Post Ar2jCxgLQbDd47MrB2 by volkris@qoto.org
(DIR) More posts by volkris@qoto.org
(DIR) Post #Ar0jcmgoX1E6BayrFA by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T13:55:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
on the anti-US-imperialist left (“tankies”), i wonder if part of Trump’s appeal, perhaps only semiconsciously, is that he’d be openly as bad as they were always sure the United States always was. they’d be proven right, and no more of what they perceived as hypocritical sanctimony.
(DIR) Post #Ar0kD1Z2hn8ckBcsam by ShiitakeToast@beige.party
2025-02-11T14:01:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I know some of them, and they are as you say. Others are just contrary and have 0 thoughts beyond “I know that elementary school history was a lie. I am smart”. There are many who mistake the country’s failures for its goals.
(DIR) Post #Ar0kJXD1xla2cuR0N6 by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T14:03:05Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I mean both the tankies and #Trump are broadly against war, although tankies are far more principled in that stance than #Trump ofcI mean, we're talking about a president who made an ally of #TulsiGabbard. You don't see many people more anti-imperialist than her in the #USA government.
(DIR) Post #Ar0kJlFfkk0oB9mJQu by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T14:03:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@ShiitakeToast i’m friends with some of them. it’s difficult. “mistake the country’s failures for its goals” is an excellent summary.
(DIR) Post #Ar0kT6BnHFwPinPtGy by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T14:04:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity #Nationalism and #antiimperialism are congruent in their pursuit of evading war with other nations.
(DIR) Post #Ar0kZzDfaa9q8GZuym by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T14:06:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins anti-imperialist, or pro other empires, our dear Tulsi. Trump portrayed himself as antiwar while campaigning, now he won’t rule out the use of force against Greenland/Denmark and Panama, he promises “all hell is going to break loose” in Gaza Saturday if all hostages are released, openly seeks territorial expansion in a way no US President has for more than a century.
(DIR) Post #Ar0kgbrCqdOjhcEHWi by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T14:07:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins if you tell me you believed this was Trump’s line when you supported him during the campaign, okay. If you tell me you still believe it now, well, i’ll tell you one is born every day.
(DIR) Post #Ar0kmjWRGKZjDFR3ui by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T14:08:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity > tankies are far more principled in that stance than #Trump ofc
(DIR) Post #Ar0kssEXmpe1y4zePw by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T14:09:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins i’ll believe that when i see more of them disavowing their support for Trump as somehow the lesser evil.
(DIR) Post #Ar0l4mHDlAICy5vD3A by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T14:11:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I suppose I should have said #Isolationism not #Nationalism, #Trump really is more isolationist than he is nationalist
(DIR) Post #Ar0lAfDcujIIoe2zce by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T14:12:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity Rooting for the "no new wars" president over the guy who instigated a conflict in the middle east while a completely different one was going on is about at principled as you can be if what you oppose war TBF
(DIR) Post #Ar0m6h9nri6XchvkBs by gl33p@mastodon.social
2025-02-11T14:23:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I'm not following. This seems to claim that an anti-US-imperialism implies pro-authoritarian-communist sentiments xor that an anti-US-imperialism yet non-tankie left exists and generally finds Trump appealing? Neither of these seem particularly sound generalizations to me. I'm far from confident it's even sound to generalize that say your median straight up 'Stalin did nothing wrong' archetype tankie (or straw man tankie depending on who you ask) finds Trump appealing.
(DIR) Post #Ar0mnJ3RM0qRK3Gy4e by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T14:30:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@gl33p i guess i’m talking about a community maybe exemplified by Glenn Greenwald, but of whom i know others. does anti-US-imperialism necessarily lead to apology for other imperialisms? not necessarily, but the Tulsi Gabbard arc is pretty common.there are lots of elements of US foreign policy principled people can and should oppose! of course!but a large swathe of these people became essentially a part of the MAGA coalition. they exist, and that’s the group I’m addressing.
(DIR) Post #Ar0mz3X2tN5iegitI8 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T14:32:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins i can respect that.but then i’d expect some expressions of disappointment for a “no new wars” candidate who has now hinted at openly imperialistic military actions that were so far off the table you’d have needed a warp drive to find them a few months ago.
(DIR) Post #Ar0oiqx06Lm4uTGU52 by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T14:52:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I get you to a point. There were always people in the government calling for the #USA to do even more aggressive actions in #Gaza than what #Trump is willing to cosign. #LindseyGraham is a great example of this.
(DIR) Post #Ar0pVjfPyDg2VfLjyy by gl33p@mastodon.social
2025-02-11T15:00:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity No argument that they exist. There are clearly sets of conceptual and association prions that can slide a brain over that particular slope.They're a common case, I don't think they are The Case or even The General Case. But I do think they're loud, and too usefully exemplified as a tactic. So many sects have reasons to love, for example, things that permit figuratively or literally beating the liberalism out of not at all pro-authoritarian anti-war activists, students, and such.
(DIR) Post #Ar0pZtLpuHJRheAkHQ by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T15:02:03Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity Some people would only be happy if he surrendered in advance to everybody.Some people, of small brain, can't grasp that he took an oath to protect and defend, and that includes American hostages. Some people are too dense to realize that being anti war can only go so far and isn't the same as being a surrender monkey or pacivist.There are actually people that cant tell the difference between projecting power and war adventurism.Sadly, these zombies vote.
(DIR) Post #Ar0pgoZq3UPwvJ1UAK by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T15:03:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity I mean yes you are correct but at least antiwar tankies are typically principled, at least when it comes to war (I don't follow tankies that closely in general) so I can respect that ideological consistency.
(DIR) Post #Ar0ppvAWusszyQWkeu by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T15:04:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil i guess i'll respect it when i see it. so far, the folks i know who went for Trump on a supposed ant-imperialist / anti-war line have not been willing to acknowledge any important transgressions. "russiagate" outweighs all of it, they say. it's just his bluster.
(DIR) Post #Ar0q4YTLaFrTvRJ5Pc by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T15:07:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Well if he actually starts a war, we'll have an opportunity to see how the react to an actual trangression, as opposed to an imaginary one.
