bc's comment is a bit of a misapprehension, because in this context, I imagine that there would be new principles enshrined as amendments rather than trying to contort current rulings into something new. We don't have a lot of history to work with, but I see amendments as making new law to specifically overturn earlier decisions. They didn't say 'how can we reinterpret Dred Scott so that African-Americans are actually citizens'.
I was just thinking of the Constitution, I'm sure if Trump falls, there will be other things, sekaijin's list is good. Tariffs are probably difficult to tackle constitutionally, especially when one side has ignored the guardrails. Of course, after Smoot-Hawley, they gave control of the tariffs to the President, so it's not clear who could be trusted with it.
It might be instructive to consider what sort of laws were put in place after Nixon. I don't think there was any talk of amending the constitution, which might be a measure of how much more Trump has broken the system.
(I'm being incredibly optimistic that Trump will overreach and him and the people around him will be called into account, though that optimism calls to facts not in evidence...)
2025-09-20 07:34:31
Thanks so much for posting that. I'm tempted to post Rick Blaine's line at the end of Casablanca, but I don't want to scare you off.
I wonder if it is a possibility that, after all the dust has settled (if it does) and the MAGAists are cast out (if they are), we would have a round of amendments. ERA, possibly expanded to deal with the Roberts court's assaults on it, something dealing with tariffs, an amendment specifically about environmental protection, possibly couched in terms of the rights of future generations, would be what I would hope for. I realize this is improbably optimistic, but that's what's for dinner.
bc's comment is a bit of a misapprehension, because in this context, I imagine that there would be new principles enshrined as amendments rather than trying to contort current rulings into something new. We don't have a lot of history to work with, but I see amendments as making new law to specifically overturn earlier decisions. They didn't say 'how can we reinterpret Dred Scott so that African-Americans are actually citizens'.
No, not really, I was thinking of these
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/29/historic-german-ruling-says-climate-goals-not-tough-enough
and
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/aug/29/south-korea-court-climate-law-violates-rights-future-generations
I was just thinking of the Constitution, I'm sure if Trump falls, there will be other things, sekaijin's list is good. Tariffs are probably difficult to tackle constitutionally, especially when one side has ignored the guardrails. Of course, after Smoot-Hawley, they gave control of the tariffs to the President, so it's not clear who could be trusted with it.
It might be instructive to consider what sort of laws were put in place after Nixon. I don't think there was any talk of amending the constitution, which might be a measure of how much more Trump has broken the system.
(I'm being incredibly optimistic that Trump will overreach and him and the people around him will be called into account, though that optimism calls to facts not in evidence...)
Thanks so much for posting that. I'm tempted to post Rick Blaine's line at the end of Casablanca, but I don't want to scare you off.
I wonder if it is a possibility that, after all the dust has settled (if it does) and the MAGAists are cast out (if they are), we would have a round of amendments. ERA, possibly expanded to deal with the Roberts court's assaults on it, something dealing with tariffs, an amendment specifically about environmental protection, possibly couched in terms of the rights of future generations, would be what I would hope for. I realize this is improbably optimistic, but that's what's for dinner.