Timeline for Could a US political party gain complete control over the government by removing checks & balances?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 8, 2019 at 16:26 | comment | added | hszmv | The Constitution has provisions that explicitly say that if it's not a power granted to the Federal Government explicitly by the Constitution than it is illegal for the Federal Government to wield that power. The only entity that can violate the Constitution is the Government. By non-ok, do you mean "Taboo" or "Immoral?" | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 16:15 | comment | added | Yakk | @hszmv I illustrated a non-illegal non-ok way to use the US constitution; if being non-illegal is sufficient to be ok, then so this the (obvious to most people) not-ok thing I illustrated. At this point, I'll assume readers can read. Thanks for the help! | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 16:11 | comment | added | hszmv | Your examples of Danger signs is also problematic. The two specific quoted phrases are lacking context as to why they are warning signs. | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 14:48 | history | edited | Yakk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2019 at 14:48 | comment | added | Yakk | @hszmv So, the ability to abuse this does not depend on the specific state you are abusing. This is about abusing the system, not about the specific state you abuse it with; please see the OP's question. As it seems this is confusing, I will add the word "for example". Is there anything else you find confusing about this? I want to make it perfectly clear that the US constitution is not a shield against Tyranny. | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 14:43 | comment | added | hszmv | It's not one US state, though. It's the won you want to patrician that needs to consent to the break up. Californians would love to see Texas broken up, but nobody cares what California thinks in the discussion of breaking up Texas... it's up to Texas to agree. | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 14:38 | history | edited | Yakk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 146 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2019 at 14:36 | comment | added | Yakk | @hszmv 2 paragraphs down I listed the requirement of consent of "1 US State (any US State)". Is that too confusing? I could move requirements before the description of the act. | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 14:33 | comment | added | hszmv | Downvoting for the Alice and Bob's house example. This would not be legal under the constitution because the Constitution prohibits the partitioning of a state of the union into two states unless the Current State and proposed New State agree to the partitioning. Congress cannot break Michigan into the states of Glove and Not Glove unless the Glove territory and Not Glove Territory agree to such a division. Also your examples of legitimizing Democratic Norms are problematic, but I do not have space to go into specific issues. | |
| Apr 8, 2019 at 14:21 | history | edited | Yakk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 8, 2019 at 13:38 | history | answered | Yakk | CC BY-SA 4.0 |