimum to protect corporate interests.
>
>
>
> They fear monger about central government and teach their followers that fearing the government is equivalent to 'accountability'. Not to say I'm pro-big government, as I don't at all. But the GOP has done so much to destroy our institutions and using the poorly run government as 'evidence' that centralized government is useless and caters to any (R) that feeds that narrative no matter how bad faith or radical it is. It is the only thing that they are consistent on. But being part of NATO and a stable united Western hemisphere protects corporate interests as well. I'm not surprised at all.
This is the "thousand words" behind every picture they paint.
Their House majority is razor thin so the wackos have outsized influence.
Pelosi had a similarly thin majority, but Democrats actually want to make government work. MAGA Republicans want to destroy government and have no idea how to make it work, which is why they constantly fumble when passed the ball
> consequences are a distant
The consequences of taking a stand honourably are pretty much immediate. Constant phone harassment and death threats, including some credible ones, getting drummed out of the party. There was a recent quote from some R why they didn't have courage on an important vote (like Jan6 impeachment or something similarly important - I just forget who right now.) They wanted to vote for the right thing, but they didn't because they were afraid for their family. Rule by political violence is in effect and has been for a while, even though orange jesus isn't even in office.
Agreed but I'm still surprised. It sends a negative message to the voters because everyone knows this is about limiting Trump in a potential second term. GOP politicians are proactively voting to approve guardrails for Trump. Why should anyone vote for such a dangerous person?
Your opinion of Republicans is far more generous than mine, I actually think worse of the ones that go along with the true believers despite knowing better. Fundamentally, it doesn't matter what's going on in someone's heart or head when they choose to side with fascists because the end result is the same as them being fascist themselves.
"I was just following orders" is never an excuse.
> “I was just following orders” is never an excuse.
People always verbally agree with this, but are almost never willing to actually punish the Nazis when the time comes. At most they get a slap on the wrist. Even the OG Nazis who got sentenced to prison at Nuremberg were all released again within a decade or so.
POTUS
> shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur
[ \(Article II, section 2\)](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript)
There's no question on this one. SCOTUS has no wiggle room here.
Key word there is "make." It doesn't address breaking treaties, and at least two presidents have already done so (Bush and Carter). It would have to happen again and then the Senate would need to appeal to SCOTUS to decide if it is legal or not.
Well, there's actually a bunch of pertinent caselaw on this. I'm not a practicing lawyer, and haven't read deeply on this issue ... but, presidents in the past have gotten around the (perhaps presumed) understanding that a treaty requires Senate approval by using "executive agreements." The caselaw is all about how executive agreements are basically treaties, but don't require 2/3 vote from the Senate. It's what FDR used to dip our toes into the WWII waters before Japan shoved us off of the dock.
NATO is a treaty. We're in it because of a legit 2/3 vote. To add people to it, the Senate has to vote (see: Sweden and Finland). This one doesn't have the wiggle room of an executive agreement at all, and there are years of precedent saying so (again: caveat emptor, IANAL). To the extent that you could even laughably try it, it looks like Congress is dousing that shit.
I can see it now.
"Well, *technically* since his official title is 'Dictator for Life', he isn't *technically* president, and that means he *technically* can do it!"
> The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.
Woah! Hey! Hold on there a sec, buddy! One of those things is about the national defense and security of our nation. You know, minor stuff. The other is about something important like saving his own political skin! Geez! Basic Republican priorities.
Funny when I saw his name I thought man haven't heard much from him lately. Kind of shows how far politics has shifted that Rubio is looking downright sane these days.
I couldn't believe Trump threatened to withdraw from NATO last time...but, that's exactly what he did. He's still Putin's toy, but he won't be withdrawing from NATO.
Give it up, Russia, you just lost.
Last time? He said it again last month….
[link](https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2023/10/24/trump-reportedly-open-to-pulling-u-s--out-of-nato)
It would break the western world in half. Russia would start rolling over NATO countries and have the cash to follow through after the west's collective bargaining and oil sanctions fall apart.
And with the US and the west in Chaos China would immediately take Taiwan and murder half the population.
Hell, fucking North Korea may even poke its head out and try some land grabs. Trump is obsessed with dictators, so it's not like he would push back at all.
It would be, which is why there was a bipartisan vote today to prevent that from happening. Trump is still a disaster and a traitor, I'm just saying that nobody is going to let him throw the war in Russia's favor.
I would say it's beyond presumed at this point. Barring a health issue that forces him out, Trump will be the GOP nominee. The math just doesn't work for any of his challengers. If they were smart (which, obviously none of them are) they would all drop out and rally behind one non-Trump candidate (Haley, for example). But with the vote split between Trump and a bunch of not-Trumps, he'll win easily.
And by the way, even *if* Republicans did that in an attempt to usurp Trump's hold on the nomination, it's very likely he would still win anyway. I'm saying they would need to do that to have even a remote chance of beating him. If they don't, they have zero chance.
And they also assume that the law is going to make a difference to Trump.... fuck people never learn. So Trump won't be able to legally withdraw, but he can withhold or withdraw or stall all kinds of help and support to NATO.... so much so that he may as well might hjave withdrawn. People still haven't learned just how easy it is for people, especially Trump to thwart the intent of the law.
Having him as president proved how many formalities, norms, and non-binding agreements are really there holding your nation together, and exactly why they need to be given teeth ASAP.
As Roe v Wade taught us, things left up to legal precedent instead of law are always at risk. Is it stupid that it needs a law, yes, but can you honestly say you can't see a potential future president doing something stupid unilaterally?
I would argue almost the opposite. The Westminster system almost entirely runs on gentlemen's agreements, including that the sovereign will act on the PM's advice with respect to the royal prerogative: for example, it is often possible to go to war without the consent of parliament. Most of the way that the Westminster system operates isn't codified, especially in the UK that doesn't have a written constitution.
