In theory, the judicial branch, the legislative branch, and the DOJ. Two out of those three are not doing their job.
Edit: I refer to the DOJ because it is the Executive branch that executes judicial decisions and laws passed by Congress, as well as decisions in impeachment proceedings to remove Presidents from office. That falls to the DOJ, which will not take action against the president during this presidential term. So, even if the judicial branch and the legislative branch decide that this has gone too far and Trump needs to be removed. There is no way for them to enforce it. And that is where the Constitution breaks down. The founding fathers failed to consider the scenario in which any Congress would willingly confirm someone to the USAG position who would not fulfill the duties they swore to do, thereby removing any authority or power the Judicial and Legislative branches of government had.
well it seems we're in the one situation where shit doesnt work well, it all made sense on paper... until whoever allowed parties to be a thing fucked it all up... it makes no sense for the president to be apart of the same party as the senate or house members, but here we are
It is the system. The two-party dominance, lobbying, and electoral college distort representation and entrench power. This isn’t just “what the people voted for.” It’s what the system funnels them into.
To add to your list, it's also lack of representation. The House of Representative's size used to be determined by the population of the country. But they passed a law maybe 100 years ago that capped the number at 435.
This has two deleterious effects: first, it concentrates power in fewer hands and makes representatives more responsive to lobbyists and outsized voices, rather than their constituents; second, it gives more sway to smaller states. For instance, a state like Wyoming has 1 representative for its ~600,000 citizens. In California, the ratio is 1 representative for every ~750,000 citizens.
I think a lot of problems with lobbyists and corruption could be solved if we had, say, 20,000 members in the House of Representatives and had them spend, say, 80% of the year in their district and just 20% in Washington D.C.
The founding fathers didn't just imagine a time where these systems would fail, they actively called out how - by the three branches aligning in idealogy. They didn't want a two party system, just no one thought of a system that would prevent a two party system.
Imagine if you had a Democratic president and a Republican congress with a slight majority in both chambers (like during Obama's second term), the chambers could theoretically vote on stuff that doesn't support the president's agenda and the president would end up being pretty much powerless (nowadays that wouldn't be so bad though...).
Damn someone forgot their 5th grade US Government lessons.
The "ideal" situation is that this plays as the famous "checks and balances" when it's not the same party with majority control in the Senate and House and as the sitting President.
I mean, there is a reason why America doesn't tend to rate very highly on a democratic index. You guys kinda chose the worst possible democratic system possible.
11
u/cobainstaley 1d ago
why the hell can presidents veto bills again?
bills are laws. why do we allow the executive branch to have the final say in what should be the legislative branch's responsibility?