Trump Regime proves why we NEED a "Deep State"

this-man-keeps-the-deep-state-awake-at-night-theyknowhegandestromythem-22894082.png
 
BobTheCoward said:
Responsibility does not grant authority.

While they have an oath to the Constitution (responsibility) the Constitution is not a fount of authority for them. Executive authority is vested in a president, not any subordinate office. They really don't have independent authority to act contrary to a president's direction.
Click to expand...

I agree. What they have is a duty to do so when the President's direction is criminal or breaks the Law or runs counter to the Constitution.

Any national leader of a Democracy who has no check on his authority and who opposes, blocks and defies all attempts to check his authority, is an Autocrat by any measure you might like to mention... an Autocrat is only a step (and a very small one) away from being a Dictator.
 
Last edited:
Venom said:
[qimg]https://pics.me.me/this-man-keeps-the-deep-state-awake-at-night-theyknowhegandestromythem-22894082.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

This isn't 4chan or r/TheDonald.

Not enough dummies for that **** to work.
 
Last edited:
Ron Obvious said:
I've been hearing that one for literally EVER single administration since at least Reagan from the opposition party. Democrats said it about Reagan & both Bushes, Republicans said it about Clinton and Obama.
Click to expand...


Just out of curiosity, how many of those Presidents publicaly stated multiple times that they should have their term extended beyond the Constitutional limit?
Granted, Trump has made it clear that he has no understanding of the Constitution, and his supporters later tried to pass it off as a joke, but there's a difference between "Our opponent will try to remove term limits" and "I want to remove my term limits."
 
smartcooky said:
2. A Senate rule that forbids the use of the nuclear option for appointing the above, and would require a very large majority (say, over 3/4) for the nominee to pass appointment.
Click to expand...

While I generally agree with your items here, 75% would mean almost no one would ever be confirmed.
 
Belz... said:
While I generally agree with your items here, 75% would mean almost no one would ever be confirmed.
Click to expand...

This was my first thought - particularly if there are any Republicans around during a Democratic administration.

Also, can we just say that, to the idiot in chief, the "deep state" is likely just any career government worker that disagrees with whatever harebrained scheme pops into his empty head?

(And he most likely picked it up from the white supremacists he surrounded himself with, since they seem to be the type to believe that the FBI, the mafia, and "financiers" ie. "the Jews", are conspiring to run a shadow government?)
 
smartcooky said:
I agree. What they have is a duty to do so when the President's direction is criminal or breaks the Law or runs counter to the Constitution.

Any national leader of a Democracy who has no check on his authority and who opposes, blocks and defies all attempts to check his authority, is an Autocrat by any measure you might like to mention... an Autocrat is only a step (and a very small one) away from being a Dictator.
Click to expand...

No, they do not have a duty to do so....depending on a scenario.

I said they have the duty....they just lack the power to do so. If the president directs executive power to do something illegal, the officer cannot do it. However, they cannot do something else, either. The officer does not possess any executive authority under the Constitution.

All executive power is vested in the president. if the president orders that power to be used illegally, the Constitution does not transfer a shard of that power to the officer to act independently. They still lack the power to make a different decision.

And I don't care if it is an autocrat or not. I can only argue what the Constitution says. If the Constitution makes someone an autocrat, there isn't a.magical interpretation that makes that untrue.
 
Last edited:
ChristianProgressive said:
The absolute impotence of the FBI under Barr and the fact that the most damning testimony against Trump on Ukraine has come from career bureaucrats inside the government just goes to show why having a buraucracy utterly divorced from elections and politics is vital to the functioning of a free society.

Discuss.
Click to expand...

Yeah.... thats not what teh Deep State is. The Deep State is a shadow government that is above the law and weilds Orwellian power with impunity.

No thanks
 
The title of this thread keeps reminding me of the distilled essence of pretty much every Holocaust conspiracy theory.

"There's no such thing as a deep state, but there should be, and I'm glad it's working!"
 
theprestige said:
The title of this thread keeps reminding me of the distilled essence of pretty much every Holocaust conspiracy theory.

"There's no such thing as a deep state, but there should be, and I'm glad it's working!"
Click to expand...

In the end it was the Snowflakes who sold us out.
 
Belz... said:
No, not really.

So far "the left" is following the democratic procedures more than "the right".



Yes, that was my point, really.



Stats for ChristianProgressive being more than one person? How would I have that?
Click to expand...

