No, Trump does not have the legal authority or the practical ability to “nationalize” US elections, for all the same reasons he also didn’t when he issued an executive order a few months ago abolishing mail in voting.
-
@mattblaze Yep, just like he can't bom random ass fisherman without congressional approval. How's that working out?
@hellomiakoda @mattblaze the scale of what would be involved to nationalize the elections isn't impossible, but it gets kind of close to the level of difficulty associated with putting a functioning, practical solar powered AI data center in orbit. Nobody would be foolish enough to try *that*, I assume.
-
@inquiline in my time we used the term “trolling”, but I guess “engagement farming” works as a synonym 8-D
i don't thnk it is what i'd call trolling, and if it were trolling i don't think i'd have said anything. i almost didn't, and @mattblaze certainly knows how to handle trolls--but this seemed weirder and like matt might want to know it was uniquely not worth replying/trying to educate them
-
@mattblaze @diasyy11 i don't have to be an elections expert to understand that if a bunch of guys with guns show up and start beating people up and shutting down the polling station or seizing the machines, that nothing in the law can stop that and in a situation like minneapolis where the cops are outnumbered 5:1 by ICE guys with bigger guns, nothing in local law enforcement can stop it either.
@cryptadamist @mattblaze @diasyy11 Do you not realize that, if Trump actually sends goons to “seize the election machines" we're in a crisis far worse than “cancelling elections”.
-
The presidency is an extremely powerful office, but it’s not all powerful. There are limits - legal, structural, and practical - that shape what someone like Trump can and can’t do unilaterally. The fact that he can order thugish enforcement of immigration laws (something that was already almost entirely within executive control) doesn’t mean he can just unilaterally rewrite the constitution or usurp state sovereignty.
Not all abuses are equally plausible.
@mattblaze but I think it's clear enough now that absolutely any executive authority contingent on "emergency" conditions can and will be abused, now that impeachment is no longer a credible deterrent.
-
@mattblaze A vaguely related topic and question: how theoretically and practically possible is it for a state to leave the USA and become not united with the rest of USA?
I compare that UK left EU (I live in Sweden, EU).
-
@diasyy11 @cryptadamist @mattblaze Because, as Matt has pointed out, the President has zero legal authority over elections even under the wildest dreams of John Roberts. Sending goons to interfere would be a de facto declaration of martial law, if not a declaration of civil war.
-
@mattblaze but I think it's clear enough now that absolutely any executive authority contingent on "emergency" conditions can and will be abused, now that impeachment is no longer a credible deterrent.
@tobinbaker I agree. But that doesn't mean he can nationalize elections.
-
@mattblaze A vaguely related topic and question: how theoretically and practically possible is it for a state to leave the USA and become not united with the rest of USA?
I compare that UK left EU (I live in Sweden, EU).
@hehemrin @mattblaze A few tried a century or so ago…didn't end well.
-
One (very risky) thing that Trump could potentially do would be to use federal law enforcement and/or military to *disrupt* elections to prevent them from happening altogether. It’s not clear that doing this yields him any benefit, or that enough people would obey his orders to have wide impact.
This is essentially a nuclear option. The outcome is no legitimate government, and likely civil war. And if he really wants a civil war, he can start one in other ways without taking over elections.
@mattblaze I keep trying to tell people this. "Cancelling elections" via martial law/civil war kind of creates a bigger issue than “no elections”
-
@diasyy11 @angry_drunk @mattblaze
> "Do you not realize that, if Trump actually sends goons to “seize the election machines" we're in a crisis far worse than “cancelling elections”."
i fully realize this and i don't for a second think trump or anyone in the administration is above doing exactly that.
-
@mattblaze the point that so many here have been making is that the laws may be good, and the system may be highly distributed, but those laws are worthless if the judicial and legislative branches keep rolling over in submission to the executive. We are becoming a country where might makes right, and it sickens me. /3
@mattblaze there's also some precedent for the Federal government dictating how states run elections: the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I'm sure there are more than a few on the right that would love to use that precedent to takeover elections for their political motives. /4
-
@mattblaze there's also some precedent for the Federal government dictating how states run elections: the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I'm sure there are more than a few on the right that would love to use that precedent to takeover elections for their political motives. /4
@bmitch The voting rights act was an act of CONGRESS, which is not the executive branch (the part Trump runs). The fact that congress can make or alter election rules is literally in the text of the constitution.
The president has zero constitutional authority to run elections.
-
@bmitch The voting rights act was an act of CONGRESS, which is not the executive branch (the part Trump runs). The fact that congress can make or alter election rules is literally in the text of the constitution.
The president has zero constitutional authority to run elections.
@bmitch "But they could amend the constitution to give him control over elections". Sure. They could amend the constitution to make Trump president and overlord for life, too.
But that's not something the president can do himself, either.
-
@bmitch "But they could amend the constitution to give him control over elections". Sure. They could amend the constitution to make Trump president and overlord for life, too.
But that's not something the president can do himself, either.
@mattblaze "but that's illegal" isn't something that's been stopping this administration from just doing the thing first, and escalating to SCOTUS later if anyone fights it. If this administration was following the laws, I would be in full agreement with you, but we're disagreeing on the fundamentals here.
-
@mattblaze But if masked agents show up before the polls open, give a list of Republicans, order us to only allow those people to vote, tell us they know where we all live, and doing anything against their demands will result in masked agents busting in our doors at 3am to disappear us,... I'm not sure there are enough 60+ year old retirees willing to defy that. The few that resist may only result in their precinct being declared as invalid, which is just as good for this regime's goals. /2
@bmitch @mattblaze Do you think Trump can find enough troops to do that simultaneously for tens (hundreds?) of thousands of polling places all over the country, keeping the troops there all day to be sure nobody sneaks through?
I agree with you about the slide toward might makes right, both that it is happening and that it is sickening. But might is limited by available resources.
-
@mattblaze Honest question:
What are the practical limits on these powers if Congress, the Supreme Court, and the entire Executive Branch is all aboard Trump's extralegal agenda?
@soatok @mattblaze you know the answer to that, and why he just sits around calling everyone living in reality "in denial."
-
One (very risky) thing that Trump could potentially do would be to use federal law enforcement and/or military to *disrupt* elections to prevent them from happening altogether. It’s not clear that doing this yields him any benefit, or that enough people would obey his orders to have wide impact.
This is essentially a nuclear option. The outcome is no legitimate government, and likely civil war. And if he really wants a civil war, he can start one in other ways without taking over elections.
@mattblaze what mechanism would govern one or two states' results being so obviously disrupted that they can't be verified? Is there an explainer for this kind of contingency you can point to that's reasonably correct? Or is there simply no plan, and it's just whichever states manage to send electors, that's it?
(Edit: autocorrecto)
-
@mattblaze what mechanism would govern one or two states' results being so obviously disrupted that they can't be verified? Is there an explainer for this kind of contingency you can point to that's reasonably correct? Or is there simply no plan, and it's just whichever states manage to send electors, that's it?
(Edit: autocorrecto)
@gabe For presidential elections see https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48309
-
@mattblaze Honest question:
What are the practical limits on these powers if Congress, the Supreme Court, and the entire Executive Branch is all aboard Trump's extralegal agenda?
@soatok that’s an extremely broad question. I’m specifically discussing Trump’s ability to nationalize elections (which aren’t run by the federal government).
-
@gabe For presidential elections see https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48309
@mattblaze thank you.