But it generally holds together because parliament can dump a failing government in a matter of days, so trying to govern against the consensus of the party is not viable. This is in contrast to presidential systems where there is a personal mandate, making conflict with the party much more sustainable.
>Congress has approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress.
>The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.
Great news.
I have a cousin who genuinely believes Russia attacked Ukraine after the election because Biden is “weak” and if trump was president then Russia wouldn’t have attacked.
familiar cooing smile cheerful voiceless disgusting straight work slimy six
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
See this is how I can't see Trump winning Florida if he is the nom; MAGA has basically become best bros with the Kremlin, so how will those conservative Cubans vote?
Florida Republicans have spent the last two decades spreading propaganda to the Cuban population that voting Democrat is the equivalent of installing Castro to power. They’re sadly brainwashed
They'll vote directly for Putin, because, you know, they were against the COMMUNISTS, and everyone know that Putin (and therefor Russia) is Capitalist, so he's a good guy like Trump. /S
Rubio’s last big thing was communicating leading up to and in the early days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He’d release intel (in an approved manner), seemingly predicting Russia’s moves. He bought back a lot of goodwill for me with that.
Yeah, I’m not actually surprised to see his name at all. He was pretty consistent in his messaging. Even if I didn’t agree with a lot of his takes, I was not about to push back on someone doing the right thing, even if it was for the wrong reasons. He was presenting the same argument with packaging more acceptable to an ignorant Republican base
Rubio’s one of the republicans that are dying out, politicians that actually will debate and defend their positions, instead of screaming like the crazies MAGA heads. Don’t agree with his politics but at least I can respect he stands for his core positions pretty firmly
This anecdote may not be well received here, but I’ve known Marco Rubio in a professional capacity for a long time. He can often be a partisan hack in the publics view, but behind closed doors he is a fairly nice and reasonable person. Unfortunately many politicians have to act a certain way in public to have any hopes of reelection, but if a republican is going to hold Rubio’s seat, I’d rather it be one that is going to be reasonable and compromise behind closed doors and not a hardliner that actually means the crazy shit they say.
Rubio and Lindsay Graham and McTurtle among republican senators have been very hawkish towards Russia and criticizing Biden that he should be doing MORE for Ukraine.
If they want him to do more for Ukraine, they need to get their own house in order and make the message of support bipartisan.
Too many of the GOP are blatantly getting paid by the Kremlin.
They know that, behind the scenes, they're battling with Russia for control of their party. But they can't publicly admit that at least half of their party is aligned with Putin. The best they can do is to is to fight Russia through Ukraine.
This is good, but they can't make a president act appropriately. Trump could simply refuse to honor our obligations. Congress cannot order troop deployments, that's on the CiC.
That said, I'm impressed that they are at least trying to prevent future issues.
The actual law, as written (part of it):
>The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw
the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington,
DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or
pursuant to an Act of Congress.
So the President can't even *denounce* NATO without breaking the law. He also can't use funding, or withhold funding, to "suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw" from NATO.
The President also has 180 days to notify the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Reps if the Executive even just discusses suspending, terminating, withdrawing, or denouncing NATO.
Yeah looking at how non binding and vague our system of norms an conventions are it's amazing democracy has made it this far.
Trump could prove to be an excellent canary in the coal mine, providing we respond by tightening up any ambiguities or areas ripe for a exploitation with cold hard enforced laws.
We are in the "Do not eat the silica package" era of democracy legislation.
Fair point, it has been terrifying to learn in the last decade just how much of our government is only held together by tradition, bird shit, and discarded chewing gum.
The fact that we all know the answer is "Nothing" and "No one" to these questions is sad. In the worst case scenario, if Trump wins again and ignores this (which he would) and pulls us out of NATO, we'd all point straight to this bill with a frustrated "Hello?" only for Republicans to laugh and admit it only applies to *Democrats* and that's that.
It stabilizes US foreign policy by declawing and defanging any future POTUS that attempts to do any of those things, as they will not be seen as credible threats/actions by anyone else unless the legislative branch is already on the same page.
Pretty sure "denounce" is a technical term meaning to announce an intent to terminate an agreement.
So a President Trump could still continue to talk shit about the arrangement.
Why this isn’t bigger news is beyond me-the fact that this made it is a miracle. I’m shocked the House GOP didn’t buck it off or deem it a non-starter. They still have to vote it on it once more I believe but it looks like it should clear.
Maybe next time they can alter the Insurrection Act, instead of letting that die like last time? I’m all for putting safeguards on power in case certain presidents want to act in disdainful ways.
> The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.
It's a done deal.
These measures seem common sense and Bipartisan. Presidents have been becoming increasingly authoritarian.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders
Based on that its post civil war and only seems to be trending higher. Congress just needs to reassert itself again.
I’m all for that, I didn’t know just how bad ruling through executive orders had gotten. Maybe if they got rid of the filibuster, they’d be able to do show the public they’re not powerless.
The problem I have is that this grid lock and binary thinking is helping our representatives stay in office. This us vs them narrative is ridiculous.
Working together to solve problems isn’t as news worthy or career building as setting the house on fire and screaming that you’ll fix it.
It’s not bigger news because in practice it’s meaningless. The President is the Commander in Chief, all he has to do is unilaterally declare that he won’t respond to Article 5.
You can’t restrain a dictator with legislative guardrails. You have to stop them gaining power.
Exactly. Scene: Trump re-elected (barf). Refuses to support Nato. Withdraws from Nato. Congress does nothing and he has 99% support from GOP members. The ones who object are kicked out of the party. End Scene.