(DIR) Post #Ar0q7zv1zjZDuythdQ by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T15:08:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins his oath, by the way, is to protect and defend the Constitution. but i sure hope he does protect and defend American citizens. i'll be impressed if he doesn't take the Biden Administration approach of ignoring deaths of American citizens in Israel/Palestine if they are ethnic Palestinians. 1/
(DIR) Post #Ar0qB496jdintewcxE by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T15:08:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins of course i hope i'll have to concede this one to you. god help us we don't need a war now.
(DIR) Post #Ar0qJP2wuWzJ2H2VdI by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T15:10:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins so far i've seen the opposite of any kind of successful or meaningful projection of power, other than in Israel, where Netanyahu wanted to give his ally a win in exchange for greater help and license going forward. which he has gotten, in Trump's plain endorsement of population transfer / "ethnic cleansing" from Gaza. (which, to be clear, at least has the virtue of a certain honesty that the prior administration lacked on Gaza). /fin
(DIR) Post #Ar0qOAE9R6ESWRY7Y8 by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T15:11:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins And of course, you understand that protecting and defending the constitution means more than just slapping pelosi if she decides to try and shred it, to make some childish point.
(DIR) Post #Ar0qXudYFtR7484vzs by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T15:12:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins You aren't looking in the right places, or are too blinded by TDS to notice.
(DIR) Post #Ar0qpaFgmhZZ3VLLxw by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T15:16:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins I mean, domestically Musk is "projecting power", illegally and doing great harm. Much of that will be reversed, but much that is broken will take a long time to fix. And none of what he's attacking is at the heart of any of our problems. (Of course the heart of all our problems is brain death: the Constitution makes Congress the brains of our system, and Congress no longer functions due to rigging the electoral system for job security.)
(DIR) Post #Ar0qv5Cz7J1eVrhVaq by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T15:17:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i'm all for defending US citizens abroad. i'm also for defending the separation of powers!
(DIR) Post #Ar0sQIN4KPsAGdrf8a by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T15:33:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil Do we have American citizens in #Gaza or the #WestBank rn? If not, this claim makes no sense.
(DIR) Post #Ar0ssT0oMJ6bNVt3UO by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T15:39:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil yes, we do have US citizens in the West Bank, we did in Gaza hopefully by now they've been evacuated but i don't know. we've had several US citizens killed by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank https://www.npr.org/2024/10/10/nx-s1-5106059/west-bank-gaza-israel-justice-department
(DIR) Post #Ar0uRBsg8yueKvCjuC by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T15:56:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins All Musk has done is uncover how incredibly broken the federal leviathan is. He hasn't done so much as an ounce of harm to anybody but corrupt people who are personally benefiting from ripping off US taxpayers.It's proving educational to people. Shining a light on the evil, is the first and most important step and CANNOT be undone. And that makes it glorious.There is nothing illegal about it and nothing dems havent done before. I hope they enjoy sucking on it
(DIR) Post #Ar0vVem6l5Hb3upBIm by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T16:08:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins There is everything illegal about it, food aid is rotting, people who would have been going hungry, and you are willfully blind. Might USAID have been reformed? Sure. That's what Congress is for, and you wind things down to minimize harms, if you decide you are going to wind things down.
(DIR) Post #Ar0w1bXOKXaQHwAttY by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T16:14:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Show proof, No lifesaving aid was blocked. it was transferred to the State Department. This is pure propoganda. It's perfectly legal for the President to uncover and smash corruption in the executive branch. It is his duty and within the power that the constitution vests in him.2. USAID was NOT established by congress, it was done by executive order by JFK as ONE way to meet requirements of the law on which it was based but isn't required.
(DIR) Post #Ar0w5Ya1GiGOH2HxVQ by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T16:15:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins And the bulk of the stuff stopped, was in violation of that law.
(DIR) Post #Ar0wNJMGbMSQHDK1QW by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T16:18:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil I'm lost is #USAID mentioned in the #Constitution or something? Why is defunding or shutting it down illegal? What law does that break?
(DIR) Post #Ar0wRXWbs6PHNAAyvI by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T16:18:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity I heard that sex clinics in #SouthAfrica did get shut down actually. Not sure that any stateside lifesaving aid was halted though.
(DIR) Post #Ar0wYog6UkyebD5Qps by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T16:20:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins willfully blind. even the aid they mean to send they've broken the competence to do so. they are the epitome of F. Scott Fitzgerald's "careless people". https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/10/usaid-trump-elon-musk-cuts
(DIR) Post #Ar0wkbL7udXqhptV7w by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T16:22:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins hahahahaha. You have to be a special kind of credulous if you think USAID was competent.
(DIR) Post #Ar0wpNOZBYAsuDmQaG by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T16:23:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity Oh no! what will the world do without US funded Sex clinics?
(DIR) Post #Ar0xFspevT5Vw25lQ0 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T16:28:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins USAID was, as @Phil says, initially established by executive order under JFK to pursue objectives set out in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.but it was formally codified into a Congressionally mandated agency in the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1997 https://www.congress.gov/bill/105th-congress/house-bill/1757/textwhat Congress mandates only Congress can undo.this was less than 10 minutes of Googling. willful ignorance.
(DIR) Post #Ar0xS08la1bS4lo7xw by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T16:30:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins PEPFAR, established by GWB, administered by USAID, has saved conservatively 18M lives. maybe you contest the stats. but boy you are awfully glib about this stuff. sex clinics!i think Trump people have said they mean to continue PEPFAR. there have been interruptions of medication however which risks emergence of resistant strains of HIV, endangering us all.
(DIR) Post #Ar0yP8Jqoak6WlBkDA by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T16:40:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Did you read that law? What it does is transfer USAID and place it under the authority of the Secretary of State.It does't do anything to codify its structure or existence as is today, into law.It clearly states that Agency personnell needs are under the descretion of the Secretary of State.
