volkris @volkris@qoto.org
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
@Jeffrey_Smith@mastodon.social @DemocracyMattersALot
Well the Justice still owes allegiance to the judicial process and stands to be impeached should he violate that allegiance.
The stuff going on in his personal life, and his bank account, doesn't change that at all.
@kevinrns @Jeffrey_Smith@mastodon.social @DemocracyMattersALot
That's not quite how it works given the coequal branch design of the US government.
We can't have the different branches controlling each other like that because it would violate the independence of the judicial branch.
Neither legislators nor executive branch employees should have control over the justices, except for the one exception of impeachment.
If the president does not buy the jet then there is no bill for a jet to pay.
Once the president does buy a jet, then there will be a bill to pay. But until the president buys the jet, no bill.
So if the president doesn't have funding for a jet, he should not buy the jet. Therefore there will be no bill to decide not to pay.
Once the jet is bought, though, then the president has no choice but to pay the bill.
You're mixing up your branches of government again.
Congress does not place an order for a jet. The procurement agencies are in the executive branch, not the legislative branch.
Congress can authorize the executive branch to buy a jet, but the Treasury, DoD, GSA, and all of the other agencies that are involved in the procurement are executive branch functionaries.
The Treasury already has enough income to pay its bills and service its debts.
The coin minting idea is based on a misreading of the law, so it is not constitutional. The Treasury cannot legally treat a coin minted under that statute as if it was tax revenue. The law simply does not provide for that.
So Biden should simply knock off all of this talk of default and direct the Treasury to service it's debts through its tax revenues as it is legally obligated to do.
All the rest of this is just political grandstanding, and it's irresponsible.
You misunderstand.
It's not that the Treasury can pick and choose which bills to pay. It must pay all bills.
The key that I think you're missing is in assuming there are bills for money not yet spent. Those aren't bills, and the Treasury must not create bills that it can't pay.
If the president does not have the money to buy a new fighter jet and he cannot raise money through borrowing, then he should not buy the jet.
There is no bill for the jet that he does not buy.
Who is discussing the second amendment as an all or nothing matter?
I generally hear even gun rights activists describing it as a balancing act and not all or nothing, and that's from the people with the most incentive to frame it that way.
I'm really not sure what conversation you're listening to, but it's very very different from the one I'm hearing.
If the Court said that there was no constitutional matter, then that itself is a constitutional matter, that can't be changed by a simple majority vote in the legislature.
What is or isn't in the Constitution is dictated by the Constitution.
If people want to make it into a constitutional matter then they need to amend the Constitution to put it in there.
Sure, here's a link to the Treasury showing how much it's spends. You can compare it against appropriation laws to see that the two don't equate.
No I'm saying the exact opposite.
I'm here pointing out that the Treasury can and must pay its bills, so how in the world do you conclude that I think Treasury can simply not pay its bills?
I'm emphatically saying that it must!
Well they are apples and oranges, but I'd say it is pretty bad for government to have unrestrained ability to use its power against its citizens.
Keep in mind that there are different rules for individuals than for governments.
We put constraints on government because it has so much power and so much ability to abuse that power.
Well he is running for president, so anyone looking to take that job should be open to whatever the democratic process settles on.
It's just part of the job description.
Sure, you're welcome to bash people for not comprehending whatever point you're trying to make, but in the end if you want to convince people of your perspective, whatever that is, you do have to communicate effectively.
Or else why bother trying?
So maybe a different bumper sticker slogan will get your point across? Maybe you just haven't found the right one yet? Want to try again?
I think it's a bit tone deaf to say fuck that guy because he went on vacation.
Heaven forbid people take vacations?
How is the Supreme Court destroying democracy?
Exactly!
And as you can see, the language recognizes the position of the Treasury within the executive branch so that it may constrain the president's hand, requiring him to have permission to spend.
If it was Congress doing the spending then that phrase wouldn't make any sense. There would be no consequence of appropriation requirement, it would simply be saying that Congress spends.
So yes, the Constitution is clear as it defines the interaction between the executive and legislative branch, recognizing that the president must have permission to spend, as he spends.
Oh no, exactly the opposite!
In theory there are all of these stories about the personal lives and motivations and speculations about what's going on with justices.
In reality would actually matters is the reasoning in the opinions that the Court puts out.
I'm pushing for people to drop all of the dramatic theory and instead focus on the substantial work of the Court, the reality of the reasoning in the opinions.
@StOnSoftware @LFpete @rbreich
It IS decision making.
The debt ceiling exists because there should be a democratic process to empower a president to obligate future generations to indebtedness.
The debt ceiling exists because our elected representatives should think hard about whether to authorize such generational action.
What in the world are you going on about?
Yelling bumper sticker slogans doesn't get anybody anywhere. In fact it helps promote injustice by distracting from realities.
I think the most pressing and fundamental problem of the day is that people lack a practically effective means of sorting out questions of fact in the larger world. We can hardly begin to discuss ways of addressing reality if we can't agree what reality even is, after all.
The institutions that have served this role in the past have dropped the ball, so the next best solution is talking to each other, particularly to those who disagree, to sort out conflicting claims.
Unfortunately, far too many actively oppose this, leaving all opposing claims untested. It's very regressive.
So that's my hobby, striving to understanding the arguments of all sides at least because it's interesting to see how mythologies are formed but also because maybe through that process we can all have our beliefs tested.
But if nothing else, social media platforms like this are chances to vent frustrations that on so many issues both sides are obviously wrong ;)
Joined Dec 2022
volkris's choices:
