chrisedelson.bsky.social
Assistant professor of government at American University. Area of focus: US presidential power and authoritarian threats to democracy. Writing a book on emergency presidential power in context of Trump. https://www.american.edu/spa/faculty/edelson.cfm
1,638 posts
1,099 followers
566 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
indeed. the system has failed and Rs have demonstrated they will not do their jobs to hold him to account. It is a terrible situation, to say the very least
comment in response to
post
thank you for your integrity
comment in response to
post
apologies if already discussed, but obvious comparison would be the use of force against peaceful protesters (as well as an Australian reporter and cameraperson) on June 1 2020 at Lafayette Square. That was quite controversial and certainly didn't seem to help trump
comment in response to
post
it is not the America any of us have known.
comment in response to
post
The Declaration of Independence would also like a word
comment in response to
post
oh indeed. it is not a both sides thing. Republicans have failed to hold trump to account in any way as I have emphasized: "In a functioning system, Republicans would have joined with Democrats to immediately remove Trump from office." www.acslaw.org/expertforum/...
comment in response to
post
meaning serious criminal offenders who are not immigrants--focusing on immigrants as a group (most of whom are *not* serious criminal offenders) rather than focusing on serious criminal offenders as a group is a perversion of law enforcement 2/2
comment in response to
post
yes--very much appreciate this point and the others. as you rightly suggest, one thing different this time is we are dealing with an aspiring dictator. When GHW Bush sent military to LA in 1992, no danger this was part of broader effort to undermine constitutional democracy.
comment in response to
post
Eg, this oped says:
“Trump overrode Gov. Gavin Newsom and federalized California's National Guard, under a rarely used law meant to deal with ‘rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States.’”
That sounds sort of legal. But it transparently is not.
comment in response to
post
It's a dumb and obvious point, but the framers knew what they were doing when they wrote the articles of the constitution in the order that they did. I do hope Congress works harder soon to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities as coordinate branch.
comment in response to
post
yes--Neagle is not a license to violate the law, and a plenary power argument is the stuff of monarchy, as Justice RH Jackson emphasized in Youngstown Sheet
comment in response to
post
If you are an elected dem and doing anything other than demanding the executive branch stop doing lawless things that will get people killed, I simply do not think you are fit for this moment. You do not understand or don’t want to understand or worse, want things this way.
comment in response to
post
reminds me of Postman's Amusing Ourselves to Death on the erosion of truth itself--or other notions (e.g. entertainment) replacing truth
comment in response to
post
Threatening to arrest the Governor of California is pathetic. A sign of someone desperate and losing his mental faculties. Is he going to try to arrest every Democratic governor? Every Democratic state legislator? Good luck. The administration is flailing.
comment in response to
post
"Loose and irresponsible use of adjectives colors all nonlegal and much legal discussion of presidential powers. "Inherent" powers, "implied" powers, "incidental" powers, "plenary" powers, "war" powers & "emergency" powers are used, often interchangeably & w/out fixed or ascertainable meanings."2/2
comment in response to
post
(2) The Memo states: “protests OR acts of violence” that directly inhibit the execution of the laws, constitute a form of rebellion.
Note the “or”!
That means First Amendment non-violent protests. Not violence. Not riots. Protests.
Such a claim would make authoritarians blush.
comment in response to
post
yes. I spoke recently with a decidedly non-trump person who also said she is concerned about extremism on "both sides". anecdotal, of course