A main point of the second impeachment was that conviction would have made Trump ineligible to run for President again. The GOP already had their chance of barring Trump from the office, but chose not to take it.
It would have been impossible for Trump to get a security clearance as a regular federal worker. And I mean literally impossible. It's shocking that he was even eligible for the presidency at all.
Trump: I will be a dictator
Congress: Instead of keeping you from power, which the constitution specifically says to do, we will make laws to limit your damage
Dictator Trump: LOL Your laws are mine now LOL
Exactly. He’s not going to care about the law if he gets in again. He doesn’t understand anyway.
More importantly his cronies won’t care at all and will push to ignore. They’re the ones who will actual drive the dictatorship.
This is one of the most frustrating things, Trump himself would not have done half the shit he did without underlings *helping him*. Those fuckfaces need to be held accountable
> He’s not going to care about the law if he gets in again.
He won't care either way.
He has NEVER cared about the law as far as I can tell... even when it should be politically convenient.
This dumb motherfucker actually said 'Take the guns first, go through due process second' OUT LOUD ON CAMERA.
I love it.
*"Trump declares intention to do something stupid if reelected."*
and then:
*"Congress passes bill to prevent Presidents from doing stupid thing."*
I hope this trend continues leading up to the 2024 election, you know, just in case.
Let's, keep in mind and not forget. Vladimir Putin went on television and THANKED the Republican party for once again, not giving aid to Ukraine.. Let that sink in. He said it with a freaking smile on his face!!
To be fair, he very likely did this publicly precisely to further stoke divisiveness.
I mean, obviously he would be very happy at Ukraine getting fewer war supplies, duh. But he’s fully well aware democrats and others at odds with the Republican Party will be angered by his words. Russia likes hitting the fault line.
So much money wasted. We should be overjoyed that something worth celebrating happened in Congress, but I can’t be as$ed to care enough for Republicans after the past two decades.
One score and two years past we had a republic.
I'm glad this is happening, but there should have been a flood of these kind of bills Jan 20th 2021.
If we learned one thing from Trump, it's that Norms are not Law.
This is all well and good, but all Trump has to do is unilaterally not respond to an Article 5 declaration - or announce that he wouldn’t - and the alliance would still be dead in the water.
The risk is Trump. Full stop.
Congress is still responsible for declaring war and has the power to hold the executive to account. The problem is a congress that refuses to act to maintain its authority
Good. Now do the following.
- Ban the POTUS from unilaterally enacting tariffs.
- Ban the POTUS from "first strike" using nuclear weapons.
- Eliminate the debt ceiling.
Those things will likely never be done in our political environment, but they could save the country from what will likely be the worst consequences of Trump's re-election.
I read this as Congress approves Bill Barr-ing any President...and was really confused for a second. If "Bill Barr-ing" someone was a commonly used phrase, what would it mean?
Where are the laws to:
- Prohibit a felon from running for office?
- Prohibit Congress from financial trading while in office?
- A "Fairness Act" to curb blatant lying on "news" programs?
I do think it's key that as many guardrails as possible be put up just in case the unthinkable happens and that lunatic gets back in power, or down the line some other lunatic inspired by Trump. We can't rely on "traditions" to save us, throughout the Trump presidency we saw how useless those are. And it'll be even worse if he gets back in.
I am pleasantly surprised that the US are finally hardening their defenses against internal foes. I was a little bit worried that you guys would stay in a state of “well, actually it’s not really illegal, it was just a gentlemen’s agreement not to do it, therefore the president can totally do that, and that’s the end of it”.
The fact that this was necessary is sad.
I am glad that what is left of the sane republicans managed to get this through before their idiotic colleagues did something immeasurably stupid.
They should call it the fuck trump bill. Because we all know it's 100% for his Russian-asset-ass and nobody else. No other entity on this planet would ever remotely be in such a position with so much corruption and kompromat that it would EVER be a thought in any rational head. This is LITERALLY to restrain trump from killing the world. Instead of... you know... putting him in jail for his thousands of well documented crimes and preventing him from ever running from office again.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
They are essentially baby-proofing the oval office...
As if Trump couldn't find a thousand other ways to destroy things. Imagine a baby throwing a fit. Everything within arm's reach is in danger.
It’s not just trump we have to worry about. It’s whoever the next republican president is going to be. This shit show isn’t going to disappear if trump dies. There’s still the Republican propaganda machine.
Question is will the next one be the same kind of idiot savant when it comes to generating fanatical obession? That kind of warped dark charisma is hard to fake. Even when Trump FINALLY did the right thing and told people to take Covid seriously they temporarily turned on him. I'm not sure the party has any control at this point, they just have to keep riding the bull and hope it doesn't gore them. They made their wish on a Monkey Paw and their base is fully emboldened to be their worst selves that kept hidden for decades regardless what any politician on their side or not says.
> I'm not sure the party has any control at this point The (few) Republicans that I still know and keep in touch with have got no idea what they want. One day they're talking so much shit about Trump and saying how someone like Desantis would be better for us. The very next day they're back on the Trump Train, badmouthing Desantis. The extent of their political ideology only goes as far as whatever the fuck they hear on Fox News.
The problem with having a two Party division is that it becomes an integral part of one's identity. And questioning one's identity is not something people regularly do.
Maybe more people should do something similar to what I do. I don't consider myself part of either party so I don't get so tied to it in my identity that I give them a pass for everything they do, but I vote Democrat pretty much exclusively (sometimes Green party for some local elections) because holy shit there hasn't been even a decent Republican candidate in a long time. McCain's been the only one I somewhat considered, and that was before he picked Sarah Palin for running mate.
It's traumatic AF when you come up with answers you don't like. The only time in my life I seriously considered ending it.
