#Congress Executive

[sher-ee]

This energy. I wish it wasn’t necessary. But it is. Stop blaming the President and Vice President for things Congress didn’t do or blocked the executive branch from doing.

[princesssarcastia]

the real problem we're experiencing the end result of right now is the american legislature's decades-long campaign to abdicate its responsibility to govern, choosing instead to become stagnant as it shunts more and more power and authority to the president.

sure, a lot of this is the fault of american conservative constitutional scholars/intellectuals, who got the ball rolling with the unitary executive theory under reagan, and super-charged it under dubya.

but it's also the responsibility of each individual member of congress who decided to increase their chances of being re-elected by letting someone else make the decisions and wield the power and be ultimately responsible, instead of rolling up their sleeves and putting themselves on the line and doing the hard work necessary to lead.

our society is entirely populated by thorny legal and moral and ethical and religious questions and conundrums and competing interests. it's part and parcel of being a society. refusing to navigate those problems for your constituents because you believe—perhaps rightly so!—that choosing one path forward over another will alienate some of the voters and donors you need to maintain your political office...it's disgusting. and i want to scream every time i think about it.

[nightswatchdisbandmentera]

I’m sorry but the best Jon Snow AUs are those where he is some sort of civil servant. I always see people headcannon him as ROTC/soldier or cop but I think they kind of miss the mark. GRRM has steadily been moving away from the traditional warrior archetype with Jon and more into the counts-pebbles ruler type. So the cannon compliant AUs are the ones where he ends up as some sort of government official. Maybe he could be a city hall manager or an ombudsman. He could be a state representative or maybe even a senator. Let me remind people that he’s the only elected leader in the series. AU!Jon Snow would totally be the extremely competent but also extremely depressed congressional representative from like, idk, Alaska.

[teagrammy]

I'm so tired of seeing takes about U.S. politics from people who lack understanding about how the branches of government, the electoral college, and redistricting work and affect us. Please return to high school Civics, I am begging you.

[ivygorgon]

AN OPEN LETTER to THE U.S. CONGRESS

Hold Bank Execs Financially Accountable for Mismanagement! Pass the DEPOSIT Act.

274 so far! Help us get to 500 signers!

I am writing to urge you to pass the Deliver Executive Profits on Seized Institutions to Taxpayers (DEPOSIT) Act that was recently introduced by Sen. Richard Blumenthal and U.S. Reps Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Mike Levin (D-CA).

This important legislation would hold executives at failed banks financially responsible for their mismanagement and prevent them from selling off shares of stock, potentially profiting from their bank failure -- like Silicon Valley Bank CEO Greg Becker might have done when he sold $3.6 million of stock shortly before the collapse of SVB.

American taxpayers shouldn’t be left holding the bag and bailing out banks while their executives are walking away with multi-million dollar compensation and bonus packages. Please respond in writing and let me know you co-sponsored this bill. Thanks!

▶ Created on March 24, 2023 by Jess Craven

📱 Text SIGN PNFKGB to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW JESSCRAVEN101 to 50409

[deadpresidents]

Do you agree with the idea that one of the more politically astute things Biden could've done in early 2021 was push for an amendment that limited presidents (including himself) to a single term?

I ask this as someone who feels that a Biden-Trump rematch in 2024 is very much not in the national interest. Such an amendment would've guaranteed two different nominees next year, and more broadly, I think there are arguments for limiting presidents to just one term (second terms have been pretty awful in the modern era, if we consider Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and G.W. Bush).

Btw, I realize presidents don't have a formal role in the amendment process, but I think if Biden had gotten enough Dems behind it, there might have been enough support in Congress to send it to the states. In early 2021, the GOP would've almost been happy to have Trump term-limited, and ambitious Republicans like Scott, Cruz, and Rubio probably would've supported such an amendment.

That's an interesting question. From our perspective, I can totally understand the reasoning behind it, too. And that would have been a better time to attempt it for the reasons you pointed out.

