> allow direct political control over the government agencies
Why would this be far fetched? Many civilized countries, including the U.S., have similar policies.
Why would this be far fetched? Many civilized countries, including the U.S., have similar policies.
Hungary's Orban had been in power for 16 years and if he'd won the election it would've been impossible to ever remove him.
Trump will be gone in two years. And even he can be removed if Congress wills it.
Europe came tantalizingly close to an authoritarian regime with Orban.
And yes Orban is an exception, the average tenure of a prime minister in parliamentary democracies is considerably shorter than that of US presidents.
Erdogan is only (barely) tolerated because Turkiye is an important strategic asset in the Middle-East and controls access to the Black Sea. For Europe there's also the controlling of migrants to be considered.
I am Swedish and understand the relationship between our government and the various agencies. Elected people make laws to direct the agencies, and the agencies implement said directives.
Abducting and killing people in the streets, immigrants and US citizens alike.
That’s the part about having a mature attitude towards democracy.
It’s a bit silly to expect ordinary citizens to have a near infinitely more mature attitude towards democracy than their elected representatives though? It’s not like anybody could have ever expected until relatively recently that one of the (objectively) most immature public figures in the country would somehow end up its president
1. Congressional authority for federal spending. The current administration has withheld or redirected spending that lawmakers had already approved.
2. Independence of the Department of Justice. A number of examples where the current administration has pressured DoJ representatives to pursue obviously ridiculous and un-pursuable charges against political 'enemies'.
3. Almost anything that DOGE did. Choose your example from the grab bag.
And the bonus round of breaching constitutional norms such as birthright citizenship and outright defiance of court orders.
The system hasn't failed because someone I dislike got elected, the system failed because the system is not constraining the current administration from their overt system-contravening actions.
I'm very sorry, and I'd rather it wasn't the case, but the system has failed.
2. The President has authority over placing judges, as per the Constitution. Every President puts judges they want in, that’s how it’s supposed to work.
3. See point #1
You seem to think the system failed because you don’t understand the powers the Executive has
If the Constitution is violated, then sue in court (as has been done). If the court agrees with the EO, then they don’t think the Constitution is violated.
It’s not unconstitutional because you don’t like the outcome