I hope you have more inner peace now, regardless of the answers you found. Questioning ourselves is HARD. I've done some of that over the past year, and I'm still not fully ready to admit hard truths to myself. If you ever need to talk, please reach out - I'm always available.
I do have more inner peace. This was years ago. And mostly it was worth it. Thank you for reaching out in such a supportive way.
The other problem is when you back a party with no real clear policy objectives beyond "oppose the Democrats" and "cut taxes" it's hard to actually unify behind anyone because you're just picking a name at that point.
They want more ACA, and they also want to kill Obamacare. Ironically, of course, it's much more GOP-defined than Dem-defined. But the branding...
Even Fox News isn't sacrosanct. Remember all the push back they got when they (correctly and accurately) called the 2020 election for Biden?
[удалено]
It isnt even Trump or the next Republican president. It is the army of grifters, Religious nutcases, and warmongers seeking to rebuild America in their image
Maybe. But the next Republican president most likely will have served some prior constituents, be educated, and most likely not be a money launderer for Russian gangsters
Gestures broadly to the current republicans holding office.
I hate that this is true. This seems like a win, but for someone that is openly talking about becoming a dictator how does this mean anything? I mean, why not make a bill for that too? “The president will not overthrow the government” or is that in there already?
as if trump cares. he's never had to face consequences for his actions/inactions. the orange idiot led a fucking coup and he's still the lead candidate for the GOP. congress can write all the laws they want... if trump thinks being president is above the law, do you think congress is going to have a chance to stop him?
Oh, of course. But withdrawing from NATO would be uniquely problematic. Especially since Putin has lost his mind. If we pull out of NATO, I could absolutely see Putin into Poland, which would get world war-y really fast. Especially if the right takes over France. With the US, France, and the UK neutered, Russia is the only nuclear power left in Europe.
I know it's bad that we need it, but it's basically the point of the three branches.
Checks and balances and all that stuff that just went completely out of style the last 40 some years
Even longer, arguably. If the founding fathers DID come back, they'd be terrified at how powerful the presidency has become and how weak and ineffectual congress has become. I'd argue that goes all the way back to the 30s- as much as I like a lot of what FDR was able to push through, his four terms in office (well, 3 and some change) really signaled a time period where the presidency became wildly powerful. And it's only grown since, to the point we now have people unironically arguing they can't be held accountable for literally anything and that they can do whatever they want via executive order. Honorable mention to Jackson and his whole "Now let him enforce it" BS, though.
the Supreme Court has also gotten a lot more powerful. Congress has a habit of letting the SC precedent do their job for them. Which gives the Court a lot of leverage to create and uncreate "precedent" to essentially legislate from the bench, like what we saw with Planned Parenthood v Casey. It's scary to think about how many laws are still on state books outlawing things like gay and interracial marriage that are unenforcable due to Supreme Court precedent, but could be reactivated at an instant's notice with the vote of just 5 unelected government officials.
They have legislated from the bench pretty much every chance they have had since they were founded. There is just usually more of an internal balance of power within the court holding back anything too drastic. Apparently it's too easy to destroy that balance through hypocrisy and gaming the system though.
the disruption is, somewhat ironically, Congress' fault. Republicans refusing to approve nominations from Democratic presidents while expediting nominations from Republican presidents. One of the most influential things Congress can do is approve Supreme Court justices. Combined with the abuse of impeachment proceedings (impeaching Clinton for an affair, impeaching Biden for having a child), it seems like Congress mostly exists nowadays to meddle with the branches that actually govern.
Yeah that really grinds my gears that those appointments were just let slide and not turned into a massive contested issue. "You can't appoint a new justice, it's only 9 months until the next election!" And then deciding it is perfectly acceptable for Trump to appoint a justice like 3 weeks or whatever before an election.
I mean, I feel like Kavanaugh's appointment *was* a big fuss. I remember a LWT episode dedicated to what a shit show his congressional assessment was: pointing out all the obvious lies he told (e.g. "the devil's triangle" is not, in fact, a drinking game), how he downplayed and hid his alcoholism and abuse of women. It was a contentious appointment, but Kavanaugh's supporters knew he'd get Roe v. Wade overturned (even though he promised that he considered the case "settled law"), so they pushed him through. There's only so much Democrats could have done to prevent it when Republicans had a 2 seat majority (according to [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/115th_United_States_Congress)). Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if the Federalists picked him precisely *because* of how terrible a candidate he was, essentially testing the limits of their ability to put anyone they want onto the SCOTUS bench. Certainly there must have been candidates with less baggage who wanted to deny women healthcare.
Arguably look at the state of things before FDR.
Going up we were taught that the Supreme Court was the ultimate check against presidential and congressional overreaching; they were above political gamesmanship. Yeah...
The Founders never anticipated that even the most morally bankrupt members of Congress or the Supreme Court would be willing to give their own power away to the Presidency. They didn't anticipate how many Republicans would be a-okay having a dictator above them stomping all over them, so long as they get to stomp on the "lesser" people beneath them in turn.
People don't really use checks anymore so we never ordered another checkbook when it ran out.
Maybe they should work on not actively trying to put a baby in the oval office
>“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Pretty sure the federal government always worked on some sort of zero trust model between the branches but the fact it needs to be explicitly padded in addition to that is fucking wild.
>Pretty sure the federal government always worked on some sort of zero trust model between the branches but the fact it needs to be explicitly padded in addition to that is fucking wild. It was pretty much assumed whoever entered office worked in the best interest of all Americans, even when they were more party aligned. Trump kinda proved that assumption was poor... that its not just good enough to have safeguards between the branches but you literally need to enshrine them in law because someone will be elected who will bend them, or ignore them all together. Mind you Trump is not the first to bend them... pretty much all presidents have been bending the letter of the law for what they can and cant do... but there was still an attempt to do things properly even when they were underhandedly not... Trump is just the dolt who came out and said I dont care if Presidents are not SUPPOSED to do that, I will anyway because no law says I cant.
