This Corona Virus Mania is Just Too Much, We All Need to Chill!

[Lagonda]

On January 24, 2020, administration officials held a bi-partisan briefing for the full Senate.

I don't understand your second and third sentences. Of course the president has an outsized and individual influence on the decision-making process of the federal government. As you suggest correctly, in my opinion, this makes sense, especially in the context of rapid action needed for war, of which the virus response is analogous.

I respect your right to have an opinion that you disagree with the veto and pardon provisions of the U.S. Constitution, but I have no problem with them, and I do not understand your objections.

Your last sentence gives me the insight I was searching for. News media organizations and Hollywood scriptwriters are among the very last places I would look to learn about the U.S. Constitution, American governmental structures, historical American political culture, and the political and jurisprudential philosophies underlying each of the foregoing.

January 24 is a long time ago, a lot has happened since. Well at least you still have the 8 year maximum term in place, Some places in the world leaders have a hard time accepting their own expiration date

 

[Al M.]

We are not debating politics, Ron is educating me in the workings of the political system. Different ballgame.
I just don’t like to see to much power in one mans hands, no matter what party he represents.

Ok, and I agree with you. There is a very interesting paper, "The perils of presidential democracy" by J.J. Linz. You can google for the pdf. It is also discussed in this article:

https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed

The argument on evidential / historical grounds is that presidential systems are typically unstable, compared to parliamentary systems -- which are far from perfect either. The reasons are discussed. It is highly unusual that American presidential democracy has endured as long as it did, and it is far from certain that it will endure.

 

[rbbert]

Not quite
As I posted earlier the team at the University of Oxford have publicly stated that they are 80% sure that the vaccine they are working on, and have been working on since mid January, will work. Human trials are planned within the next two weeks with the aim of it being available for use by this September

Unfortunately, they are clearly speculating using imaginary data . As of today, you will not find any valid data on what constitutes a protective immune response; assuming that is identified soon (it probably will be), the next questions will be how protective it is, and how long it lasts.
It is unfortunately true that 1) it typically takes about 18 years for a viral vaccine to go from development to availability, and 2) it may never happen. We are still waiting for vaccines effective against HIV, Ebola, Dengue, etc, that have been in development (in some cases, for decades); in each of these cases, at one time or another researchers were “sure” it was “nearly ready”.

 

[Barry2013]

I believe you're mistaken Barry. We left on 1/31/20. The only thing that's left to decide is FTA or no FTA.
We've had four national votes in the UK now for parties to enable a referendum/vote Leave/vote for parties promising to respect the Leave vote/get Brexit done. That's quite enough, yes?

Yes we could leave on 31 ecember 2020 without any new trade agreement with the EU and trade on WTO terms with all the resultant damage that would cause to business and jobs, incuding your own.
That would severely add to the damage to the conomy which is resulting and will result from from the Covid 19 epidemic. The Treasury are envisaging that in the second half of this year the epidemic will bring a 15-30% drop in GDP quite apart from how we repay all the additional huge borrowing that the Chancellor's current measures entail.
The original timetable is now no longer realistic and it is only a matter of time before that is acknowledged by the Government.

 

[Al M.]

Unfortunately, they are clearly speculating using imaginary data . As of today, you will not find any valid data on what constitutes a protective immune response; assuming that is identified soon (it probably will be), the next questions will be how protective it is, and how long it lasts.
It is unfortunately true that 1) it typically takes about 18 years for a viral vaccine to go from development to availability, and 2) it may never happen. We are still waiting for vaccines effective against HIV, Ebola, Dengue, etc, that have been in development (in some cases, for decades); in each of these cases, at one time or another researchers were “sure” it was “nearly ready”.

True, but the Coronavirus has less shielding than HIV, for example, which gives hope:

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavi...entists-find-virus-has-low-shielding-11970430

 

[Barry2013]

Unfortunately, they are clearly speculating using imaginary data . As of today, you will not find any valid data on what constitutes a protective immune response; assuming that is identified soon (it probably will be), the next questions will be how protective it is, and how long it lasts.
It is unfortunately true that 1) it typically takes about 18 years for a viral vaccine to go from development to availability, and 2) it may never happen. We are still waiting for vaccines effective against HIV, Ebola, Dengue, etc, that have been in development (in some cases, for decades); in each of these cases, at one time or another researchers were “sure” it was “nearly ready”.

We will soon know whether Oxford university's optimism is justified but I can't imagine that such a respected institution and world class team made their statements without very solid foundations

 

[Folsom]

As a student of American political science, and as a result of what I saw while working on Capitol Hill, I am personally very comfortable with the way the U.S. Constitution structures and distributes power among the branches of the federal government, and between the federal government and the state governments.

Respectfully, I cannot help but wonder if this post reflects a completely innocent misunderstanding of the way the U.S. Constitution divides power among three branches, and reserves non-enumerated powers to the states?

I've taken enough political science classes to know that most people don't get it. Most people = the mob.

There are problems with some things, IMO, but it's way better than most would think. No comment on the posts.

 

[Lagonda]

I've taken enough political science classes to know that most people don't get it. Most people = the mob.

There are problems with some things, IMO, but it's way better than most would think. No comment on the posts.

Consider me part of the mob Folsom i have been called worse ,at least you left out unwashed .

