Decency, Trump and Obama.

[Belsnickel]

(03-12-2017, 11:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That is some bend over backward logic. 

Not at all. If an administration declines to defend an order/action/legislation then the demise of the policy is absolutely at their hands.

(03-13-2017, 12:53 AM)Dill Wrote: It looks like there has been a massive shift in voter ethics in this election, as in ethics don't really matter the way they used to, or if they do they matter selectively. For some groups, it matters if the other party's candidate lies or generates the appearance of conflicting interests, but not their own.

You think that only an Amendment, not a Congressional Act could put more requirements on a presidential candidacy or secure more disclosure/divestment regarding business interests? The War Powers Act curtailed presidential power a bit without an Amendment. Congress has he power of the purse, which can curtail crazy projects like the wall, but it would be ineffective against random disruptions of treaties and public tweets undermining the intel and other government agencies.

It is a confusing/distressing situation. One can imagine many ways in which a Trump tweet storm could damage national interest and even cost lives. And if the damage is severe enough, Congress could be prompted to act. But it is impossible to prevent the abuse before it happens.

I do think it would be only an amendment. This isn't something that can be remedied with the power of the purse, and no self-policing by the executive will work because it can then be overturned by the executive. It would have to be an amendment.

(03-13-2017, 12:55 AM)bfine32 Wrote:

And yet we still account for 30% of the worldwide military spending.