Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by worik | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

worik

[flagged]

View on HN

If you want to keep a democracy, yes. Checks and balances are critical to a functioning democracy

Our executive doesn't want that rn.

That shouldn't matter

We should have a congress that cares about the law.

They can't even bother to enforce their own subpoena's. They have a jail and a jailer.

No, it should not.

That is why I ask. The president has immunity and unlimited right (?) to pardon.

So are they going to listen?

NB: your followup (immediate parent) is far superior to, and lends context which greatly improves, your original comment.

Consider making your full thinking clearer up front rather than leading with a vague-but-ominous statement.

Your original comment could be read as an implied endorsement of the stated question, or as a concerned inquiry. Your follow-up suggests the latter. Regardless of viewpoint, it lends a further avenue for discussion the original comment lacked. Given the frequency, heat, and importance of current political discussion, veering from tropes and generic tangents.

The next election cycle begins soon.

Unless the US is transitioning into an authoritarian regime.

[flagged]

The issue is that the executive branch still has prosecutorial power with impeachment as one of the only remaining checks against that (if I’m understanding correctly).

> with impeachment as one of the only remaining checks against that

impeachment appears to be a wet noodle of a check that carries all the weight of nanny saying "you've been a very naughty boy".

Two impeachments and a felony conviction didn't check squat, if I'm not mistaken.

he was impeached by the house, but the not the senate. if the senate had also voted to impeach he would have been removed from office.

Lol, that is just a piece of paper that doesn't mean shit unless someone is willing to enforce the words on it. There has been a shortage of enforcers recently.

If one party doesn't want to abide by that piece of paper, then there's no reason to consider them legitimate.

The papers, ya, that one party doesn't consider them legitimate and is in power at the same time.

The party could be considered illegitimate by the rest of us if they were to continue down the path of ignoring the Constitution.

What part of the Constitution says that? The article about the judiciary is pretty brief. It says that they get to decide things, but it doesn't actually clarify that everyone has to abide by their decisions.

Just because it's obvious doesn't mean it's legally valid.

You would have to ask John Marshall, who authored the opinion in Marbury v Madison

Reply on news.ycombinator.com