(DIR) Post #Ar0yVteDlH013GwQdM by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T16:42:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Read it and weepSEC. 611. REORGANIZATION AUTHORITY. (a) In General.--The Secretary is authorized, subject to the requirements of this division, to allocate or reallocate any function transferred to the Department under any title of this division, and to establish, consolidate, alter, or discontinue such organizational entities within the Department as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out any reorganization under this division
(DIR) Post #Ar0ydBCssLhdXNcymG by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T16:43:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins I am personally against using ANY us funds for any such purpose.
(DIR) Post #Ar0yjTsAOCSLALwSGm by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T16:44:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins It enshrines an agency. Yes, under the state dept, Secretary of State:"Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 601, and except as provided in section 412, there is within the executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5, United States Code."Pretty plain language! 1/
(DIR) Post #Ar0ypi5ISmJUyr3OKG by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T16:45:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity To be fair to the #USAID they did get some things done.
(DIR) Post #Ar0ywFgsQg1Awgkcd6 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T16:46:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins 602 explicitly forsees the reorganization of AID, but sets a deadline of October 1, 1998. 2/
(DIR) Post #Ar0yxq4Kf30g3oTjnM by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T16:47:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins It's just acknowledging it's existence, since it's part of the consolidation plan, which is the point of the bill. Nothing in this law requires it's existence, it even starts UNLESS ABOLISHED, and then grants the SOS to abolish it in the section I posted. Thus, it was perfectly legal to move it into the state department, and no doubt the Justice Department has already advised Trump on the legality of this.
(DIR) Post #Ar0yzHHAzVAMjQAkfg by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T16:47:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity Die of #AIDS. But...if it's not in the #USA...Not our government's job to fix. Let #BillGates do it or something, he cares about the lives of Africans or something.
(DIR) Post #Ar0z1cLnbi1KfkRzVY by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T16:47:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity Sure they did. They guy who broke into my house and took a bunch of stuff, also made it much easier to clean.
(DIR) Post #Ar0zI5d8VvY67BPkmW by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T16:50:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins that "under this division" in 611 is referring back to 601. it's not perpetual authorization for SoS to reorganize the State department. that's the very function of this bill! it was permission that expired in 1998. /fin
(DIR) Post #Ar0zRqH4SgNZNwkAsq by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T16:52:36Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins *under this division* sheesh. a reorganization exercise that expired in 1998.
(DIR) Post #Ar0zTUzwXMsZyeWRzE by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T16:52:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins It in no way codifies a seperate entity called USAID.Congress loves to pass vague laws and in this case in workes out quite well.
(DIR) Post #Ar0zahIpBgzKAMmpKy by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T16:54:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins it precisely codifies an agency it calls AID — Agency for International Development — and creates a period of time during which a potential reorganization might be pursued. that period very long ago expired, with AID still extant.
(DIR) Post #Ar0zetZTW0nJNIZnO4 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T16:55:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins are you suggesting calling it "United States Agency for International Development" means it wasn't the codified agency? man, what a bureaucrat you'd be.
(DIR) Post #Ar0zgv7qhtYym6cVou by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T16:55:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil I was about to say, if that entity isn't #USAID, what agency is it
(DIR) Post #Ar0zp1fCHcWBMu5EUi by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T16:56:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins No, I'm suggesting that the law acknowledges it's existence and refers to it, but doesn't codify it's existence or structure.
(DIR) Post #Ar0zp60G9Fk6pNy6sa by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T16:56:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil Now, to be fair, what I'm seeing is that #USAID was defunded, not shut down. Are those the same thing, legally?
(DIR) Post #Ar0zsVHwawGG7KriEq by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T16:57:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity hmmm. Yeah I can see the argument for that, that makes sense
(DIR) Post #Ar108b4IsALOg29uXA by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:00:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins yes. an administration could internally reorganize AID! but AID must exist, and it must pursue the purposes for which Congress mandated it, until Congress unmandates it.taking something to the "wood chipper" means destroying it. that is illegal. is taping over the name of US AID and removing all signange an internal reorganization?what DOGE was clearly doing was abolishing. yes, they'll be stopped, because it's illegal. it's rich for you to try to rely on that.
(DIR) Post #Ar10KU8iSYmof8tLEW by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:02:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil the only entity that can defund AID is Congress. Congress has power of the purse! it's crown jewel Congressional power! the Trump Administration can organize AID as it wants, but it still has to do what Congress established it for, including spending any money for any purposes Congress mandates.The Executive Branch's job is to follow those mandates well, competently, effectively. It shouldn't spend the money wastefully or fraudulently. That's not what Congress mandated!
(DIR) Post #Ar10OL1YIE47Y8NUkS by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T17:03:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Congress never mandated it. There is absolutely no text anywhere in that law that does so.
(DIR) Post #Ar10QldgJHh0fpN40O by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T17:03:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil Is there anything in the law that dictates that #USAID must exist in perpetuity?
(DIR) Post #Ar10TqtDFGbZpJ6fEO by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:04:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins "there is within the executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5, United States Code."
(DIR) Post #Ar10cEMZr3TUwfpwYa by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T17:05:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Have you read the laws regarding foreign assistence? The leave heaps of it up the the presidents judgement and provide guidelines/objectives. Congress doesn't give a line by line of what must be given to whom. They provide a budget and give the executive branch discression. Finallly the executive branch is actually excercising some.
(DIR) Post #Ar10dAW9dbb9JAlPXM by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:05:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Congressional action doesn't sunset unless the law they pass explicitly imposes such a sunset. absent some explicitly enacted executive option to abolish, only Congress can undo what Congress had said must exist.
(DIR) Post #Ar10dEiM2BjYKAVD6m by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T17:05:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil I agree with you on that point. It's something I've criticized #Trump for before.
(DIR) Post #Ar10f2xSiOMoRSQrCq by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T17:06:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil Okay and there's a bluebird out my window. Doesn't mean there always will be.
(DIR) Post #Ar10iA6ganQFTxERsW by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T17:06:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity Which laws would you like us to look into?
