Back

@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.

@interfluidity

> tankies are far more principled in that stance than #Trump ofc

@realcaseyrollins i’ll believe that when i see more of them disavowing their support for Trump as somehow the lesser evil.

@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

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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/

@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

@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins

You aren't looking in the right places, or are too blinded by TDS to notice.

@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.)

@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

@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.

@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?

@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/text

what Congress mandates only Congress can undo.

this was less than 10 minutes of Googling. willful ignorance.

@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.

@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/

@Phil @realcaseyrollins 602 explicitly forsees the reorganization of AID, but sets a deadline of October 1, 1998. 2/

@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

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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.

@interfluidity @Phil Is there anything in the law that dictates that #USAID must exist in perpetuity?

@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.

@interfluidity @Phil So...I'm guessing no?

@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.

@interfluidity @Phil It's hard for me to get to that conclusion based on what you've presented so far.

@realcaseyrollins @Phil To what conclusion? That something Congress establishes in law can only be unestablished by Congress?

@interfluidity @Phil No, that #Congress established #USAID as something that exists in perpetuity, therefore only #Congress can abolish it

You 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.

@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/

@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

@interfluidity @Phil Are there other examples of #Congress establishing agencies using identical language?

@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/

@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/

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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

@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.

@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.

@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 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.

@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.

@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

@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.

@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.

@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 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.

@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.

@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.

@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins

And who is the arbitor of good faith? You?

@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?

@interfluidity @Phil Wait wait wait back up did you just say #KamalaHarris won the popular vote in 2024???

@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.

@interfluidity @Phil

> Trump won 77,284,118 votes, or 49.8 percent of the votes cast for president.

That's close enough for me

https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers

@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.

@interfluidity @realcaseyrollins

he has a 53 percent approval rating, so obviously it's endorsed now.

@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.

@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.

@Phil @interfluidity By #Congress BTW not #Trump

@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.

@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..

@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 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.

@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.

@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.

@realcaseyrollins @interfluidity

techniclly its called a plurality, a majority starts at 50%+1

@Phil @interfluidity We are quibbling over a rounding error