The US constitution is in peril. Civil and human rights are being trampled upon. The economy is in disarray.

At this rate, we will not make it through the second 100 days.

Federal judges in more than 120 cases so far have sought to stop Trump – judges appointed by Republicans as well as Democrats, some appointed by Trump himself – but the regime is either ignoring or appealing their orders. It has even arrested a municipal judge in Milwaukee amid a case involving an undocumented defendant.

Recently, Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III of the court of appeals for the fourth circuit – an eminent conservative Reagan appointee who is revered by the Federalist Society – issued a scathing rebuke to the Trump regime. In response to its assertion that it can abduct residents of the US and put them into foreign prisons without due process, Wilkinson wrote:

If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ would lose its meaning.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    12 hours ago

    that Germany is would be different

    I hope we can agree that “different” and “not surviving” is not the same thing!

    But I hope we all agree that that’s a BS argument.

    No it’s not, according to the rules of the federation, no state is allowed to secede according to the constitution!!

    You seem to be arguing from a personal opinion of what USA should be rather than reality of what it really is.

    today we find ourselves fast approaching a situation where the federal government will have total control over the states,

    Yes that’s true, and it’s not supposed to be like that, but in reality it always was a risk by the way the federation clearly always can trump the states. This is VERY different from EU, which is built with way way higher without comparison better protection of the member states.

    • teawrecks@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I hope we can agree that “different” and “not surviving” is not the same thing!

      Hah, it’s now a discussion of literal existentialism. No, I would say one could reasonably believe that “different” and “not surviving” are symonomous. The form that something existed in did not survive, and now only the new, different form exists. Ship of Theseus. If you replace every part of the old country one-by-one, once every part is replaced is it the same country or a different one? In this case, I think it’s not useful to try to claim it’s the same country.

      No it’s not, according to the rules of the federation, no state is allowed to secede according to the constitution!!

      Again, that’s not what justified the civil war. Again, I agree that a peaceful democratic secession should be allowed, but again that’s neither here nor there. Because here is a federal government ignoring the states’ checks/balances, and there is a crime against humanity that was justified in being stopped by the other states, not a federal government acting outside of the states’ checks/balances.

      You seem to be arguing from a personal opinion of what USA should be

      I am arguing based on the founding doctrine of the US and the concept of Federalism.

      it always was a risk by the way the federation clearly always can trump the states

      The assumption you’re making is that the federal govt was designed to have autonomy of its own separate from the states. But the federal govt was intended to only be a democratic-republically determined representation of the states’ intentions. Trump has the same misunderstanding, which is why he’s using the “activist judges” rhetoric. But by design of the US constitution, the states are intended to have checks on the power of the federal govt. Regardless of how any 2A nut interprets the 2nd Amendment, that is the actual intended purpose: to prevent a federally organized military from staging a coup. The federation was always intended to be a way for the states to hold the power to regulate themselves.

      The EU is fine for now, but I could easily see them going down a road to toward the same mistakes the US made. Especially if, in response to the failure of the US, they end up organizing a centralized EU-controlled military, and then all it takes is a bit of FUD to put a demagogue into power and wield that military to oppress.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        Hah, it’s now a discussion of literal existentialism.

        No If USA falls into a fascist dictatorship, and the fedetal government takes full control, but in another 10 years, the fascist regime is exchanged for democracy again.
        How can you say USA didn’t survive, just because they had a bad period?

        Again, that’s not what justified the civil war.

        You are arguing arbitrary points that have no impact on my original claim.

        The assumption you’re making is that the federal govt was designed to have autonomy of its own separate from the states.

        No what I argue is based on the reality that the president has the executive power, and can choose to ignore the checks and balances, because they are poorly designed, and only work when everybody respects them.
        But again all that is besides the point.