However, I just think it's nearly impossible to amend the Constitution, especially in the political climate we've been living in for the past decade. It's also difficult to imagine any President actively seeking to impose further term limits on themselves. These are people who work practically the entire lives in order to get into that particular job, so it would require a superhuman act of selflessness to get them to advocate for changing the Constitution so that they only serve one term. We can't even get modern Presidents (or serious candidates for the Presidency) to voluntarily pledge to only serve a single term, so I just don't see any of them trying to change the Constitution to legally prohibit running for re-election. President Biden had been seeking the Presidency for at least 35 years, with three official campaigns for the job, before he finally was elected in 2020. I don't think there was ever a realistic chance of him voluntarily giving up a chance at a second term. And I wouldn't be so sure that ambitious legislators who have obviously been eyeing the Presidency for years would have supported a single term limit. You know how there are people who are opposed to raising taxes on the super wealthy because they are still holding out hope that they'll someday strike it rich? I'm guessing there would be a similar line of thinking and members of Congress with Presidential aspirations wouldn't want to support a single term limit just in case they eventually find themselves in the White House.

I've written about this before, but my personal opinion is actually in support of eliminating Presidential term limits altogether. As I've said in the past, the Founders did not explicitly place term limits on the President, and while most Presidents before FDR followed George Washington's tradition of serving two terms and retiring, term limits weren't imposed until after World War II. The Constitution was amended 21 times for over 150 years before Presidential term limits were finally instituted. And, even then, it was largely because Franklin D. Roosevelt won four straight Presidential elections. I question whether the Founders would see it as a proper balance of power to place term limits on the Executive Branch, but not on the Legislative or Judicial branches. So, my personal belief has been that there should either be term limits on the President, Congress, AND the Supreme Court, or there should be no limits at all. Of course, that might result in someone shitty, like Donald Trump, running for a third term, but it also provides options that voters otherwise wouldn't have. Imposing a two-term limit on Presidents may prohibit a terrible President from being elected a third time, but it also might prevent someone proven to be a good, responsible, popular leader from continuing in office.

Ultimately, the decision should be left to the voters, but I sure would feel better about 2024 if Barack Obama could be on the ballot again. We place limits on who can be candidates for what is arguably the most powerful and important job in the world, and then we complain because we don't like our choices. We prohibit the only people in the world who have actually DONE the job of President (and seemingly should have some understanding and experience on how to do that job) from being President for more than two four-year terms. Yet, nearly all of our Supreme Court Justices leave the bench by dying, and many of the most powerful legislators (in both parties) are alarmingly old and frail -- and probably running for re-election. Barack Obama has been term-limited from running for President since leaving office in 2017. Obama was 55 years old when he left office; he'll be 63 on the next Inauguration Day, in 2025 -- eight years after leaving office and sixteen years after his first inauguration. That's still younger than Ronald Reagan (69), George H.W. Bush (64), Donald Trump (70), and Joe Biden (78) were when they were first inaugurated as President!

So, if we're going to amend the Constitution regarding term limits, I say get rid of all of them or impose them on every branch of the federal government.

[filosofablogger]

♫ Piano Man ♫

What would you say to a little Billy Joel this morning?  I’ve always liked this one and I haven’t played it for a while, so … In 1972-1973, Billy Joel worked at the Executive Room bar in Los Angeles as a piano player using the name “Bill Martin”.  He was in dispute with his then-recording company and took the job to pay the bills while waiting for his lawyers to straighten things out back in New…

[xtruss]

What Happened When a Fearless Group of Mississippi Sharecroppers Founded Their Own City

Strike City was born after one small community left the plantation to live on their own terms

— September 11, 2023 | NOVA—BPS

A tin sign demarcated the boundary of Strike City just outside Leland, Mississippi. Photo by Charlie Steiner

In 1965 in the Mississippi Delta, things were not all that different than they had been 100 years earlier. Cotton was still King—and somebody needed to pick it. After the abolition of slavery, much of the labor for the region’s cotton economy was provided by Black sharecroppers, who were not technically enslaved, but operated in much the same way: working the fields of white plantation owners for essentially no profit. To make matters worse, by 1965, mechanized agriculture began to push sharecroppers out of what little employment they had. Many in the Delta had reached their breaking point.

