Відео

Jeffersons point regarding throwing off a bad government kinda' backs up the compact theory.

The side screaming about "democracy" 😂

Pretty amazing way to view a lot of things…but sadly we cannot use this logical framework for current political issues…if not just for the simple usage of the word “man.” Not enough common sense to make it hit home today😢

Let us remember one thing when listening to this lady talk about a coup we the people in order to make a more perfect union the government is derived from the people and for the people not a bunch of corporations installing what they want

No way that you can explain how you install a person without the votes of the people

VOTE BLUE KMALA VOTE BLUE KAMALA 2024

Why put an end point on justices? You'd be moving from an absolute to a partial position. That has logical and psychological implications. Your idea moves us from a more to a less defensible position for defending the Court's sanctity (putting us on a slippery slope of changes for political expediency). What if your idea is implemented by amending to read "terms shall be determined by 2/3s of legislature and signed by President"? The pols would love having no necessary adult supervision. A truly independent judiciary is the best man-authored contrivance in history to provide stability across the ebbs and flows of history. We should respect it more, not less.

He wasn't consistent on calling for amendments? What makes you think he was the author?

And democrats will vote for her too oh well. Shes gonna suck too but like they say get what u vote for

Trump 2024!!!! ❤❤❤❤

For presidential immunity, I keep thinking, how do you define what are decisions that the president can make that are considered "bad"? I think if you analyze most presidency terms, you can probably find something that happened under their watch that can be considered bad. For supreme court limits, I can agree to this as long as the senate and congress can be included. Why one and not the other? This mostly sounds like a bunch of ideas that President Biden is only considering now because of a belief these ideas will work out in Democrat's favor in the short term but not realize how it can backfire in the long run. It can be balanced for everyone in the long run so these ideas can still be good ideas if refined.

The primaries give American voters a voice in who they want to see nominated, which is the democracy we’re wanting, right?

A useful and informative video. Thanks. Al Although the need for a constitutional ammendment makes the US Supreme Court term limits proposal an unlikely near term fix, it is important to start the conversation. And when the US President makes the proposal, it will get broader attention. I would certainly support that improvement. Creating an Inspector General position for the Supreme Court charged with enforcing their new code of conduct would be a constructive approach. There are approximately 6 dozen IGs in the federal government, and the position can be created with specific responsibilities and enforement powers. A constitutional ammendment defining the scope and limits of Presidential immunity would certainly be an improvent over what the Supreme Court has done. Again, start the conversation. Remember, the 27th ammendment, ratified in 1992, was proposed in 1789 as part of the Bill of Rights. These improvements can take a long time, but they have to be started before they can be ratified.

This would be more credible if it includes the Senate and Congress as well. I think term limits and an enforceable code of ethics for SCOTUS, Senate and Congress is a great idea.

Great video! Most of these seem like unrealistic wishlist items to me, not sure it was worth Bidens energy. 1. The presidential immunity one I really lack all opinion on, it seems like President's like Bush and Obama should be triable for war crimes in the middle east, but maybe we want our leaders to be free of such a burden? Not too sure. 2. I don't believe in term limits in general. It seems to me that every reason people list for term limits ends up being a symptom of another problem. I think raising the consent of the Senate to a super majority (2/3) would go a long ways to improving the candidates. The idea that a hyperpartisan Senate can get someone in with half + 1 is gross. I could also see removing the President from the chain and having the Supreme Court send nominations to the Senate instead help de-politify the process. I have heard of using lottery/sortition to randomly select justices from federal courts to serve as a constantly rotating Supreme Court and I think that is a novel idea. Probably fantasy to think it would ever come to be. 3. It seems difficult to imagine a way for the Supreme Court to punish its members. Congress is far too political to do it, and the court too corrupt. I think the solution is, sadly, a complete refactor of the courts. Unlikely in this current climate. Maybe a bicameral court, or multiple high courts with different subject matters could do it. Maybe a system where other justices can trigger a blind vote to expel their members? Hard to say.

Just because it was done before doesn't mean that it is the right and best way to do it.

The party worried about saving democracy cares nothing for democracy. And We’re a constitutional republic. So there’s that.

Just because it was not historical unprecedented does not make this right. They suppressed the vote of the democrat voters. The democrat party showed how the party is full of Hypocrites

HARRIS IS STILL GARGAGE.

Correct, and how she got Joes' slot wasn't illegal, at all. Still kinda' smelly how in the short career she's niw a Presidential candidate. Took Joe forty years. She even did it faster than Mr. O.