(DIR) Post #Ar10kyklGGrn8dJuV6 by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T17:07:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil So...I'm guessing no?
(DIR) Post #Ar10nDNrps935sg5c8 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:07:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins to the degree Congress gives the executive discretion in how its expenditures are administered, that's fine. if Congress does not explicitly allocate funds to AID, the executive can pursue its purposes through other aspects of state, sure.but AID must continue to exist. and any expenditures specifically allocated to AID must be spent for its intended purposes through AID.
(DIR) Post #Ar10uE6tXA2PND5B3I by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:08:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil No. Nothing must exist in perpetuity. The Constitution can be constitutionally abolished by amendment (everything except equal suffrage of states in a Senate which would no longer exist). But only Congress can end USAID's existence.
(DIR) Post #Ar10vKhQWLfG6ChJR2 by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T17:09:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins This is not codifying it into law, it is just describing the law under which the agency was set up.
(DIR) Post #Ar10xB3LMCvslBpQQK by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T17:09:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil It's hard for me to get to that conclusion based on what you've presented so far.
(DIR) Post #Ar116zc6k80IB4lm1Q by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:11:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins Congress declares the agency exists, then describes all kinds of stuff about it, attributes purposes and functions to it. It describes a potential reorganization — which could potentially abolish it! — and attaches a deadline to that. After the deadline has passed and it has not been abolished, it has clearly enshrined the existence of the agency as a matter of law.
(DIR) Post #Ar11AdCk09zvpqdhrM by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T17:11:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity start with the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.After that they may be others, but mostly it's just continued with budget allocations.
(DIR) Post #Ar11BBA5kW559Tf4S0 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:12:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil To what conclusion? That something Congress establishes in law can only be unestablished by Congress?
(DIR) Post #Ar11L6p8jTL0asb2Jc by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T17:13:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Well obviously it's open to interpretation, and Trump is pretty confident that his interpretation will prevail.we'll see what happens. The point is it is no slam dunk and intellectually dishonest to insist that it is.
(DIR) Post #Ar11Ow4EfPEaOKTwFU by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:14:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins That set up purposes for US foreign policy. JFK creates AID then as a purely executive construction, which a President could reorganize away. In 1997, Congress wants to formalize the organization of US foreign policy, formalizes the status quo in law, and defines a time limited procedure under which it might be modified. That time limit is long passed. The Congressional formalization of the US foreign policy apparatus is complete.
(DIR) Post #Ar11amXhuAwGKHuq5g by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:16:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins it's a slam dunk! maybe a newly-deferential-to-the-executive Supreme Court can be persuaded to "unitary-executive" all precedent out of existence, but that speculation is hardly any kind of license to "take it to the wood chipper" as a fact on the ground, without even a memo from OLC trying to justify it. this is just Musk moving fast and breaking people. your whole case is ex post backfilling of that.
(DIR) Post #Ar12IyBnxpTlBok2MK by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T17:24:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil No, that #Congress established #USAID as something that exists in perpetuity, therefore only #Congress can abolish itYou yourself actually admitted that #Congress didn't even established it by law lol, #JFK created it as an executive order. And parts of the law both you and phil quote only refer to #USAID, they don't establish it or its lifespan.
(DIR) Post #Ar12vzaah3dIpBwUKm by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:31:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil they explicitly foresee a reorganization that might even abolish it, and set a deadline for that, which is long passed. what point is there for Congress to define these things, define a process by which they might be reorganized, and define a termination date for that reorganization, if a President could with no process just reorganize it away anyway? 1/
(DIR) Post #Ar1303zSGxFvdHVu4m by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:32:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Congress creates things by saying they exist. Let there be light. That in this case there did exist something of the same name that they were explicitly codifying and formalizing doesn't somehow deplete that. /fin
(DIR) Post #Ar1392032g60484EC0 by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T17:34:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil Are there other examples of #Congress establishing agencies using identical language?
(DIR) Post #Ar13hOFGq9sgu9ZSdc by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:40:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Perhaps not, because AID did already exist as an executive creature. i don't know if there are others quite the same. 1/
(DIR) Post #Ar13mAPngiBLSWm396 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:41:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil how about this one? "There is established in the Federal Reserve System, an independent bureau to be known as the 'Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection', which shall regulate the offering and provision of consumer financial products or services under the Federal consumer financial laws." https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:12%20section:5491%20edition:prelim) 2/
(DIR) Post #Ar13qz1LTnHTZGdF2W by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:42:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil you guys wanna justify Musk's 🪦 there? /fin
(DIR) Post #Ar14ZRnVqhNRYkMckK by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T17:50:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil I could be wrong (I am busy, at work), but it seems to me like H.R.4173 establishes the bureau and 12 USC 5491 as an amendment to 12 USC which acknowledges the new department.Again we both agree here that #Trump should not be allowed to retroactively suspend or veto previously agreed to spending bills passed by #Congress.
(DIR) Post #Ar14rW88TlMGD2cuO0 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T17:53:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Yeah. It's from Dodd-Frank, HR 4173 i just took the language from US code. Here's the original https://www.congress.gov/bill/111th-congress/house-bill/4173/text you'll find the identical text (Section 1011)
(DIR) Post #Ar174kfdvfSuyjjnou by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T18:18:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins The only justification needed is the evident corruption. It is the presidents duty to root it out. And the President has the power to remove any personell from the executive brance, so while the agency can continue to exist, he can still remove all the people and it's legal.
(DIR) Post #Ar19I6QsWviI92KG7k by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T18:42:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins it has to continue also to perform the function for which Congress established it. Trump’s job is to take care that the laws be faithfully executed. the laws Congress made.
(DIR) Post #Ar19XOFeYu1FkkMgF6 by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T18:45:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins What if those laws are unconstitutional?And what does faithfully mean? Does it means that if Congress passes a law, which is likely to result in the demise of the US and great harm to the people, that the President should enforce it fully and carefully, regardless?And does he have to follow only your questionable interpretation, or is he free to follow the interpretation of his administration?