In April of that year, following months of organizing, 45 local farm workers founded the Mississippi Freedom Labor Union. The MFLU’s platform included demands for a minimum wage, eight-hour workdays, medical coverage and an end to plantation work for children under the age of 16, whose educations were severely compromised by the sharecropping system. Within weeks of its founding, strikes under the MFLU banner began to spread across the Delta.

Five miles outside the small town of Leland, Mississippi, a group of Black Tenant Farmers led by John Henry Sylvester voted to go on strike. Sylvester, a tractor driver and mechanic at the A.L. Andrews Plantation, wanted fair treatment and prospects for a better future for his family. “I don’t want my children to grow up dumb like I did,” he told a reporter, with characteristic humility. In fact it was Sylvester’s organizational prowess and vision that gave the strikers direction and resolve. They would need both. The Andrews workers were immediately evicted from their homes. Undeterred, they moved their families to a local building owned by a Baptist Educational Association, but were eventually evicted there as well.

After two months of striking, and now facing homelessness for a second time, the strikers made a bold move. With just 13 donated tents, the strikers bought five acres of land from a local Black Farmer and decided that they would remain there, on strike, for as long as it took. Strike City was born. Frank Smith was a Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee worker when he went to live with the strikers just outside Leland. “They wanted to stay within eyesight of the plantation,” said Smith, now Executive Director of the African American Civil War Memorial and Museum in Washington, D.C. “They were not scared.”

Life in Strike City was difficult. Not only did the strikers have to deal with one of Missississippi’s coldest winters in history, they also had to endure the periodic gunshots fired by white agitators over their tents at night. Yet the strikers were determined. “We ain’t going out of the state of Mississippi. We gonna stay right here, fighting for what is ours,” one of them told a documentary film team, who captured the strikers’ daily experience in a short film called “Strike City.” “We decided we wouldn’t run,” another assented. “If we run now, we always will be running.”

But the strikers knew that if their city was going to survive, they would need more resources. In an effort to secure federal grants from the federal government’s Office of Economic Opportunity, the strikers, led by Sylvester and Smith, journeyed all the way to Washington D.C. “We’re here because Washington seems to run on a different schedule,” Smith told congressmen, stressing the urgency of the situation and the group’s needs for funds. “We have to get started right away. When you live in a tent and people shoot at you at night and your kids can’t take a bath and your wife has no privacy, a month can be a long time, even a day…Kids can’t grow up in Strike City and have any kind of a chance.” In a symbolic demonstration of their plight, the strikers set up a row of tents across the street from the White House.

John Henry Sylvester, left, stands outside one of the tents strikers erected in Washington, D.C. in April 1966. Photo by Rowland Sherman

“It was a good, dramatic, in-your-face presentation,” Smith told American Experience, nearly 60 years after the strikers camped out. “It didn’t do much to shake anything out of the Congress of the United States or the President and his Cabinet. But it gave us a feeling that we’d done something to help ourselves.” The protestors returned home empty-handed. Nevertheless, the residents of Strike City had secured enough funds from a Chicago-based organization to begin the construction of permanent brick homes; and to provide local Black children with a literacy program, which was held in a wood-and-cinder-block community center they erected.

The long-term sustainability of Strike City, however, depended on the creation of a self-sufficient economy. Early on, Strike City residents had earned money by handcrafting nativity scenes, but this proved inadequate. Soon, Strike City residents were planning on constructing a brick factory that would provide employment and building material for the settlement’s expansion. But the $25,000 price tag of the project proved to be too much, and with no employment, many strikers began to drift away. Strike City never recovered.

