Counter to the constitution, of course. As usual. The power of the purse was intentionally given to congress alone, so that at least the elected officials can be fired or rehired or charged with crimes by the people. Giving those powers to a legally immune king, or letting one take those powers just returns us to the system the US was created to escape in the first place. I have no faith in the current Supreme Court to admit this, nor limit any conservative presenting executive leader from acting in any way that takes the power of the purse away from congress or the states.
deleted by creator
Not for the people it actually managed to protect. There are groups and people that were at risk, were being abused and even slaughtered that it defended. Through well meaning judges and local enforcement, of course. But the stories that went the other way are far greater at present, and that’s a real problem.
Not for the people it actually managed to protect.
…wealthy white landowners?
deleted by creator
Not for the people it actually managed to protect.
you mean slave-owners?
So who would you say the 3/5ths compromise was protecting?
I was clear when I said when it happens to protect the little guy, which is when certain institutions and judges use it to help them. I didn’t make the mistake of thinking or saying it was a perfect document meant to help everyone from its inception. But they did include the ability to adapt it through amendments.
So canceling student loans is back on the menu?