(DIR) Post #Ar19mWvwZ3Bt1XMhO4 by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T18:48:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins And don't forget that the Executive branch and Congress and the Judicial branch are all supposed to be co-equal. Congress isn't superior, the courts are not supposed to be superior and the executive isn't supposed to be superior.You seem to be holding Trump to a standard that no previous president has met.
(DIR) Post #Ar19nIs2KsaPhJuFxg by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T18:48:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins what if red was green? do you have any meaningful dispute about the purpose of CFPB? you might pursue those purposes differently, lots to disagree about, but if you could speak not as some kind of pinhead oppositional bureaucrat but as a human in good faith, do you understand its history and purpose? do you think that unconstitutional?btw this Supreme Court just heard and dispatched a Constitutional challenge to CFPB. they're too tough on your side, i know.
(DIR) Post #Ar1AP3IWgQA8P6IS7k by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T18:55:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins I support demoloshing every corrupt agency that exists, even if boundries have to be pushed.Arguments can be made either way, and always have been.The point is, most people completely ignore stuff, except when it's trump.He is doing exactly what he was elected to do and what he said he planned to do.I only hope it continues.But you can contunie to defend the abuse that has been heaped on the taxpayer, all you want.
(DIR) Post #Ar1AZXRBTnJ4mBLXrU by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T18:57:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins I con't care what the SC says, the Structure of the CFPB is unconstitutional and an affront to the power of the people, on it's face.All these agencies that are insulated from accountability and operate outside the constutional structure of our government, are a threat and need to be removed, to protect liberty. If necessary with violence.
(DIR) Post #Ar1Ar8O3M63UIPGwwy by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:00:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity > Does it means that if Congress passes a law, which is likely to result in the demise of the US and great harm to the people, that the President should enforce it fully and carefully, regardless?Literally yes
(DIR) Post #Ar1Axb43e7KOyW08xM by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:01:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity Why doesn't #Trump just work with #Congress to get some of these things done? Will it take too long for his liking?
(DIR) Post #Ar1BB4GKOsHlINAEVc by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:04:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity I think he ultimately will, but learned from the last go around, just how much wickedness infests the executive branch and wants to move very fast before they form a bulkhead and stymie him again.
(DIR) Post #Ar1BDcvaUBAbO5gPku by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:04:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity Wouldn't that violate his oath?
(DIR) Post #Ar1BFQDqhAjQYs5488 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:04:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins Congress is fact is superior. It is Article I for a reason. "coequal" is inexact. separate powers, non hierarchical is more exact. there are things each branch can do that the other cannot, ways each branch can check the others. but Congress is who ultimately rules, not the executive, not the judiciary. our Constitutional crisis is an absence of a functional Congress, at a deep level. https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2019/10/myth-of-coequal-branches-david-j-siemers-richard-bishirjian.html
(DIR) Post #Ar1BQwqVk3u6vXf1WK by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:06:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins what you perceive as wickedness are other people's values and interests. it is just not the case what he is setting aside is fraud no person of good will could support. he is ruling without authority, not remedying what is widely understood to be pathology. the worst autocrats mostly think they are doing the right thing (even though eventually they find they must resort to regrettable means). that is the path you and your movement is on.
(DIR) Post #Ar1BdEfXIntNgAO1Cq by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:09:10Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins if this Supreme Court is too deferential to the libs for you, and you think you know better and are entitled to act with violence in pursuit of your views, then i'm not sure how people with views quite different than yours are supposed to engage with you at all. we may need to defend ourselves from you.
(DIR) Post #Ar1BdzcIkeEPHkEbBo by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:09:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins I see nothing in the constitution that makes congress superior.
(DIR) Post #Ar1BkGVgr551Pt8JOK by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:10:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins Article I. It sits before and above all the rest. The logic of a representative democracy. I'm sure there are stronger legal theories, I mean to read Siemers' book. Might not be a bad exercise for you as well.
(DIR) Post #Ar1Bkl1dOsSS3eJFLc by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:10:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins As long as somebody supports stuff that assults my liberty, they should be afraid of me.
(DIR) Post #Ar1BmIevptL6f2QTI0 by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:10:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity Only if that law violates the #Constitution
(DIR) Post #Ar1BqKptgUekZRTl5c by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:11:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins Usually I look forward to meeting social media interlocutors in real life. With you I wonder whether you'd harm me. You perceive my politics as a threat to your liberty. What does that entitle you?
(DIR) Post #Ar1BqstH4RYmBlJw4e by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:11:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil > what you perceive as wickedness are oBro went villain speech mode
(DIR) Post #Ar1C3BEufvdUZXIyau by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:13:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil I see no precedent that the #POTUS can refuse to execute laws passed by #Congress. What makes #POTUS' executive powers unique or special IIRC is that he can tell people to do *extra* things, not keep people from doing stuff like following the law.
(DIR) Post #Ar1C9kMmzElhFp7VsO by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:15:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Yes. Congress has duties beyond taking Care the laws be faithfully executed. But that is his duty, and it's a big one, not optional.
(DIR) Post #Ar1Cs4nOOQrVM6hYrQ by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:23:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity Biden didn't enforce immigration laws.Bush signed the Patriot act, with an announcement that his administration would not enforce certain provisions in it that he deemed unconstitutional.nearly Every president has selectively enforced the law, based on their own agenda.
(DIR) Post #Ar1CwO6QYHjcOSf26C by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:23:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity Even Thomas Jefferson, refused to enforce the alien and sedition act on the grounds that they were unconstitutional.
(DIR) Post #Ar1D51L8YKOAP0epns by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:25:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins officials do not always do their jobs. the parameters of a law are sometimes in dispute.that's what lawsuits are for. it's not grounds to abandon the principle that the executive's duty is to ensure Congress' laws take effect.
(DIR) Post #Ar1D6MC8V5VRN85JnU by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:25:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity And Obama did it with DACA, which congress refused to pass.
(DIR) Post #Ar1DE0mM0Y7TGifw3c by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:27:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Sure, but there is no getting around the president interpreting those laws, in a way favorible to his objectives, particulary when those objectives were articulated and accepted by the majority of voters.