Seven is often the loneliest number
 
We don't need a "deep state". We need what we have, a civil service loyal to the institutions of governmet, committed to the rule of law and willing to speak truth to power.
 
ChristianProgressive said:
The absolute impotence of the FBI under Barr and the fact that the most damning testimony against Trump on Ukraine has come from career bureaucrats inside the government just goes to show why having a buraucracy utterly divorced from elections and politics is vital to the functioning of a free society.
Click to expand...


In law school, we actually discussed whether the bureaucracy formed a fourth branch of government. The belief at the time was that maybe it did. Now I think that it definitely should. The power that almost all presidents wielded was done with an eye towards tradition and propriety. A whole lot of our system really rests on the assumption that the president will behave within tolerances. Now it has been amply demonstrated that with executive orders and friendly appointments, the president has far more power than the other branches - especially in that he is able to act the most quickly.

I support limiting those powers. It's not a deep state and it's nothing new. It's just putting into law what had previously been mere tradition.
 
smartcooky said:
As I have said before

...Courteously snipped...

4. Remove the President's power to appoint people who have not been previously approved by the Senate, as Acting heads of Departments . In the absence of such an approved person, the Deputy Head of Department will automatically assume the role of Acting head of Department until the Senate can pass a replacement.

... More courteous snipping...
Click to expand...

Make all appointments to the President's cabinet unique to the Person / Job.
Want Joe Napalm / Secretary of Agriculture? The Senate approves her for the job.

When the position of Secretary of Defense opens up, the President can't just move Joe Napalm because she's been previously approved for Ag. Joe Napalm / Secretary of Defense must be approved by the Senate.

Just because Joe Napalm was approved for Agriculture because of her vast experience with Agriculture does not make her qualified for the Defense job.
 
BobTheCoward said:
No, they do not have a duty to do so....

I said they have the duty
Click to expand...
Make up your mind, do they have a duty or not?

....they just lack the power to do so. If the president directs executive power to do something illegal, the officer cannot do it. However, they cannot do something else, either.
Click to expand...
But not doing it is doing something else, so you are saying they have to it - even if it's illegal.

The officer does not possess any executive authority under the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Executive authority is not the only power.

And I don't care if it is an autocrat or not. I can only argue what the Constitution says. If the Constitution makes someone an autocrat, there isn't a.magical interpretation that makes that untrue.
Click to expand...
The Constitution doesn't make the president an autocrat.
 
Roger Ramjets said:
Make up your mind, do they have a duty or not?

But not doing it is doing something else, so you are saying they have to it - even if it's illegal.

Executive authority is not the only power.

The Constitution doesn't make the president an autocrat.
Click to expand...

The highlighted "not" is not supposed to be there.

The powers in the Constitution are countable.

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court
Click to expand...

That is pretty much it. The executive, judicial, and legislative power is exclusively assigned. That beurocrat doesn't get any.


They probably do have to choose either to quit or do something illegal. They are not vested with any of that Constitutional power to countermand that order.
 
smartcooky said:
They really don't have independent authority to act contrary to a president's direction.
Click to expand...

I agree. What they have is a duty to do so when the President's direction is criminal or breaks the Law or runs counter to the Constitution.
Click to expand...

They have a duty to STAY and sabotage?

Or a duty to quit and go public with (or otherwise "rat out") the crimes and illegalities they've been witness to?
 
Loss Leader said:
In law school, we actually discussed whether the bureaucracy formed a fourth branch of government. The belief at the time was that maybe it did. Now I think that it definitely should. The power that almost all presidents wielded was done with an eye towards tradition and propriety. A whole lot of our system really rests on the assumption that the president will behave within tolerances. Now it has been amply demonstrated that with executive orders and friendly appointments, the president has far more power than the other branches - especially in that he is able to act the most quickly.

I support limiting those powers. It's not a deep state and it's nothing new. It's just putting into law what had previously been mere tradition.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure the system of "separation of powers, and checks and balances" was designed with an assumption of good faith on the part of the executive branch.

Something very well might be broken in the system, but I don't think poor assumptions in design are the cause. I'm definitely not sure formally setting in stone that empowering often-secretive, unelected, and most importantly, unaccountable "bureaucrats" is the remedy.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
The problem is that the Constitution assumes the president will be an aristocrat - with all of the honor and duty felt by such men in 1789.
Click to expand...