 

[Al Stewart]

So, the U.S Constitution is an interpreted document that changes with time. Whether you look to Donald J. Trump as authoritative on the Constitution or not, because he occupies the seat of power in one of the enumerated constitutional offices, his pronouncements about what he can and cannot do have great power. He gets to do what he wants until the federal judiciary says he doesn't get to do what he wants. And if five members of the U.S. Supreme Court say he gets to do what he wants, regardless of whether it breaks 50, 100 or even 200 years of legal precedent, then he "correctly" interpreted the Constitution by his conduct. This doesn't make him a constitutional scholar; it makes him a potentially potent constitutional challenger.

 

[dminches]

So, the U.S Constitution is an interpreted document that changes with time. Whether you look to Donald J. Trump as authoritative on the Constitution or not, because he occupies the seat of power in one of the enumerated constitutional offices, his pronouncements about what he can and cannot do have great power. He gets to do what he wants until the federal judiciary says he doesn't get to do what he wants. And if five members of the U.S. Supreme Court say he gets to do what he wants, regardless of whether it breaks 50, 100 or even 200 years of legal precedent, then he "correctly" interpreted the Constitution by his conduct. This doesn't make him a constitutional scholar; it makes him a potentially potent constitutional challenger.

While that may be true, a pronouncement is only as strong as one’s ability to enforce it. If he proclaimed that all businesses in NY were open he would have no way to make that happen, especially if Cuomo did not agree. No one really wants to enter in this fight.

 

[Lagonda]

Definitely interesting times in the US !

 

[Al Stewart]

dminches I agree with part of your statement above. But, whether someone likes or dislikes President Trump, all should acknowledge that he views the presidency and its powers radically different than his modern predecessors. And because he views presidential power differently, I am not confident that your statement "No one really wants to enter in this fight" is correct. I hope it is; I don't know that it is.

 

[Al M.]

Definitely interesting times in the US !

But not interesting in a sense that I could feel comfortable with (Coronavirus aside). Not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[dminches]

dminches I agree with part of your statement above. But, whether someone likes or dislikes President Trump, all should acknowledge that he views the presidency and its powers radically different than his modern predecessors. And because he views presidential power differently, I am not confident that your statement "No one really wants to enter in this fight" is correct. I hope it is; I don't know that it is.

I don’t think any of the governors want to get into this fight. They have enough going on in their states. I agree I don’t actually know that each of these governors want to do.

 

[Ron Resnick]

So, the U.S Constitution is an interpreted document that changes with time. Whether you look to Donald J. Trump as authoritative on the Constitution or not, because he occupies the seat of power in one of the enumerated constitutional offices, his pronouncements about what he can and cannot do have great power. He gets to do what he wants until the federal judiciary says he doesn't get to do what he wants. And if five members of the U.S. Supreme Court say he gets to do what he wants, regardless of whether it breaks 50, 100 or even 200 years of legal precedent, then he "correctly" interpreted the Constitution by his conduct. This doesn't make him a constitutional scholar; it makes him a potentially potent constitutional challenger.

Your first sentence is inaccurate, and your misunderstandings snowball from there. Suffice it to say that I disagree with each and every point, and each point reflects a lack of understanding about constitutional law, American political culture and American history. I'm sorry, but this post is just too much of a mess for me even to try to unpack and correct point by point.

If you have a particular question you would like me to answer, I would be delighted to do it via private message.

 

[Gregadd]

So, the U.S Constitution is an interpreted document that changes with time. Whether you look to Donald J. Trump as authoritative on the Constitution or not, because he occupies the seat of power in one of the enumerated constitutional offices, his pronouncements about what he can and cannot do have great power. He gets to do what he wants until the federal judiciary says he doesn't get to do what he wants. And if five members of the U.S. Supreme Court say he gets to do what he wants, regardless of whether it breaks 50, 100 or even 200 years of legal precedent, then he "correctly" interpreted the Constitution by his conduct. This doesn't make him a constitutional scholar; it makes him a potentially potent constitutional challenger.

Wow! So he challenges the very constitution from which he claims is the source of his dictatorial power?

 

[Al Stewart]

I'm happy for you to correct what you see as incorrect, point by point on the thread. I wasn't asking a question. I was responding to a post. I'm not used to being told I have a lack of understanding of constitutional law. My understanding of the law, including constitutional law, has served me pretty well over the last 30 years practicing law. I'm also fine with you disagreeing with every point. That's what makes American great. We get to disagree agreebly. But, I'm also happy to dialogue with you via private message too.

 

[Gregadd]

...views his presidential powers radically different...
lol.

 

[Lagonda]

 

[Ron Resnick]

I'm happy for you to correct what you see as incorrect, point by point on the thread. I wasn't asking a question. I was responding to a post. I'm not used to being told I have a lack of understanding of constitutional law. My understanding of the law, including constitutional law, has served me pretty well over the last 30 years practicing law. I'm also fine with you disagreeing with every point. That's what makes American great. We get to disagree agreebly. But, I'm also happy to dialogue with you via private message too.

Please forgive me for being presumptuous.

But then you must know that even your first sentence is entirely controversial: "So, the U.S Constitution is an interpreted document that changes with time."

That first sentence blithely assumes the answer. In fact, whether or not the understanding and the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution "changes with time" (or is fixed in time under the method of constitutional interpretation known as "original intent") is itself the most fundamental threshold question underlying most matters of constitutional interpretation.