Still, its direct impact was apparent when, in 1965, Mississippi schools reluctantly complied with the 1964 Civil Rights Act by offering a freedom-of-choice period in which children were purportedly allowed to register at any school of their choice. In reality, however, most Black parents were too afraid to send their children to all-white schools—except for the parents living at Strike City who had already radically declared their independence . Once Leland’s public schools were legally open to them, Strike City kids were the first ones to register. Their parents’ determination to give them a better life had already begun to pay dividends.

Smith recalled driving Strike City’s children to their first day of school in the fall of 1970. “I remember when I dropped them off, they jumped out and ran in, and I said, ‘They don't have a clue what they were getting themselves into.’ But you know kids are innocent and they’re always braver than we think they are. And they went in there like it was their schoolhouse. Like they belonged there like everybody else.”

[dontmeantobepoliticalbut]

A federal judge on Thursday rejected a last-ditch effort by Peter Navarro, a former adviser to former President Donald Trump, to dismiss the contempt of Congress charges he faces for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 select committee, keeping his late January trial on track to begin.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta said Navarro had failed to prove that the former president wanted him to assert executive privilege over his potential testimony — a key claim that Navarro has long maintained justified his decision to simply blow off the select committee’s subpoena.

But Navarro provided no evidence of his claim, asserting only that Trump privately asked him to invoke executive privilege. Without at least a shred of proof that Trump made a “formal” assertion of executive privilege, Mehta said, he could not grant Navarro’s motion.

“Defendant has failed to come forward with any evidence to support the claimed assertion of privilege. And, because the claimed assertion of executive privilege is unproven, Defendant cannot avoid prosecution for contempt,” Mehta wrote in the 39-page ruling.

It’s a significant decision in an area with little precedent: what current and former presidents must do to assert executive privilege. Mehta acknowledged that there’s not much to guide how courts should determine when a proper assertion has been made. But he said limited court rulings on the subject suggest there must be at least some formal evidence it occurred.

Mehta noted that two other Trump aides whom the House sought to hold in contempt — Mark Meadows and Dan Scavino — produced letters from Trump ordering them to assert executive privilege on his behalf. The Justice Department declined to prosecute the men, and Mehta indicated that the absence of a similar letter from Trump to Navarro led to a reasonable conclusion that Trump had not asserted executive privilege over his testimony.

Mehta’s ruling means that Navarro’s trial on two charges of contempt of Congress is likely to commence later this month. He faces a maximum sentence of a year in prison on each charge — one for refusing to testify and the other for refusing to provide documents — if convicted.

The select committee had hoped to interview Navarro about his coordination with former Trump adviser Bannon and efforts to strategize with members of Congress seeking to challenge the 2020 election results on Jan. 6, 2021, during the counting of Electoral College ballots. The committee recommended that Navarro be held in contempt in April 2022, and the full House quickly followed suit. The Justice Department charged him in June.

Mehta’s ruling also gutted a series of defenses Navarro had hoped to raise at his trial, including that he had a “good-faith belief” that he was immune from the committee’s subpoena. Mehta also agreed to prohibit Navarro from arguing that the select committee’s subpoena was invalid because the panel didn’t have a full complement of 13 members or a ranking Republican member appointed by GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy.

Although he declined to say whether the committee was operating improperly, Mehta noted that Supreme Court precedent required Navarro to first raise his rules complaint with Congress itself. Because he didn’t do that, he effectively waived that argument. Navarro had argued that raising his complaints to Congress would have been “futile” because the House would have simply rejected them. But Mehta said the rules were clear.

“Neither the Supreme Court nor the D.C. Circuit has recognized a futility exception. … And, given the rationale of the rule, it is doubtful that higher courts would recognize one,” Mehta wrote.

