I agree, and I even explained that in a different comment somewhere. I just find it highly doubtful that enough people will do it for it to make a difference.
wonderingwanderer
joined 1 week ago
You might as well say that into a mirror, because you're obviously projecting.
I know you meant it to be humorous. If I thought you were seriously trying to claim that he has the authority, my response would have been much sharper and likely gotten me banned.
That being said, I disagree that I took it too seriously. I take it very seriously. It's a serious matter. I believe we must be firm and clear about that.
And I understand that so far he seems to be getting away with flagrantly violating the constitution at every turn. That pisses me off to no end. But it doesn't change the fact that he is subject to the restraints imposed by the constitution. He has no legal basis for disregarding it, and I won't mince words about that. Nor will I joke about it.
It's already bad enough that he's getting away with it. Let's not pretend that means he's actually allowed to do anything he wants.
Wrong. By unilaterally withholding congressionally-allocated tax funds (which is unconstitutional), he's using executive power to bypass Congress.
In other words, the representational branch of the US government is being boxed out of their constitutional duty to allocate federal funds. The people's elected representatives are not having the final say on how that tax money is being distributed, as the constitution prescribes.
The people are still paying taxes. Their elected representatives are being bypassed (unconstitutionally) by the executive, who is unilaterally withholding congressionally-allocated tax funds. That is not what it means to have representation.
What authority he has is spelled out in the constitution, and the authority to do what he's doing is given to Congress. Doing it without congressional approval is unconstitutional.
Congress and the judiciary being spineless or complicit doesn't confer authority. It might give him the leeway to overstep his authority, but that doesn't change the fact that he doesn't have the authority.
Let's not muddy the waters. He would love for you to believe he does have the authority.
No, you said whoever came up with the idea was a moron of epic proportions. And your explanation as to why was directly due to the arbitrariness of the prime meridian.
In geospatial terms, anything to the west of the prime meridian has a longitudinal coordinate of n°W, where 0°<n<180°. Anything east of the prime meridian is likewise n°E. Hence, eastern and western hemispheres.
Yes, the western hemisphere is to the east of Fiji. No, that doesn't change anything.
I shouldn't have to break it down into such basic terms for such a smartypants as you, so hopefully this doesn't come as an insult to your intelligence.
We've already seen enough examples of "doing things at the individual level" to know that not even close to "everyone" will be on board.
By all means, do it. But don't expect the level of solidarity required to make the federal treasury even notice.
Things like this require collective action, and since the average american is union-phobic, the only organizations we can look to are the state governments. But since they don't handle federal taxes, there's not much they can do short of seceding from the union. Which would be a bit too extreme as long as there's even an inkling of hope in a free and fair election followed by a peaceful transfer of power saving us.
In short, we're fucked.
You can leave it all behind, and sail to Lahaina just like the missionaries did so many years ago...
They even brought a neon sign, "Jesus is coming." They brought the white man's burden down, they brought the white man's reign...
And you can see them there, on Sunday morning, stand up and sing about, what it's like up there. They call it Paradise, I don't know why! Call some place paradise, kiss it good-byyyyyeee...
It just means west of Greenwich, chill out.
Yes it's arbitrary, the reasons are more historiographical rather than geographical, but back when the sun never set on the British empire, it seemed as good a line as any to the people making the rules at the time.
There's also no geometric reason why we divide days into 24 hours, but the ancient Egyptians did it so we still do. Why is a week 7 days? Why are there 12 months in a year? Why is a centimeter or a kilogram precisely what it is?
It's all arbitrary, but that doesn't make it any less useful as a standardized concept.
The executive doesn't have that unilateral authority. What he's doing is illegal; unconstitutional, even.
"No taxation without representation" ring any bells?
What are they gonna do, build a wall?
That's not what authority is.
And don't pretend the inane drivel that comes out of steven miller's mouth constitutes valid legal rationale.