@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.
@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?
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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/
@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.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins says CBS. 47% says Pew. and polls are noisy, fidgety things, not meaningful endorsement.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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.
@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?
@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.
@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.
@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.
@Phil @realcaseyrollins from https://www.aei.org/op-eds/how-the-myth-of-the-coequal-branches-became-the-norm/
Text: But these functions being “co-ordinate” does not make each branch equally important in ruling over us. Neither the executive nor the judiciary can wield power unless the legislative has already exercised its power. Moreover, the essential principle of republican government is that the people exercise sovereignty over the lawmaking process. The enforcement and adjudication of the law are supposed to follow from the clear expressions of the law itself. This is why it is important that Congress reflect the public will. It is less important for the police and judges to reflect us; rather, they should follow the laws that we write.
@realcaseyrollins @Phil Yes. the President has duties beyond taking Care the laws be faithfully executed. But that is his duty, and it's a big one, not optional.
[edited: i initially wrote "Congress" where i meant "the President".]
@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?
@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.
@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.