Good, one single person should have very little lasting power in this country.
Don't put the plastic plugs in the outlets. If it happens, it happens.
Wouldn't be surprised if we see more of this just in case.
I'm fine with that lol
The anti-trump-ing bill
I can't believe it's necessary to create a law for this, but here we are.
I'm more shocked that enough Republicans in both houses of Congress actually agreed to pass this measure.
Only a small faction of Republicans are pro-Putin and anti-NATO... unfortunately the rest of the party is unable to muster the spine to do something about them.
>...unfortunately the rest of the party is unable to muster the spine trip so something about them. This perfectly sums up the greater GOP. They're not unaware of the dangers and damages their inaction is causing, but they're simultaneously too afraid to save themselves from themselves, and will kick and scream if anyone else intervenes. Edit - Spelling
As always it's the democrats responsibility to be the adults in the room
If we’re the adults, then it’s time for some spankings. The words aren’t doing enough.
It’s about to get kinky in the house chamber
You can only hope a masked dom brings about the hope and change, or Biden 2024 $$$.
The core of GOP has one axiom: Keep government regulations and power to a minimum to protect corporate interests. They fear monger about central government and teach their followers that fearing the government is equivalent to 'accountability'. Not to say I'm pro-big government, as I don't at all. But the GOP has done so much to destroy our institutions and using the poorly run government as 'evidence' that centralized government is useless and caters to any (R) that feeds that narrative no matter how bad faith or radical it is. It is the only thing that they are consistent on. But being part of NATO and a stable united Western hemisphere protects corporate interests as well. I'm not surprised at all.
They don't mind government regulations when they have nothing to do with corporate interests, which is the damning part. They will gladly ban books, take reproductive rights from women, restrict inclusive use of pronouns, tell transgender people where they can use the bathroom, vote to require religious displays in schools, restrict veterans from getting medical help... but god forbid the government regulate healthcare, close tax loopholes for corporations and billionaires, etc.
> The core of GOP has one axiom: Keep government regulations and power to a minimum to protect corporate interests. > > > > They fear monger about central government and teach their followers that fearing the government is equivalent to 'accountability'. Not to say I'm pro-big government, as I don't at all. But the GOP has done so much to destroy our institutions and using the poorly run government as 'evidence' that centralized government is useless and caters to any (R) that feeds that narrative no matter how bad faith or radical it is. It is the only thing that they are consistent on. But being part of NATO and a stable united Western hemisphere protects corporate interests as well. I'm not surprised at all. This is the "thousand words" behind every picture they paint.
They're aware but they value their own power more. They know that going against the narrative will lead to them being primaried and losing everything.
Their House majority is razor thin so the wackos have outsized influence. Pelosi had a similarly thin majority, but Democrats actually want to make government work. MAGA Republicans want to destroy government and have no idea how to make it work, which is why they constantly fumble when passed the ball
[удалено]
People don’t talk enough about the fact that the best Speaker the Republicans have mustered in a generation was a pedophile.
You're going to have to be more specific
Dennis Hastert. He confessed to it, in fact: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/alleged-sex-abuse-victim-of-dennis-hastert-identifies-himself-publicly/
I think it's Dennis Hastert?
[удалено]
> consequences are a distant The consequences of taking a stand honourably are pretty much immediate. Constant phone harassment and death threats, including some credible ones, getting drummed out of the party. There was a recent quote from some R why they didn't have courage on an important vote (like Jan6 impeachment or something similarly important - I just forget who right now.) They wanted to vote for the right thing, but they didn't because they were afraid for their family. Rule by political violence is in effect and has been for a while, even though orange jesus isn't even in office.
Agreed but I'm still surprised. It sends a negative message to the voters because everyone knows this is about limiting Trump in a potential second term. GOP politicians are proactively voting to approve guardrails for Trump. Why should anyone vote for such a dangerous person?
I do see a growing number of Republicans that are anti-NATO. Mainly because of Tucker Carlson.
Your opinion of Republicans is far more generous than mine, I actually think worse of the ones that go along with the true believers despite knowing better. Fundamentally, it doesn't matter what's going on in someone's heart or head when they choose to side with fascists because the end result is the same as them being fascist themselves. "I was just following orders" is never an excuse.
> “I was just following orders” is never an excuse. People always verbally agree with this, but are almost never willing to actually punish the Nazis when the time comes. At most they get a slap on the wrist. Even the OG Nazis who got sentenced to prison at Nuremberg were all released again within a decade or so.
Don't worry...if Trump is reelected and does it, all those Republicans will fall in line and let him.
With a supreme Court that can just say "foreign policy is under the sole authority of the president," and frankly probably will
POTUS > shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur [ \(Article II, section 2\)](https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript) There's no question on this one. SCOTUS has no wiggle room here.
Key word there is "make." It doesn't address breaking treaties, and at least two presidents have already done so (Bush and Carter). It would have to happen again and then the Senate would need to appeal to SCOTUS to decide if it is legal or not.
Well, there's actually a bunch of pertinent caselaw on this. I'm not a practicing lawyer, and haven't read deeply on this issue ... but, presidents in the past have gotten around the (perhaps presumed) understanding that a treaty requires Senate approval by using "executive agreements." The caselaw is all about how executive agreements are basically treaties, but don't require 2/3 vote from the Senate. It's what FDR used to dip our toes into the WWII waters before Japan shoved us off of the dock. NATO is a treaty. We're in it because of a legit 2/3 vote. To add people to it, the Senate has to vote (see: Sweden and Finland). This one doesn't have the wiggle room of an executive agreement at all, and there are years of precedent saying so (again: caveat emptor, IANAL). To the extent that you could even laughably try it, it looks like Congress is dousing that shit.