The ruling essentially puts Navarro on a track similar to his close ally Bannon, who was tried and convicted of contempt of Congress in July. Bannon, like Navarro, had hoped to argue that he believed he was immune from testifying and that longstanding Justice Department precedents precluded Congress from subpoenaing advisers to former presidents. But in that case, U.S. District Court Judge Carl Nichols relied on a decades-old appeals court ruling — United States v. Licavoli — to reject Bannon’s proposed defenses, ruling that prosecutors simply needed to show that Bannon deliberately refused to appear before Congress.

Mehta cited the case, as well, in tossing most of Navarro’s defenses.

“Defendant apparently believes the law applies differently to him,” he wrote of Navarro. “Because he is a former aide to the President of the United States, he contends, a more stringent state-of-mind standard applies, meaning that the government must be held to a higher burden of proof to convict him as opposed to the average person.”

[belleandre-belle]

[i-am-q]

Ok who’s next?

I’ll be working on my list of if then statements that are life saving regardless of what Rena says

We can cross check with Canadian Intelligence, the EU, the UN, the World Health Organization, the Smithsonian and Holocaust Museum Researchers, Moscow State, Russian Intelligence (foolishly referred to by Americans as the KGB), the North Korean Government-Specifically the President of North Korea (foolishly referred to by us Americans as the “supreme leader”), the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the Nobel Committee, the Peoples Repulic of China (foolishly referred to as the CCP) President, the President of Ukraine, President Raisi, others alike. I love you all for fighting for me regardless of politics, war, and cultural differences.

I can specify the different methods and the respective experts if you “researchers” would like that. Those of you following along and taking notes should have a good idea. For example, President Xi and I discuss the use of phytocannabinoids and phospholipids for treating infection both by extracting heat using chromophoric molecules and lipids (similar to those synthesized by the endocannabinoid pathway—something he and I are both exploring with respect to human lipid bilayer formation and neurochemical

If anyone overwrites these methods, you will be immediately reported to both the US government federal agencies for torture and

[a-god-in-ruins-rises]

Well maybe now congress will actually do its job and pass laws.

that's a HUGE maybe. congress is dysfunctional and inefficient and unwieldy. it is constantly mired in petty politics, mindless bickering, and perpetual gridlock. Really smart leaving the day-to-day regulations that govern the nation up to them! Then, when they eventually do get around to passing oppressively narrow regulations y'all will complain about how impossible it is to remove said regulations.

[ourwitching]

Last month, we discussed recent updates to Congress.gov, focusing on executive communications. As we...

[tangled-pixel-harpsichord]

U.S. tumblr needs civics lessons SO BAD

[reasonsforhope]

Kamala Harris just announced that her vice president will be Minnesota governor Tim Walz. Based on the coverage so far I'm really reassured by this decision.

The Washington Post did an obviously great job of making a prepared article for each option, considering how long an article they had up 7 minutes after the announcement.

((Okay technically it's not an official announcement yet it's "according to three people familiar with the pick, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a decision that is not yet public." But listen. I am 99% sure this is a weather balloon. (Meaning: a deliberate leak to gauge reaction.) Because the sheer weakness or incompetence on the part of the Harris campaign that it would take for three people to all confirm that within a few hours hours of each other and the planned announcement it is massive.))

-via The Washington Post, August 6, 2024

Honestly this decision, from everything I've read and can tell, looks like it's brilliant politics.

Important Context: The vice president(ial candidates)'s job in an election is not to be similar to the president. The vice president's job on the ballot is very, very much specifically to be different from the president. Why? So they can cover each others' weaknesses. Especially regionally.

(Sidenote: I feel a bit ridiculous saying this. But genuinely if you want to get a stronger understanding of how US elections really work. Go watch seasons 6 and 7 of The West Wing. Genuinely, a lot of politicians have said - especially back in its day - that that was the most accurate depiction of an election they'd ever seen. Also specifically features an entire arc about a contested Democratic primary convention, so also very good if you're interested in understanding weird nominating convention shenanigans.)