(DIR) Post #Ar1DEgGDmPN7vDxrns by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:27:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins from https://www.aei.org/op-eds/how-the-myth-of-the-coequal-branches-became-the-norm/
(DIR) Post #Ar1DLASsOWM9KsyeLA by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:28:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins a majority of voters voted against the current President. a narrow plurality voted for him. yes, Presidents necessarily interpret laws, but those interpretations must be bound by good faith readings, can and must be disciplined by the courts and Congress.
(DIR) Post #Ar1DVtDcr4Hx29xMOW by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:30:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity It isn't villain speach, it is integral to the philosophy underscoring and the actual history surrounding the founding of the US.Good grief, early presidents actually tried to foster that attitude in the People of the US. That they would guard their liberty with their lives, which certainly involves violence.It's just that we have become passive pussies and it is why we have such an oppressive and wasteful government.
(DIR) Post #Ar1DiJxJH2LtQpFiVM by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:32:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i think we are oppressed much more by the incapacity of our government than by its waste. and given the clusterfuck Congress has become, our government functions remarkably well as a creature with its head cut off. our task is to restore a Congress that represents the American public in all its divers... plurality, and legislates vigorously on our behalf.
(DIR) Post #Ar1DqAf3iK7UvFSWAa by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:33:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins And who is the arbitor of good faith? You?
(DIR) Post #Ar1E6kLmn3WUFALdqq by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:36:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins not me alone. you and me and 350M of our peers. but like pornography, most of us know betrayals of good faith when we see them, and most of us will agree. taking Congressionally established agencies to the wood chipper or tombstone without any Congressional authority strikes me as a pretty clear betrayal of a good faith reading of the law. do you really disagree?
(DIR) Post #Ar1EExbfO7fHfoh0ls by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:38:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil Wait wait wait back up did you just say #KamalaHarris won the popular vote in 2024???
(DIR) Post #Ar1EF96ucIC7LuOcV6 by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:38:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Bull shit. I have seen choices between such fundimental things as safety and comfort, removed in my life time. I have experienced the right to pursue happiness be heavily narrowed in my lifetime.When I was born there were an excessive 26000 pages of federal laws governing my behavior. There are now 189 THOUSAND pages, governing my behavior.I couldn't learn all those laws in a lifetime and yet can be charged for not following them.
(DIR) Post #Ar1ERFvB7W2VwzgLya by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:40:37Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Anybody that thinks we are free doesn't know what liberty is.I was born in a free country, my kids were not.Our problem is that our government has gone from thinking of themselves as public servants to thinking of themselves as the ruling class.We are supposed to be self ruled.Our problem is that 80% of what the feds do, are beyond the bounds that were set for them, and pinheads keep voting for more and crying when somebody comes along to try and fix it
(DIR) Post #Ar1ERaHXQ5oD68IUbY by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:40:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil No, Harris did not win the popular vote.Trump won a plurality, but not a majority. Most voters voted either for Harris or for a third party candidate.Trump won the popular vote in the sense he got more votes than any other candidate. But no candidate, not Trump, got a majority of votes. A majority of voters voted against Harris. A majority of voters also voted against Trump.
(DIR) Post #Ar1EaIoriLKHXs2jWS by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:42:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i also feel like the country i live in is far less free than the one i was born in. but its not government regulations that oppress me, it's the conditions of the marketplace. homes are out of reach expensive, the likelihood my kid, however amazingly does in school, will have good opportunities is narrowing. i perceive in government more a solution to these oppressions than a cause.
(DIR) Post #Ar1Em5rdhutOq9xlpo by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:44:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil > a majority of voters voted against the current President.Who do you think the current president is?
(DIR) Post #Ar1En3TG5h2bhv19A8 by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:44:34Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Well government IS THE CAUSE, no matter how you feel.Everything you mention, has had heavy intervention by government and it has fucked it up, and here you are saying more please.
(DIR) Post #Ar1EuW6E36iuWYnn2e by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:45:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil > Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president.That's close enough for mehttps://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers
(DIR) Post #Ar1EvBLYh0LkRzI78K by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:46:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i don't know. the best housing situation in the world is Vienna. the best overall standard of living, the best shot of a good life for someone who can't pick who their parents will be, is in the Nordics. i think experience supports my case more than yours.
(DIR) Post #Ar1F0oLH8UUcqAqJe4 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:47:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil close enough is not in fact a majority. 50.2% of those who came out did so to pull the lever for someone other than Donald Trump. most of the country never endorsed any of this. most voters, even, never endorsed any of this.
(DIR) Post #Ar1F5zItoAKCHlCS0W by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:47:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins he has a 53 percent approval rating, so obviously it's endorsed now.
(DIR) Post #Ar1F9C3AsEzMgcNCcq by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:48:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins says CBS. 47% says Pew. and polls are noisy, fidgety things, not meaningful endorsement.
(DIR) Post #Ar1FKuMmRo33Jf86ym by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:50:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins the voters can't perform the Congress is intended to perform. Congress exists because voters can't be expert on the mechanics and happenings of government. direct democracy, in that sense, can't be "smart". so we hire professionals to learn our interests and values, and then capably represent those in government.
(DIR) Post #Ar1FdWRdbzcWcuHHlY by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:54:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil So now you're telling me that 49.8% isn't a majority???
(DIR) Post #Ar1Fe4Htmi23aXyzJ2 by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:54:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Do you really believe that congress is an expert on anything?People are generally far better off making as many decisions for themselves as possible and don't need some morons that are obliged to their donors making them for them.The coutry is to vast and varied for so much centralized control and much more should be left to states/local government, where the people have more influence.90% of the federal laws/regulations on the books need to be replealed.