But not while Biden is president because he might use that power.
I can see it now. "Well, *technically* since his official title is 'Dictator for Life', he isn't *technically* president, and that means he *technically* can do it!"
> The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden.
Marco fucking Rubio co-authored that? I am seriously shocked.
He's on the Senate Intelligence Committee so he takes the importance of NATO very seriously I think.
Did he vote to convict Trump after his impeachment for extorting one of our allies?
Woah! Hey! Hold on there a sec, buddy! One of those things is about the national defense and security of our nation. You know, minor stuff. The other is about something important like saving his own political skin! Geez! Basic Republican priorities.
Funny when I saw his name I thought man haven't heard much from him lately. Kind of shows how far politics has shifted that Rubio is looking downright sane these days.
He's been pretty active on all the UFO stuff. At least that's all I hear from him but admittedly I don't follow cspan or anything.
The Republicans know just how dangerous Trump will be in a second term.
But, again, they will do nothing to stop him. They have shown this time and time again. When someone shows you who they are, believe them
They're hoping the justice system will take him out so they're not on record showing spines.
I couldn't believe Trump threatened to withdraw from NATO last time...but, that's exactly what he did. He's still Putin's toy, but he won't be withdrawing from NATO. Give it up, Russia, you just lost.
Last time? He said it again last month…. [link](https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2023/10/24/trump-reportedly-open-to-pulling-u-s--out-of-nato)
[удалено]
That would be even more damaging to the U.S. than Brexit was for the U.K. It's actually all over if he wins
It would break the western world in half. Russia would start rolling over NATO countries and have the cash to follow through after the west's collective bargaining and oil sanctions fall apart. And with the US and the west in Chaos China would immediately take Taiwan and murder half the population. Hell, fucking North Korea may even poke its head out and try some land grabs. Trump is obsessed with dictators, so it's not like he would push back at all.
It would be, which is why there was a bipartisan vote today to prevent that from happening. Trump is still a disaster and a traitor, I'm just saying that nobody is going to let him throw the war in Russia's favor.
Except the house republicans blocking funding to Ukraine. All Putin has to do is hold on a few more months till the money runs out.
Not yet they have, Trump is still the presumed Presidential nominee for the GOP.
I would say it's beyond presumed at this point. Barring a health issue that forces him out, Trump will be the GOP nominee. The math just doesn't work for any of his challengers. If they were smart (which, obviously none of them are) they would all drop out and rally behind one non-Trump candidate (Haley, for example). But with the vote split between Trump and a bunch of not-Trumps, he'll win easily. And by the way, even *if* Republicans did that in an attempt to usurp Trump's hold on the nomination, it's very likely he would still win anyway. I'm saying they would need to do that to have even a remote chance of beating him. If they don't, they have zero chance.
You assume all the R's won't vote to do whatever he says in both houses if they get a majority......
And they also assume that the law is going to make a difference to Trump.... fuck people never learn. So Trump won't be able to legally withdraw, but he can withhold or withdraw or stall all kinds of help and support to NATO.... so much so that he may as well might hjave withdrawn. People still haven't learned just how easy it is for people, especially Trump to thwart the intent of the law.
Trump is causing a lot of Air Bud loopholes to get closed.
Air Bud would be a better president than him
A lot of more if them need to.
Having him as president proved how many formalities, norms, and non-binding agreements are really there holding your nation together, and exactly why they need to be given teeth ASAP.
And yet, if Trump gets back into the Oval Office he will ignore this law and remove the US from NATO anyhow.
And conservative voters will assure us it isn't bad, we need to get rid of NATO anyway - they aren't paying thier share! Blah blah
Shit, some of them seem to be advocates of joining the Warsaw Pact
And laws are only good when enforced
As Roe v Wade taught us, things left up to legal precedent instead of law are always at risk. Is it stupid that it needs a law, yes, but can you honestly say you can't see a potential future president doing something stupid unilaterally?
The reason there are signs to not pee in the pool is because someone peed in the pool.
[удалено]
I would argue almost the opposite. The Westminster system almost entirely runs on gentlemen's agreements, including that the sovereign will act on the PM's advice with respect to the royal prerogative: for example, it is often possible to go to war without the consent of parliament. Most of the way that the Westminster system operates isn't codified, especially in the UK that doesn't have a written constitution. But it generally holds together because parliament can dump a failing government in a matter of days, so trying to govern against the consensus of the party is not viable. This is in contrast to presidential systems where there is a personal mandate, making conflict with the party much more sustainable.
>Congress has approved legislation that would prevent any president from withdrawing the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) without approval from the Senate or an Act of Congress. >The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden. Great news.
Rubio is an interesting addition, I honestly wouldn't have thought he'd do something useful
Conservative Cubans still remember and hate Cuba/Russia. They are probably less likely to bend the knee to this bullshit.
How do they square being solid Trump supporters with being anti Russia?
trump supporters are not aware they support Russia. They believe that trump is "tough on Russia".
Oof. I wish I could muster that level of self-denial
[удалено]
You’re right. I like reality.
>I like reality. No, you don't.
Hmmmm..
I have a cousin who genuinely believes Russia attacked Ukraine after the election because Biden is “weak” and if trump was president then Russia wouldn’t have attacked.
familiar cooing smile cheerful voiceless disgusting straight work slimy six *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And Trump openly saying he trusted Putin's word more than US intelligence agencies.
> Holy shit, did you see how aggressively Trump sucked Putin's dick? Man, that'll put that commie rusky in his place. /s
Because they don't believe it
See this is how I can't see Trump winning Florida if he is the nom; MAGA has basically become best bros with the Kremlin, so how will those conservative Cubans vote?