From the article:

"Harris’s choice for a running mate was among the most closely watched decisions of her fledgling campaign, as she sought to bolster the ticket’s prospects for victory in November and rapidly find someone who could be a governing partner. In picking Walz, she has selected a seasoned politician with executive governing experience and signaled the importance of Midwestern battleground states such as Wisconsin and Michigan.

Walz’s foray into politics came later in life: He spent more than two decades as a public school teacher and football coach, and as a member of the Army National Guard, before running for Congress in his 40s. In 2006, he defeated a Republican to win Minnesota’s 1st Congressional District--a rural, conservative area--and won reelection five times before leaving Congress to run for governor.

Walz was first elected governor in 2018 and handily won reelection in 2022. Though little-known outside his state, Walz emerged publicly as one of the earliest names mentioned as a possible running mate for Harris, and in the ensuing days he made the rounds on television as an outspoken surrogate for the vice president...

“These are weird people on the other side. They want to take books away, they want to be in your exam room. … They are bad on foreign policy, they are bad on the environment, they certainly have no health care plan, and they keep talking about the middle-class,” Walz told MSNBC in July. “As I said, a robber baron real estate guy and a venture capitalist trying to tell us they understand who we are? They don’t know who we are.”

Walz also has faced criticism from Republicans that his policies as governor were too liberal, including legalizing recreational marijuana for adults, protecting abortion rights, expanding LGBTQ protections, implementing tuition-free college for low-income Minnesotans and providing free breakfast and lunch for schoolchildren in the state.

But many of those initiatives are broadly popular. Walz also signed an executive order removing the college-degree requirement for 75 percent of Minnesota’s state jobs, a move that garnered bipartisan support and that several other states have also adopted.

“What a monster. Kids are eating and having full bellies, so they can go learn, and women are making their own health-care decisions,” Walz said sarcastically in a July 28 interview with CNN when questioned whether such policies would be fodder for conservative attacks, later adding: “If that’s where they want to label me, I’m more than happy to take the [liberal] label.”

Walz also spoke at a kickoff event in St. Paul for a Democratic canvassing effort, casting Trump as a “bully.”

“Don’t lift these guys up like they’re some kind of heroes. Everybody in this room knows--I know it as a teacher--a bully has no self-confidence. A bully has no strength. They have nothing,” Walz said at the event, sporting a camouflage hunting hat and T-shirt.

Walz has explained that he felt some Democrats’ practice of calling Trump an existential threat to democracy was giving him too much credit, which prompted his decision to denounce the GOP nominee instead as being “weird.”

“I do believe all those things are a real possibility, but it gives him way too much power," Walz said on CNN’s “State of the Union” regarding the Democrats’ rhetoric. “Listen to the guy. He’s talking about Hannibal Lecter, shocking sharks, and just whatever crazy thing pops into his mind.”

If Walz is elected vice president, under state law, Minnesota Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (D) would assume the governorship for the rest of his term. Minnesota Senate president Bobby Joe Champion, a Democrat, would become lieutenant governor."

-via The Washington Post, August 6, 2024

--

This guy. Sounds like. fucking Moderate swing-state/rural/Midwestern/southern/"heartland"/working class white voter catnip. He sounds like he's also a very smart politician and strong campaigner. And he's apparently genuinely a good guy with a good record, too.

He sounds like he's going to do a really good job of appealing to voters in several of the big deal swing states without being from any of them specifically. Which means it doesn't feel like pandering to one of the states involved (and thereby spurning the others), which is also great.

(Also he was the one who started "weird" @ conservatives and I think we should take that seriously as a very good political instinct/move. Judging in large part by how it has so clearly hit an actual nerve with conservatives like so little else. Also hugely relevant: that post going around about how part of why conservatives are so upset about "weird" is because in the Midwest, "weird" specifically also implies anti-social or harmful behavior.)

Officially feeling more optimistic about Trump not winning in November