(DIR) Post #Ar1FfL6cjyxC2SJbCS by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:54:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @Phil 😆
(DIR) Post #Ar1FhQEYe6wwWQ1Fya by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T19:54:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity techniclly its called a plurality, a majority starts at 50%+1
(DIR) Post #Ar1FhmXRiZ89hN1eTI by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:54:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity By #Congress BTW not #Trump
(DIR) Post #Ar1FkUJluy103bv6Tw by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T19:55:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity We are quibbling over a rounding error 🤣
(DIR) Post #Ar1FxbnJQpiP0ezfto by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:57:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins Congress is currently broken. It's very urgently in need of reform. Its purpose is to be a chamber of experts, both wrt the interests and values of constituents and the workings of law and government. right now they, like the President, are reality TV stars with little coherent capacity or ability to represent. we don't survive very long like this. 1/
(DIR) Post #Ar1G2l4iM0BBF0aZoO by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T19:58:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins state representatives are entirely a mystery to most citizens. states are not closer to the people. if they act a bit ore sanely, it's because they are farther from some noise, and their tasks have more directly visible consequences that can embarrass mostly governors.
(DIR) Post #Ar1GCNbcT0dJLeZGqW by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:00:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity My fantasy is a constitutional convention by the states. I would like to see the following amendments passed.1. The SC is not the final arbitor of what is constitutional, that is left to the states and the people.2. The federal govt is forbidden form requesting, possessing, viewing, intercepting, or accessing, private date of the people, irrespective of whether or not they have shared it with a 3rd party, absent a warrant base on probable cause.3. cont.
(DIR) Post #Ar1GYhiCOSFE4qI4FU by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:04:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity the 16th and 17th ammnedments are hereby repealed.4. State laws superceded federal laws, except in those areas explicitly mentioned in this constitution.5. A majorty of states, through their normal legislative process can nullify any federal law.6. The federal register is limited to 10000 pages, beyond that, ignorance of the law is a valid defence.7. every jury must be instructed that they can find somebody not guilty based on a law being unreasonable..
(DIR) Post #Ar1GrTvZroZgpPVBho by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:07:45Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i agree with 2 and 7! I'd like to see how we vote for Senators altered, but would not delegate it to State legislatures. As for the rest, if you got everything you want I don't think there'd be any point having a national government at all. if federal laws mean different things in different states, how do firms in interstate commerce comply? it seems to me you basically favor dissolution of the union.
(DIR) Post #Ar1GuOrx8ADq0aCLgW by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:08:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity or vague, or unconstitutional.8. Federal spending is restricted to 15% of the previous years GDP. To excede this requires 65% of congress and the president and a majority of governers to agree.9. Any federal employee who violates the constitutional rights of any citizens, must forfeit all of their personal assets to that person and spend no less than 5 years in prison.10. All federal pensions must be defined contribution plans.
(DIR) Post #Ar1GzgDY3cnJGFoiFE by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:09:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins There is some truth to this, but it would be way less true of the feds didn't overwhelm and drown them out.
(DIR) Post #Ar1HBF8MZzfwjnuCCu by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:11:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins the main functions of the Federal government are national defense and social insurance. we could have national defense as an alliance, a North American (rather than Atlantic) NATO. you think you don't want the social insurance, i think, though i also think you'd miss it if it were gone. social insurance is what requires a cohesive union, with taxation, obligations, and benefits defined in common.
(DIR) Post #Ar1HBN7asjoVVjbh7Q by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:11:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins not at all, the constitution specifically grants the power to regulate interstate commerce to the feds. that wouldn' t change, unless they do something offensive enough for a majority of states to want to override them.In areas that are specificaly mentioned in the constitution, feds reign supreme, in all others the states to. This is how it was supposed to be originally.
(DIR) Post #Ar1HKF91uPlLNSVbiS by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:12:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins but the meaning and Constitutionality of Federal laws would be different in all the 50 states, because you say it's left to the states or the people to interpret them. so, Congress could make a law wrt interstate commerces, twenty states could decide it's unconstitutional while 30 states are cool with it, firms must deal with both legal regimes.
(DIR) Post #Ar1HXtCqGxUTOGnb72 by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:15:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins I am not opposed to some degree of social insurance. however, what we have now absolutely sucks.I also think that nobody should get free money. I believe this undermines human dignity and fosters intergenerational dependancy. People should have to do some community service in exchange for wellfare. and wefare should be removed in stages so people don't take pay cuts when they start working. And i believe it should not be too comfortable.
(DIR) Post #Ar1HkIPAPTH91BTnaS by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:17:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins I said are the final arbitor of whether or not a law is constitutional. So if 26 states determine a law is unconstitutional, that law is history.If they don't the law stands.The SC would continue to interpret laws, unless they do so in such a way as to render it unconstitutional in the eyes of the states.The feds should derive their power from the states, not the other way around.
(DIR) Post #Ar1HnqGwwpQGvPKLK4 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:18:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i generally oppose means-tested welfare, support nordic style universal benefits and insurance-style programs like FEMA. i might give everyone a certain amount of cash (UBI), might also be in favor of a community service obligation or a year of national service to emphasize the reciprocity in the arrangement. i think everything works better when people are not desperate, and people's incentive to better themselves is enough, they needn't be threatened with destitution.
(DIR) Post #Ar1HtBYnEBN0ObDlaa by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T20:19:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity I'm on board with 2, 4, and 5On point 1, there HAS to be a safeguard against unconstitutional actions. #SCOTUS is flawed, but I'd argue the best system we have to guard against that.On point 6, you might end up seeing multiple pieces of legislation stitched together to work around this, so I don't think it'd be effectually binding./1
(DIR) Post #Ar1Htyt1pjfhNY47Qu by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T20:19:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @interfluidity On point 7, if a law is unreasonable, it is up to the voters to repeal it. My counter to this is that anyone convicted or jailed for violating a repealed law must be released from jail upon that law being repealed./2
(DIR) Post #Ar1HwKyOgeiUSThT4S by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:19:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins would the states then serve the role of the Federal circuits, then? each state would interpret, but if there's a "split", the Supreme Court would step in? but states would reserve the right not to adhere to Supreme Court decisions?