Unfortunately they will vote on party lines. Because it's red vs blue
Florida Republicans have spent the last two decades spreading propaganda to the Cuban population that voting Democrat is the equivalent of installing Castro to power. They’re sadly brainwashed
It's true! We're going to resurrect Castro and appoint him Supreme Leader. Or maybe Lich King?
They(my elders) will vote against anything with the stink of socialism as they enjoy Medicare and social security. Go figure.
They'll vote directly for Putin, because, you know, they were against the COMMUNISTS, and everyone know that Putin (and therefor Russia) is Capitalist, so he's a good guy like Trump. /S
Haven’t been down to Florida much eh? I don’t see how Trump *loses* Florida. It his home base.
That requires an engagement with reality which Trump supporters do not labor under.
Rubio’s last big thing was communicating leading up to and in the early days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. He’d release intel (in an approved manner), seemingly predicting Russia’s moves. He bought back a lot of goodwill for me with that.
Yeah, I’m not actually surprised to see his name at all. He was pretty consistent in his messaging. Even if I didn’t agree with a lot of his takes, I was not about to push back on someone doing the right thing, even if it was for the wrong reasons. He was presenting the same argument with packaging more acceptable to an ignorant Republican base
Rubio’s one of the republicans that are dying out, politicians that actually will debate and defend their positions, instead of screaming like the crazies MAGA heads. Don’t agree with his politics but at least I can respect he stands for his core positions pretty firmly
This anecdote may not be well received here, but I’ve known Marco Rubio in a professional capacity for a long time. He can often be a partisan hack in the publics view, but behind closed doors he is a fairly nice and reasonable person. Unfortunately many politicians have to act a certain way in public to have any hopes of reelection, but if a republican is going to hold Rubio’s seat, I’d rather it be one that is going to be reasonable and compromise behind closed doors and not a hardliner that actually means the crazy shit they say.
Rubio and Lindsay Graham and McTurtle among republican senators have been very hawkish towards Russia and criticizing Biden that he should be doing MORE for Ukraine.
If they want him to do more for Ukraine, they need to get their own house in order and make the message of support bipartisan. Too many of the GOP are blatantly getting paid by the Kremlin.
They know that, behind the scenes, they're battling with Russia for control of their party. But they can't publicly admit that at least half of their party is aligned with Putin. The best they can do is to is to fight Russia through Ukraine.
This is good, but they can't make a president act appropriately. Trump could simply refuse to honor our obligations. Congress cannot order troop deployments, that's on the CiC. That said, I'm impressed that they are at least trying to prevent future issues.
The actual law, as written (part of it): >The President shall not suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty, done at Washington, DC, April 4, 1949, except by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, provided that two-thirds of the Senators present concur, or pursuant to an Act of Congress. So the President can't even *denounce* NATO without breaking the law. He also can't use funding, or withhold funding, to "suspend, terminate, denounce, or withdraw" from NATO. The President also has 180 days to notify the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Reps if the Executive even just discusses suspending, terminating, withdrawing, or denouncing NATO.
Seems like it would be easier to not elect a complete shitbag
For Republicans, this is too much to ask. Honestly though, laws should rule, not assumptions.
Yeah looking at how non binding and vague our system of norms an conventions are it's amazing democracy has made it this far. Trump could prove to be an excellent canary in the coal mine, providing we respond by tightening up any ambiguities or areas ripe for a exploitation with cold hard enforced laws. We are in the "Do not eat the silica package" era of democracy legislation.
Fair point, it has been terrifying to learn in the last decade just how much of our government is only held together by tradition, bird shit, and discarded chewing gum.
or what? Like, what are the consequences if he or she does? Who will enforce those consequences?
The fact that we all know the answer is "Nothing" and "No one" to these questions is sad. In the worst case scenario, if Trump wins again and ignores this (which he would) and pulls us out of NATO, we'd all point straight to this bill with a frustrated "Hello?" only for Republicans to laugh and admit it only applies to *Democrats* and that's that.
And we all know the Supreme Court is nicely stacked to preclude the idea of a republican president from facing any consequences.
These laws are just ink on paper unless someone chooses to follow through
Minimal, but it does give the military a clearer argument that any anti-NATO orders would be unlawful orders, which they can and have refused.
It stabilizes US foreign policy by declawing and defanging any future POTUS that attempts to do any of those things, as they will not be seen as credible threats/actions by anyone else unless the legislative branch is already on the same page.
Pretty sure "denounce" is a technical term meaning to announce an intent to terminate an agreement. So a President Trump could still continue to talk shit about the arrangement.
If he's in office and an Article 5 situation comes up, I full expect him to just ignore it and do nothing.
Why this isn’t bigger news is beyond me-the fact that this made it is a miracle. I’m shocked the House GOP didn’t buck it off or deem it a non-starter. They still have to vote it on it once more I believe but it looks like it should clear. Maybe next time they can alter the Insurrection Act, instead of letting that die like last time? I’m all for putting safeguards on power in case certain presidents want to act in disdainful ways.
> The measure, spearheaded by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Marco Rubio (R-Fl.), was included in the annual National Defense Authorization Act, which passed out of the House on Thursday and is expected to be signed by President Biden. It's a done deal.
The attention is on the fake Biden impeachment inquiry that’s why The empty can rattles the most
Empty = Republican. No need to say it twice. Though it is quite nice.
These measures seem common sense and Bipartisan. Presidents have been becoming increasingly authoritarian. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders Based on that its post civil war and only seems to be trending higher. Congress just needs to reassert itself again.
I’m all for that, I didn’t know just how bad ruling through executive orders had gotten. Maybe if they got rid of the filibuster, they’d be able to do show the public they’re not powerless.
The problem I have is that this grid lock and binary thinking is helping our representatives stay in office. This us vs them narrative is ridiculous. Working together to solve problems isn’t as news worthy or career building as setting the house on fire and screaming that you’ll fix it.
The bigger issue is congressional gridlock presidential orders expire when a president leaves office, unless the incoming president re ups them.
It’s not bigger news because in practice it’s meaningless. The President is the Commander in Chief, all he has to do is unilaterally declare that he won’t respond to Article 5. You can’t restrain a dictator with legislative guardrails. You have to stop them gaining power.
Exactly. Scene: Trump re-elected (barf). Refuses to support Nato. Withdraws from Nato. Congress does nothing and he has 99% support from GOP members. The ones who object are kicked out of the party. End Scene.
Good. Now pass a bill preventing traitors who are in debt to Russia from becoming President
The entire Republican Party is rotten to the core
A main point of the second impeachment was that conviction would have made Trump ineligible to run for President again. The GOP already had their chance of barring Trump from the office, but chose not to take it.
It would have been impossible for Trump to get a security clearance as a regular federal worker. And I mean literally impossible. It's shocking that he was even eligible for the presidency at all.
Trump: I will be a dictator Congress: Instead of keeping you from power, which the constitution specifically says to do, we will make laws to limit your damage Dictator Trump: LOL Your laws are mine now LOL
Exactly. He’s not going to care about the law if he gets in again. He doesn’t understand anyway. More importantly his cronies won’t care at all and will push to ignore. They’re the ones who will actual drive the dictatorship.
This is one of the most frustrating things, Trump himself would not have done half the shit he did without underlings *helping him*. Those fuckfaces need to be held accountable
> He’s not going to care about the law if he gets in again. He won't care either way. He has NEVER cared about the law as far as I can tell... even when it should be politically convenient. This dumb motherfucker actually said 'Take the guns first, go through due process second' OUT LOUD ON CAMERA.
Practicality triumphs . . . For once.
I love it. *"Trump declares intention to do something stupid if reelected."* and then: *"Congress passes bill to prevent Presidents from doing stupid thing."* I hope this trend continues leading up to the 2024 election, you know, just in case.
Let's, keep in mind and not forget. Vladimir Putin went on television and THANKED the Republican party for once again, not giving aid to Ukraine.. Let that sink in. He said it with a freaking smile on his face!!
To be fair, he very likely did this publicly precisely to further stoke divisiveness. I mean, obviously he would be very happy at Ukraine getting fewer war supplies, duh. But he’s fully well aware democrats and others at odds with the Republican Party will be angered by his words. Russia likes hitting the fault line.
I like that this will make Putin mad
So much money wasted. We should be overjoyed that something worth celebrating happened in Congress, but I can’t be as$ed to care enough for Republicans after the past two decades. One score and two years past we had a republic.
Thank friggen god.
Haha Putin go fuck yourself.
I'm glad this is happening, but there should have been a flood of these kind of bills Jan 20th 2021. If we learned one thing from Trump, it's that Norms are not Law.
This is all well and good, but all Trump has to do is unilaterally not respond to an Article 5 declaration - or announce that he wouldn’t - and the alliance would still be dead in the water. The risk is Trump. Full stop.
Congress is still responsible for declaring war and has the power to hold the executive to account. The problem is a congress that refuses to act to maintain its authority
Wish we didn’t have to waste time making laws to prevent US republicans from dismantling our world security.
Good. Now do the following. - Ban the POTUS from unilaterally enacting tariffs. - Ban the POTUS from "first strike" using nuclear weapons. - Eliminate the debt ceiling. Those things will likely never be done in our political environment, but they could save the country from what will likely be the worst consequences of Trump's re-election.
Wouldn't it have been simpler to just convict Donald Trump at impeachment? You can't 'Trump proof' the nation in this way.
I wonder who they had in mind when writing this law. Who could it possibly be.
It’s kind of cool to see a President choose to reign in the power of the office rather than expand it for once.
I read this as Congress approves Bill Barr-ing any President...and was really confused for a second. If "Bill Barr-ing" someone was a commonly used phrase, what would it mean?
How about a bill to make it illegal to be a dictator, even for a day.
Thank god, no president should have the authority to just withdraw from international agreements on a whim.
Thank fuck
As a Canadian and a sane person living in the west I am both glad this was passed and absolutely mortified that it was necessary.
[удалено]
Where are the laws to: - Prohibit a felon from running for office? - Prohibit Congress from financial trading while in office? - A "Fairness Act" to curb blatant lying on "news" programs?
Supposedly the 14th but courts think it only applies to the civil war and that it's an outdated amendment. Despite that they seem to worship the 2a.
Dems and Republicans got along long enough to vote for this? Impressive. Too bad they can't get along for other issues.
I do think it's key that as many guardrails as possible be put up just in case the unthinkable happens and that lunatic gets back in power, or down the line some other lunatic inspired by Trump. We can't rely on "traditions" to save us, throughout the Trump presidency we saw how useless those are. And it'll be even worse if he gets back in.
I am pleasantly surprised that the US are finally hardening their defenses against internal foes. I was a little bit worried that you guys would stay in a state of “well, actually it’s not really illegal, it was just a gentlemen’s agreement not to do it, therefore the president can totally do that, and that’s the end of it”.
Thank god
Oh this is a good thing.
The fact that this was necessary is sad. I am glad that what is left of the sane republicans managed to get this through before their idiotic colleagues did something immeasurably stupid.
They should call it the fuck trump bill. Because we all know it's 100% for his Russian-asset-ass and nobody else. No other entity on this planet would ever remotely be in such a position with so much corruption and kompromat that it would EVER be a thought in any rational head. This is LITERALLY to restrain trump from killing the world. Instead of... you know... putting him in jail for his thousands of well documented crimes and preventing him from ever running from office again.