No, Trump does not have the legal authority or the practical ability to “nationalize” US elections, for all the same reasons he also didn’t when he issued an executive order a few months ago abolishing mail in voting.
-
@mattblaze the "practical ability" thing is the one I'm most curious about here.
He's broken laws (has he not?) so far, and people complied? Is that being mis-represented in [social] media? e.g. there's lawsuits around tariffs? People told Trump "you can't do it, it's illegal", and yet he still did it, and his goons followed through? Why wouldn't the same work with elections, given he still has a compliant base of supporters, incl. among officials?
@dominykas It’s like asking why he can’t suspend laws of thermodynamics or declare himself to be eight feet tall. It’s simply not a thing he controls.
-
@mattblaze What else did you expect from Donald Trump? What you say here applies to every stupid utterance the goon makes.
@khleedril no, some of the things a president says have immediate, highly consequential, impact. But this is not one of them.
-
@dominykas It’s like asking why he can’t suspend laws of thermodynamics or declare himself to be eight feet tall. It’s simply not a thing he controls.
@dominykas @mattblaze laws of thermodinamics are not political laws. Not saying that states will comply, but he can push a lot on that.
-
@dominykas @mattblaze laws of thermodinamics are not political laws. Not saying that states will comply, but he can push a lot on that.
@theklan @dominykas Feel free to worry about whatever you want. Trump federalizing elections, monsters under the bed, witches, whatever. I don’t really care. I said my thing.
-
I could go into detail about what the limits on executive and federal control over US elections are, and what the president could do to exert influence over them, but it would be extremely tedious and irrelevant to the actual reality here, which is that this is a nothing burger.
@mattblaze I disagree only to the extent that we should pay attention when Trump says his intentions out loud. No, be5 can't nationalize elections. But yes, he just admitted he wants to rig them, in a way that might bother even our slower fellow citizens.
-
@theklan @dominykas Feel free to worry about whatever you want. Trump federalizing elections, monsters under the bed, witches, whatever. I don’t really care. I said my thing.
@mattblaze @dominykas you don't need to be rude. I wanted to note that political laws may change, it's the basis for an authoritarian regime.
-
I could go into detail about what the limits on executive and federal control over US elections are, and what the president could do to exert influence over them, but it would be extremely tedious and irrelevant to the actual reality here, which is that this is a nothing burger.
@mattblaze what do you make of the DOJ and DNI taking possession of Fulton county GA's 2020 ballot machines?
-
@mattblaze @dominykas you don't need to be rude. I wanted to note that political laws may change, it's the basis for an authoritarian regime.
@theklan @dominykas Wow! What an interesting and insightful point! I had no idea!
-
@theklan @dominykas Wow! What an interesting and insightful point! I had no idea!
@mattblaze @dominykas why do you have that insulting behaviour towards nice comments?
-
@mattblaze what do you make of the DOJ and DNI taking possession of Fulton county GA's 2020 ballot machines?
@pinsk not going to rehash this. I posted a lengthy thread about this it the weekend.
-
@mattblaze @dominykas why do you have that insulting behaviour towards nice comments?
@theklan @dominykas Because when people aggressively insist that the sky is falling every time he hiccups, it becomes impossible to distinguish between actual threats and meaningless bullshit.
-
@mattblaze the "practical ability" thing is the one I'm most curious about here.
He's broken laws (has he not?) so far, and people complied? Is that being mis-represented in [social] media? e.g. there's lawsuits around tariffs? People told Trump "you can't do it, it's illegal", and yet he still did it, and his goons followed through? Why wouldn't the same work with elections, given he still has a compliant base of supporters, incl. among officials?
@dominykas Why the president can't nationalize US elections:
In the United States, are *thousands* of separate elections departments distributed over 50 completely disparate states, each of which operates under its own election laws which are set by each state's legislature. The arbiter of national election law standards is Congress, and that's in the Constitution. The US election apparatus is not like a singular country's election bureau. Election officials are not appointed by the executive branch; they are chosen in local elections. They answer to the people. If there were an effort to nationalize elections, there would be an immediate lawsuit, and despite how far our Supreme Court has fallen, I don't think they're ruling in favor of nationalized elections against what is quite clearly stated in our founding documents.
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-2/ALDE_00013577/
-
@theklan @dominykas Because when people aggressively insist that the sky is falling every time he hiccups, it becomes impossible to distinguish between actual threats and meaningless bullshit.
@mattblaze @dominykas I'm not aggressively insisting on nothing, just noting that the slope to authoritarianism makes things that are thought as impossible, at least, thinkable.
I didn't insult you, I didn't push any loony idea.
And yet, you were rude two times without any need for a civilized conversation on politics and historical precedents.
-
@pinsk not going to rehash this. I posted a lengthy thread about this it the weekend.
@mattblaze I'll look for it again, didn't see it, thanks
-
@mattblaze @dominykas I'm not aggressively insisting on nothing, just noting that the slope to authoritarianism makes things that are thought as impossible, at least, thinkable.
I didn't insult you, I didn't push any loony idea.
And yet, you were rude two times without any need for a civilized conversation on politics and historical precedents.
@theklan ok, bye
-
J jwcph@helvede.net shared this topic