(DIR) Post #Ar1ICAIAAQQ7xrUbZo by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:22:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @Phil sometimes laws are reasonable in general, but really not reasonable when applied to particular circumstances. it's already the case that jurors can refuse to convict despite finding in fact the law has been broken ("jury nullification"). but most jurors don't know this, and judges are forbidden from including it in jury instructions, so juries perhaps often do convict against their own consciences, out of a sense of duty to faithfully follow judges' instructions.
(DIR) Post #Ar1ICSnfM2JbMmN1BA by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:22:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins I think some people do need to be threathened with destitution. its why the same book in the bible says, bear one another's burdens, also says if someone will not work, they shall not eat.
(DIR) Post #Ar1II8Q62Yc7tc3AJM by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:23:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins i agree that pathological shirkers exist, but they are a tiny fraction of us. most humans are desperate to be of value to one another, one way or another (not always in commercial markets).
(DIR) Post #Ar1IMJ1EZjcTvVPT16 by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:24:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity Nothing in the constitution has ever been efectively binding. the point is to throw up obstacles.Read the 10th ammendment, it certainly hasn't been binding.
(DIR) Post #Ar1IMwXrcLtSVzyZn6 by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:24:39Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins you'll like this one, even though it's from an old commie. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQGw5lArivE
(DIR) Post #Ar1IUmI3d41T1iJocy by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:26:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins No, everything would function like it does now, but states would pick up the right to force repeal of federal laws that are beyond the bounds of the constitution, in the eyes of the states.
(DIR) Post #Ar1IVSDving154i71c by realcaseyrollins@noauthority.social
2025-02-11T20:26:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity I completely disagree, this is how you get black kids arrested for jailwalking or #Trump getting arrested for keeping classified documents, but not other people for doing the same thing. No! Either everyone gets prosecuted for breaking the law, or the law gets repealed.
(DIR) Post #Ar1IaePlp6TUL2j7BY by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:27:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins nothing has been perfectly binding. everything in real life "leaks". but, say, the 1st Amendment really has conditioned life here in a way quite different than most predecessor societies, and even most contemporary peers. the Constitution is not self-exercising, but it has been exercised a fair amount!
(DIR) Post #Ar1IcF6isz3wQdZnk0 by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:27:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Yes, Jury nullification should be a required jury instruction, in every criminal proceding.
(DIR) Post #Ar1IncCnLfonFcq6aG by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:29:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins that's a very real concern. in general there are conflicts between discretion and fairness. on the one hand, without discretion, you get the kind of stupidly procedural systems people describe pejoratively as "bureaucracy". on the other hand, when you introduce discretion, you introduce the possibility of unfair bias and corruption. i spend a fair amount of my time trying to think about how we should navigate this (really hard!) trade-off. 1/
(DIR) Post #Ar1IoCvMpQrX8HyD3Y by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:29:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Right and to the extent that it has been trampled, it's because people lack honor and or are power hungry and or filled with hubris.So the point is to highten the fence a bit. it will never be perfect, but it would move us more toward the original intent and restore some liberty, possibly.
(DIR) Post #Ar1IxoIfEg2JeqRiTY by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:31:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@realcaseyrollins a black kid shouldn't get arrested for jaywalking when a white kid wouldn't. but no kid should be arrested for jaywalking if he's being chased by an assailant. mechanistic application of the law has all or none arrested, but it's fair. discretionary application would exonerate the chased, but it also might invidiously exonerate the white kid and not the black. it's hard! /fin
(DIR) Post #Ar1J5JJ6LngHqrE8DQ by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:32:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins at a sufficient level of generality we might agree on some things! i hesitate to get back into details, though, because i doubt we'd agree for long. and the day is passing with much undone.
(DIR) Post #Ar1J6twrbXiVmYaGnY by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:32:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins I agree with this in general, however, I think we also have a lazyness side, and whichever side is most fed will come to dominate. I think this is the problem with our current system, It tends to push people in the direction of beink shirkers (we adapt to it overtime) and it's ultimately bad for the spiritual/mental health of the people is supposed to help. Plus it consumes 80% of the money spend on administering it.nothing is all good or all bad all a mix.
(DIR) Post #Ar1JJDTAqpvJniZLai by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-11T20:35:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins Our system at present does at least as much harm as good and we can do much better for way less money,the problem is that most legislation, is designed to benefit congress first, the crumbs to people are just used to sell it.A good welfare system wouldn't enhance the power of politicians.
(DIR) Post #Ar1JJLT76wd2bqbPbk by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:35:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins what's good about the Nordics is everybody has the option to take benefits, you don't have to make being poor your job. most people take benefits that complement work (education, child care) rather than living on the dole as they could, because they want to live rich lives, even though they're not forced to. (they have higher labor force participation than we do!)
(DIR) Post #Ar1JS2tfWt8PcIAjKa by interfluidity@zirk.us
2025-02-11T20:36:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Phil @realcaseyrollins the great thing about universal benefits is they are denied to no one (who meets very straightforward verifiable criteria, like age and actually attending school, for example). so no politician or bureaucrat gains power from making themselves a gatekeeper for access.
(DIR) Post #Ar2jCxgLQbDd47MrB2 by volkris@qoto.org
2025-02-12T13:00:03Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@realcaseyrollins A lot of people are missing at the moment that the safeguard against unconstitutional actions is NOT through #SCOTUS but through the Congress, and more importantly, through voters electing representatives who will react to unconstitutionality appropriately.SCOTUS has no enforcement power against the Executive Branch. That was left to the Congresss.Both SCOTUS and Congress can and should judge the President in different ways, but at the end of the day, it's up to the people we elect to Congress to react to whatever has been found about what the president has been doing.Far too many congresspeople shirk their duties by pointing fingers at the other two branches when they're the only ones with the actual power to act, and that's critical to the US system.@Phil @interfluidity #USPolitics #Trump
(DIR) Post #Ar2suhIYbPx4a7AekS by Phil@freeatlantis.com
2025-02-12T14:48:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@volkris @realcaseyrollins @interfluidity This is problem is compounded by the simple fact that neither voters, nor congress police their own and will overlook very bad actors on their side and blow out of proportion actions of the other side.