2024 US Election

[necrovore]

6 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

At any rate, the administrator of the GSA is the guy who was empowered to make that determination, via an “ascertainment letter”.

I think the law around that was changed in 2022: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/77-days-transition-new-law-aims-streamline-presidential-power-transfer-process

[tadmjones]

13 minutes ago, DavidOdden said:

Well, there is no such thing, so it would take an act of Congress and the usual presidential filter to create it. There have been various laws establishing some kind of transition mechanism. Mostly this has been a matter of “courtesy” though with the repeal of courtesy in presidential politics, we just have statutory law. In 2010, there was a law providing for certain privileges and emoluments for the future POTUS, stuck in as an uncodified note to 3 USC 102 which was repealed in 2016. At any rate, the administrator of the GSA is the guy who was empowered to make that determination, via an “ascertainment letter”. In the immediately previous election, the sitting GSA Administrator engaged in a bit of political fuckery by denying that Biden beat Trump, but eventually she admitted that she was wrong and released the funds. Now this only provides for office space and money, not any “power” such as access to heads of state via the State Department, which enabled Trump to tell Biden to screw himself until the last minute. There is and has been nothing in any law that states the criteria for opening the coffers to a president-elect. If he wants, there’s nothing to prevent him from hanging any arbitrary sign he wants on the door.

So it’s your everyday ole performative projection of pseudo-quasi? power that all legitimate leaders do ?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

On 11/5/2024 at 12:50 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

It's not possible, and he doesn't care.  The MSM told him "Trump bad" and I really don't think much else is going on, here.

I'd like to revise this, actually.  That's not fair.

The MSM told him "Trump anti-abortion" and he correctly evaluated that as bad, and that seems to be all that's going on here.

[DavidOdden]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

So it’s your everyday ole performative projection of pseudo-quasi? power that all legitimate leaders do ?

It really can't be much more. Congress cannot order the president around, it can only pass laws and spend money, and the laws cannot command the executive branch. So if Biden wants to be uncooperative in the way that Trump was uncooperative, them's the breaks for Trump. Congress can pass a law making office space available and paying for staff, that's it. The current GSA Admin gets to "deem" satisfaction of the electoral college results prior to the official reading in January "if it is substantially certain the candidate will receive a majority of the pledged votes of electors", via a series of "substantially certain" conjectures. It is substantially certain that no GSA administrator has anything resembling the qualifications to predict the outcome of a court challenge, so really the Admin can do whatever he wants, or is ordered to do by his boss. Cutting through the legislative cruft in the current law, it means that Harris can be a pain in the ass for as long as she wants, but the money and office space are still there for Trump, per act of Congress.

There are aspects of the current law that are dubious, since they limit the constitutional powers of the VP (therefore the law is unconstitutional, if someone objects and SCOTUS does its job).

[SpookyKitty]

 

[tadmjones]

Did you read the article or the comments on the thread of the post?

It’s standing law in the US since 1906, to take citizenship away from those who gained it illegally.

Edited November 8, 2024 by tadmjones

[Devil's Advocate]

On 11/3/2024 at 8:03 PM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Oh, probably not.  The way I see it, even if we accepted that a fetus is a person (which is certainly not a safe assumption) it'd still be a person who will die if separated from its mother - who has every right to demand that separation, if she wishes.  Nobody has the right to anyone else's body.

Melania appears to be the only member of the Donald's party who gets the distinction between inherent individual rights and government's obligation to secure them: "What does my body my choice really mean?"  Abortions and suicides, tragic as they are, are not murder and therefore not legitimate for the government intervention of an individual's inherent liberty to dispose of their property (including a fetus) as they will.

A person, in the context of an individual, does not exist by definition until capable of exercising its own inherent rights separately from the bearer of its life.  In the context of this forum, an actual right bearer (the mother) has autonomy over a potential right bearer (her fetus).

Glad to see you're still here, Harrison!

[Devil's Advocate]

On 11/3/2024 at 7:15 PM, Boydstun said:

The issue is that complex.

Unnecessarily so, I think.  Presuming Rights of the unborn follows the Biology over the definition of the Right, which requires the autonomous actions of an Individual to apply.  In the context of Natural Individual Rights, I consider the separation from ones Natural Custodian (Mother) to be prerequisite, and not some biological development prior to that event.

Abortion is the disposal of Property that only exists by the actions of the Individual who created it.  Attempts to force an Individual Right prematurely upon the Mother's Property in order to separate her from it is lowest form of theft in the form of slavery.

[tadmjones]

What principle allows for others to participate in the individual's actions?

If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy , depending on the stage in gestation the termination occurred , her health will be in jeopardy if the tissue is not removed. ( I see abortion as justifiable homicide, but I can't find or get comfortable with the idea that another can assist one in homicide justifiably)

A terminally ill patient may not be capable of the physical acts required to attempt suicide, is someone who actually performs the actions required to terminate the patient's life processes acting justifiably? ( I tend to think they are re DNR and such prepared and recognized ante hoc by individuals).

By what principles do we determine the extent to which others are 'allowed' to participate?

Are suicide and abortion in the same principled category ?

Edited November 24, 2024 by tadmjones

[Devil's Advocate]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

What principle allows for others to participate in the individual's actions?

By what principles do we determine the extent to which others are 'allowed' to participate?

Are suicide and abortion in the same principled category ?

The principle of life being the 1st property of the bearer presumes the liberty to contract with others.  Otherwise, as Melania asks, "What does my body my choice really mean?"

The disposal of one individual's property allows for custodial agreements with others to participate in decision making according to the terms of the life bearer. More importantly, it prohibits others from coercion to determine the use of the life bearer's property.

Suicides and abortions are disposals of personal property, presuming the owner of that property is an autonomous individual or that individual's custodian.

Biological markers prior to birth (separation) and matryoshkas do not an Individual make.