The Patriot Act of 2001 destroyed checks and balances.
I opposed the Patriot Act because of the lack of checks and balances built into the legislation. Congress was being asked to give the executive enormous authority and then to step back and trust the executive to implement it responsibly.
The Patriot Act, to me, represented unchecked executive power. Congress was giving authorities to law enforcement that they had long requested, even before 9/11, and was agreeing to do so with minimal oversight built into the system.
That said, the whole thing was already prepared and waiting in a drawer for something like 9/11 to happen. The USA was very much Not OK even before that.
To be fair Supreme Court was taken over by Republicans because the constitution is shit and with partisan SP there was no one to make sure Congress or the President follow the law.
The very fact that Supreme Court justices are politically appointed, for life no less, is so beyond retarded I don’t see how it was ever intended to be a check or balance in the system. How was this ever a good idea?
That’s why I said that US constitution is shit. Modern constitutions solve this in a different way, actually separating the judicial branch. It’s normal that the first constitution didn’t get it right. What’s insane is that US system was never reformed. In other countries people celebrate constitutions that are just historical documents. In Poland for example “Constitution day” celebrates constitution from 1791 that was used only for couple of years. It would never occur to anyone to actually try to use this constitution today. Yet that’s exactly what US is doing. They can’t comprehend that some documents can be placed in a museum and still be respected.
The answer is relatively simple, the supreme court just kinda gave itself a shit tonne of power early on and nobody stopped them. Also the states were meant to work as a check on federal power as well, if this shit happened pre-1910s there’s a solid chance the president would’ve been shot or otherwise DC would be under siege from Maryland and/or Virginia.
No, constitutional tribunals decide if new laws are constitutional or not. They can throw away a law even before it’s enacted or applied anywhere. They very much do prevent things.
I mean, yes, but if US had a truly independent judicial branch it would be a totally different country today. They only have politicians committing crimes on a daily basis because the system deteriorated over time. Real checks and balances are meant to prevent that.
America has concentrated far too much power in the presidency if this is something trump can just decide to do
The Patriot Act of 2001 destroyed checks and balances.
I recommend to read all they have to say about it.
That said, the whole thing was already prepared and waiting in a drawer for something like 9/11 to happen. The USA was very much Not OK even before that.
No Congress abdicated its duty and so did the Supreme Court. If they were doing their jobs Sit like this wouldn’t happen.
To be fair Supreme Court was taken over by Republicans because the constitution is shit and with partisan SP there was no one to make sure Congress or the President follow the law.
The very fact that Supreme Court justices are politically appointed, for life no less, is so beyond retarded I don’t see how it was ever intended to be a check or balance in the system. How was this ever a good idea?
That’s why I said that US constitution is shit. Modern constitutions solve this in a different way, actually separating the judicial branch. It’s normal that the first constitution didn’t get it right. What’s insane is that US system was never reformed. In other countries people celebrate constitutions that are just historical documents. In Poland for example “Constitution day” celebrates constitution from 1791 that was used only for couple of years. It would never occur to anyone to actually try to use this constitution today. Yet that’s exactly what US is doing. They can’t comprehend that some documents can be placed in a museum and still be respected.
The answer is relatively simple, the supreme court just kinda gave itself a shit tonne of power early on and nobody stopped them. Also the states were meant to work as a check on federal power as well, if this shit happened pre-1910s there’s a solid chance the president would’ve been shot or otherwise DC would be under siege from Maryland and/or Virginia.
Even if, the courts are there to punish, not prevent. The damage would already have been done.
No, constitutional tribunals decide if new laws are constitutional or not. They can throw away a law even before it’s enacted or applied anywhere. They very much do prevent things.
I mean they don’t physically keep you from committing illegal acts. It’s just words until you’ve done something.
I mean, yes, but if US had a truly independent judicial branch it would be a totally different country today. They only have politicians committing crimes on a daily basis because the system deteriorated over time. Real checks and balances are meant to prevent that.
I barely know anything about the US presidency, but I could’ve sworn the presidency doesn’t have this power.
No?
Not legally
Narrator: They Did