I think the founders were probably assuming every president had the potential to be an aspiring monarch.
 
kellyb said:
I think the founders were probably assuming every president had the potential to be an aspiring monarch.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I think loss leader has it 100% wrong.


An example of where it was assumed that “this will all work out if people are honorable and follow tradition” is the UKs unwritten constitution
 
kellyb said:
I think the founders were probably assuming every president had the potential to be an aspiring monarch.
Click to expand...


Consider the founders for just a moment - Washington, Adams, Madison, Rutledge, Hamilton (by marriage), Morris (both of them).

These were all wealthy men, who considered themselves honorable gentlemen. Heck, Hamilton managed to get killed in a duel to protect his honor. They weren't quite European-style aristocracy. Some, like Franklin, had come from decidedly middle-to-poor roots. But they certainly weren't commoners.

And when they were thinking about who might hold the office of president, they did the absolutely normal human this to do: they looked around the room at the types of people who had the interest and resources to govern. Washington (who'd been called "Your Excellency" while fighting the Revolution) was a given. Adams and Madison were probably strong contenders. Hamilton had to be up there and Jefferson, who was in Paris, was certainly on the list.

These are not guys who would turn on the Constitution and begin riding roughshod over Congress. These were guys who felt an obligation to the very precepts of the union of states (as well as the right of states to govern their own matters).

And that's the type of people for which the presidency was intended. It wasn't until Andrew Jackson that people began to suspect that just about anybody could be president, no matter how unhinged. Luckily, after Jackson things went back to normal for a bit. And then the whole union fell apart spectacularly for a while but that's its whole own thing entirely.
 
Last edited:
Loss Leader said:
Consider the founders for just a moment - Washington, Adams, Madison, Rutledge, Hamilton (by marriage), Morris (both of them).

These were all wealthy men, who considered themselves honorable gentlemen. Heck, Hamilton managed to get killed in a duel to protect his honor. They weren't quite European-style aristocracy. Some, like Franklin, had come from decidedly middle-to-poor roots. But they certainly weren't commoners.

And when they were thinking about who might hold the office of president, they did the absolutely normal human this to do: they looked around the room at the types of people who had the interest and resources to govern. Washington (who'd been called "Your Excellency" while fighting the Revolution) was a given. Adams and Madison were probably strong contenders. Hamilton had to be up there and Jefferson, who was in Paris, was certainly on the list.

These are not guys who would turn on the Constitution and begin riding roughshod over Congress. These were guys who felt an obligation to the very precepts of the union of states (as well as the right of states to govern their own matters).

And that's the type of people for which the presidency was intended. It wasn't until Andrew Jackson that people began to suspect that just about anybody could be president, no matter how unhinged. Luckily, after Jackson things went back to normal for a bit. And then the whole union fell apart spectacularly for a while but that's its whole own thing entirely.
Click to expand...

Why are you choosing only a subset of founders? 39 delegates signed it and they all count.
 
Loss Leader said:
Consider the founders for just a moment - Washington, Adams, Madison, Rutledge, Hamilton (by marriage), Morris (both of them).

These were all wealthy men, who considered themselves honorable gentlemen. Heck, Hamilton managed to get killed in a duel to protect his honor. They weren't quite European-style aristocracy. Some, like Franklin, had come from decidedly middle-to-poor roots. But they certainly weren't commoners.

And when they were thinking about who might hold the office of president, they did the absolutely normal human this to do: they looked around the room at the types of people who had the interest and resources to govern. Washington (who'd been called "Your Excellency" while fighting the Revolution) was a given. Adams and Madison were probably strong contenders. Hamilton had to be up there and Jefferson, who was in Paris, was certainly on the list.

These are not guys who would turn on the Constitution and begin riding roughshod over Congress. These were guys who felt an obligation to the very precepts of the union of states (as well as the right of states to govern their own matters).

And that's the type of people for which the presidency was intended. It wasn't until Andrew Jackson that people began to suspect that just about anybody could be president, no matter how unhinged. Luckily, after Jackson things went back to normal for a bit. And then the whole union fell apart spectacularly for a while but that's its whole own thing entirely.
Click to expand...


I disagree about Hamilton. He was super smart. But untrustworthy and a conniving almost psycho SOB. You should read John Adams letters. Hamilton was his Vice President and he thought Hamilton was a sleazy snake with aspirations of making himself the American monarch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom