Tariffs

[Zero999]

If you distrust your juridical system, it's your problem.
Still you would respect the laws, don't you?
We know that Putin had the democratic (!) Russian constitution changed so he can be a dictator. The difference is that he had a majority to do so, while the current US administration doesn't have that majority. I think the US administration has to respect the constitution and they will be considered criminals otherwise.
In the case of tariffs there is no room for interpretation. The judge wrote a long paper explaining that in detail.

The previous administration also violated the constitution. For example, they pushed social media companies to censor content they didn't like, in violation with the First Amendment. The Twitter files are evidence of this. There is no room for interpretation.

[PlainName]

How may times can each side do a wrong before they all cancel out? It's ridiculous to say breaking this law is OK because they broke that law. Neither is right, and both should be taken to task for their transgression.

[Zero999]

How may times can each side do a wrong before they all cancel out? It's ridiculous to say breaking this law is OK because they broke that law. Neither is right, and both should be taken to task for their transgression.

That's really the point I'm trying to make. I find it funny how many on the other side kept silent when their side were in the wrong and are only complaining now those who they oppose are wrong. Whilst I agree with many of the current administration's ideology, I do not support all of their actions and can objectively see when they're in the wrong.

[Sorama]

Some people really have lost any sense of reality.
Shame on them.

[tszaboo]

How may times can each side do a wrong before they all cancel out? It's ridiculous to say breaking this law is OK because they broke that law. Neither is right, and both should be taken to task for their transgression.

So we let one side entrench themselves and unelected officials to make decisions that are opposing the majority vote?
That will only go so far, then it will break. The people decided for now, that instead of civil war, they will resolve this peacefully. There are plenty of examples where a country continues without the continuity of law. Yes the sitting government did something illegal, and the country is still there a hundred years later. And it wasn't fascism, it was for example going from a monarchy to a democracy. There are plenty of examples of this. Even the US constitution came out after breaching the legal continuity.
I'm a lot more afraid of the recent European events, where they are banning leading political parties left and right. Oh you want to elect these guys? Wrong choice, go again.
Just ignore it. Don't do politics.

[BravoV]

NOTE: This message has been deleted by the forum moderator Simon for being against the forum rules and/or at the discretion of the moderator as being in the best interests of the forum community and the nature of the thread.
If you believe this to be in error, please contact the moderator involved.
An optional additional explanation is:

[Marco]

In most civilized countries changes to the constitution require a larger majority.

I do not considered this civilized. Why should only the supreme court by penumbral divination be able to reinterpret the constition as they will, by simple majority, yet the legislative with a far more direct democratic mandate need a supermajority?

This vests way way too much power into the supreme court and makes a mockery of the division of powers.

In my country the supreme court isn't even allowed to test law against the constitution and I think that's just. The constitution should be a guide for the legislative, not a stick for some old fogies to bend in any shape they wish to beat a democratically elected government with.

[Simon]

Remember the fundamental pillars of a democracy. Independent parliament elected by the people makes law, independent police enforce the law, independent judiciary judge on when the law has been broken, the laws enacted by the government the people elected.

[Marco]

The problem is that judging actions of the legislative (which is rubber stamping Trump's actions)  as unconstitutional means overriding their ability to legislate.

Ultimately the meaning of the constitution is just an opinion man ... by denying the legislative the ability to dictate what that opinion should be, a judge is legislating.

[tggzzz]

The problem is that judging actions of the legislative (which is rubber stamping Trump's actions)  as unconstitutional means overriding their ability to legislate.

Ultimately the meaning of the constitution is just an opinion man ... by denying the legislative the ability to dictate what that opinion should be, a judge is legislating.

And by ignoring legal judgements, one man is acting as if they are above the law. "Emperor T'rump", or not?

[Sal Ammoniac]

In most civilized countries changes to the constitution require a larger majority. In the US that would be a two-thirds vote that the current administration doesn't have. That's why they try to change it by breaking it. Seems like the current president didn't understand the oath of inauguration.

Changing the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states. In the current political climate, this is a bar too high to reach.

[Marco]

And by ignoring legal judgements, one man is acting as if they are above the law. "Emperor T'rump", or not?

It's pending appeal (assuming we're still talking about the tariffs).

[Marco]

Changing the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states. In the current political climate, this is a bar too high to reach.

In the US changing the legal meaning of it just takes adding a few judges to the supreme court though and they can take it to mean literally anything.

[Sal Ammoniac]

the attempts to keep him off the ballot (Colorado).
Both parties are despicable here.

The Fourteenth Amendment is quite clear on this:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... [who] shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection and was thus ineligible to hold any public office, including that of president. And since Congress didn't vote to remove the disability, he remained ineligible.

This is hardly "lawfare" unless you consider lawfare to be anything that negatively impacts your side despite its basis in fact.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Changing the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states. In the current political climate, this is a bar too high to reach.

In the US changing the legal meaning of it just takes adding a few judges to the supreme court though and they can take it to mean literally anything.

Yes, unfortunately that is the case. Even clearly worded parts of the Constitution, such as the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, have been under attack recently by the current SCOTUS. The checks-and-balances envisioned by the Founders have proven to be weak and ineffectual under the current regime.

[Sorama]

Changing the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote in both houses of Congress, and ratification by 3/4 of the states. In the current political climate, this is a bar too high to reach.

In the US changing the legal meaning of it just takes adding a few judges to the supreme court though and they can take it to mean literally anything.

Yes, unfortunately that is the case. Even clearly worded parts of the Constitution, such as the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, have been under attack recently by the current SCOTUS. The checks-and-balances envisioned by the Founders have proven to be weak and ineffectual under the current regime.

One really does not need (hiding behind) a constitution: if one does not admit or see this man is a crook , a by a democratically chosen  jury convicted criminal then you’re a criminal yourself.

[tszaboo]

One really does not need (hiding behind) a constitution: if one does not admit or see this man is a crook , a by a democratically chosen  jury convicted criminal then you’re a criminal yourself.

Again with the name calling. You do realize that the democrats themselves admitted that they were politically driven kangaroo courts, which was overturned or dismissed every single time?
What wasn't overturned was Trump vs ABC or Trump vs CBS news for defamation. But probably he could've gone after every mayor news network if he wanted.

[Zero999]

the attempts to keep him off the ballot (Colorado).
Both parties are despicable here.

The Fourteenth Amendment is quite clear on this:

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States ... [who] shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Trump engaged in insurrection and was thus ineligible to hold any public office, including that of president. And since Congress didn't vote to remove the disability, he remained ineligible.

This is hardly "lawfare" unless you consider lawfare to be anything that negatively impacts your side despite its basis in fact.

The Colorado Supreme Court doesn't have jurisdiction over the entire US.

That's purely one court's opinion. Many others don't think it was an insurrection, but a protest which turned violent.

[Marco]

Even clearly worded parts of the Constitution, such as the Establishment Clause

The charter case and storybook case can just as easily be seen as being about free exercise of religion and tax exemption bullshit is business as usual (Walz etc). There is plenty real things to be concerned about, just because Trump has an opinion on something doesn't mean it's important.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us-supreme-court-may-broaden-religious-rights-looming-rulings-2025-05-19/

My country has publicly funded schools of every major denomination.

[Sal Ammoniac]

Many others don't think it was an insurrection, but a protest which turned violent.

Sure, keep sane-washing it, just like Nixon wasn't a crook and Clinton didn't have sex with that woman.

[Sorama]

One really does not need (hiding behind) a constitution: if one does not admit or see this man is a crook , a by a democratically chosen  jury convicted criminal then you’re a criminal yourself.

Again with the name calling. You do realize that the democrats themselves admitted that they were politically driven kangaroo courts, which was overturned or dismissed every single time?
What wasn't overturned was Trump vs ABC or Trump vs CBS news for defamation. But probably he could've gone after every mayor news network if he wanted.

Are we really going to compare what (ever) democrats did vs what’s happening now?
It’s not a digital world out there you know….

[Sal Ammoniac]

The charter case and storybook case can just as easily be seen as being about free exercise of religion

Nothing wrong with free exercise of religion--that's covered by the 1st amendment, and isn't in dispute. What matters is if the free exercise of religion involves a government institution, or government funded institutions, like schools. That case is also covered in the 1st amendment and is prohibited by the Establishment Clause.

The storybook case is somewhat different from the charter case, and I agree that parents should be able to opt out of having their kids exposed to certain viewpoints in school--but where do you draw the line? What if the parents are in a fundamentalist religion that thinks evolution is false? Do you prevent schools from teaching evolution at all (this was actually the case in many states for decades), or do you allow parents to opt their kids out of biology class? You can't effectively teach biology without evolution as it's the bedrock of that science--it would be like trying to teach electronics without Ohm's law or Kirchhoff's laws.

Public education in the U.S. has been under attack for decades with numerous attempts to take money away from the public school system and redirect it to often religious-based private schools which are usually not subject to the same curriculum standards public schools are. The more recent attempt by Oklahoma failed when SCOTUS deadlocked on the issue because Barrett recused herself. All it'll take now is for another place to bring a similar case where Barrett doesn't have a conflict and it'll result in a 5:4 decision.

[TimFox]

The First Amendment guarantees free exercise of religion, but also forbids "establishment of religion", in the USA.
Other countries (England, Norway, etc.) have "established churches", subsidized and controlled by the government, but allow citizens to practice other religions.

[Marco]

Nothing wrong with free exercise of religion--that's covered by the 1st amendment, and isn't in dispute. What matters is if the free exercise of religion involves a government institution, or government funded institutions, like schools. That case is also covered in the 1st amendment and is prohibited by the Establishment Clause.

Why would the benevolent neutrality from Walz not apply to education? Our constitution is similar and every religious school meeting some minum standard can get public funding, using much the same reasoning as in Walz.

It's just tradition and opinion, nothing clear cut.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/benevolent-neutrality/

[Sal Ammoniac]

Nothing wrong with free exercise of religion--that's covered by the 1st amendment, and isn't in dispute. What matters is if the free exercise of religion involves a government institution, or government funded institutions, like schools. That case is also covered in the 1st amendment and is prohibited by the Establishment Clause.

Why would the benevolent neutrality from Walz not apply to education? Our constitution is similar and every religious school meeting some minum standard can get public funding, using much the same reasoning as in Walz.

It's just tradition and opinion, nothing clear cut.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/benevolent-neutrality/

Read the Wikipedia article on segregation academies to get some history on the push for public funding of private schools in the U.S.