It is unprecedented. Point to a time when the democratic process was used in the form of primaries, then that candidate, the nominee through the primary, was forced out and a new candidate was installed. Never. The answer is never. I agree with the premise if the party chooses to just pick a candidate, then sobeit. But, you can't have it both ways.

thank you

Good point. The same party who said the 2020 election was not stolen just stole the 2024 nomination from their own party. Think about that. Harris received 1% in 2020, the same as she did in California, so why pick her for VP? To sway voters for race and gender. Now they’re gambling it will work this time.

Too bad no one supported her in 2020.

Great context for those who just can’t get past it!!!

No one is being forced to support Harris. She is the obvious choice to defeat traitor tRump. If the MAGAts don't like it. Tough !!

Before the 17th Amendment state legislatures chose the senators to represent their state. Back then senators were not beholden to lobbyists, special interests and big money donors. Because of this you also didn't get 40 year career politicians.

I thought being super-wealthy or being funded by the super-wealthy is a requirement.

I voted for Harris in the 2020 primary. So I'm thrilled she's running for president!! Freedom!!! 💙🩵💙🩵💙

Not unprecedented, but very hypocritical for the party which claims that the other side is the threat to "democracy". They picked their candidate in a way that is certainly less democratic than voters are accustomed to in recent decades.

Trump Vance 2024 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

WHat if I said, the party of people who want to do away with the electoral college is the same party embracing the oligarch model? Which is unsurprisingly hypocritical.

It’s still anti-constitutional. What was done prior to 1970’s aka not having primaries… was wrong.

To be fair - and a little dark - if you vote for a 80ish year old man to serve another four years, a year after you vote, you're putting in a "soft vote" for the VP to fill that role in the future. (This applies to any party.)

If that's the case why didnt the party just put Hillary in 2016? Would have save her a bunch of embarrassment.

Any political science teacher that isn't overtly biased will point out the reasons why this is a terrible idea. For one, she is coming into the race very late and trailing with little time to make up alot of ground, but more importantly, there will be a small pocket of Democrat voters (anywhere from 2-5% as a rough estimate) that will either sit out or vote third party because they disagree with the party's decision. It's not impossible for Harris to win, but it is very unlikely. It's why this has never been tried before, it is also a very bad look for politics in general, it looks like sleazy backdoor dealing. Biden understood all this, which is why he was so reluctant to quit the race.

In 1800 there were 138 Reps and Senators for a voting population of 483,000 (1 rep per 3500 voters) In 2024 with an eligible voting population of 258,000,000 that figure is now one rep per 482,000 eligible voters.

Odd, The Lincoln Project supporting the Electoral College. Also Lincolns position was Congress, by its majority vote system, had the power to end, or not end slavery.

Thats Democrat democracy

This kind of situation is exactly why we have a representative democracy instead of direct democracy, including in the primary. We told the delegates we liked Biden better than anyone else running when we voted in the primary, but the situation changed between then and now, Biden isn't an option anymore,, and now Harris is. If you don't trust Democratic party delegates to make that kind of decision, don't join the Democratic party, but we don't have the organizational infrastructure to set up and execute another primary election in the few weeks before the convention, and the Democrats need to nominate someone. Even if you think primaries are better than delegates just choosing as was done in the past, given the unusual circumstance of Biden dropping out, delegates voting at the convention is the best they can practically do. And in terms of the general election, it shouldn't matter. Republicans haven't had a serious primary since 2016, and in either case, we should be evaluating nominees for how they will do the job of president, not for how the party picked them. If you don't like the way the nomination process works, start voting like an independent (whether you change your actual registration or not, I'd your state has closed primaries, staying in the party on paper let's you keep participating in the primaries). And as an independent, I'm looking at the nominees the two main parties have spit out, and Harris is clearly the better choice.

Democracy is founded on the principle of representation; it only makes sense that _the people_ have a say in who represents them. If a group of party leaders or wealthy individuals select candidates, it concentrates power in the hands of a few, sidelining the people <-- this contrasts with democratic principles and should be frowned upon. Only my opinion, though.

It may not be historically unprecedented. But it does completely contradict the narrative the Democrats have been using for the past 10 years. After Clinton lost to Trump, all we heard was how the popular vote matters the most, and there were plenty of calls to uproot the Electoral College's power over the popular vote. After Jan 6, all we heard was how the Democrats are the champions of democracy against the tyranny of the MAGA extremists, and how they are protecting the will of the people who voted democratically. But now this scenario completely contrasts with the same narrative, and basically screams to hell with the people, lets do what we please to protect ourselves. So we could hold the party up to its own professed ideals, or we could just defend their will to dictate to all of us which principle is the best for them today, not which is best for us. Stating that its not historically unprecedented is not a sufficient argument to cover all of that. The reality is not many proud Democrat voters have thought this through completely, as to how disposable the average voter really is to the party and its leadership. The reality is that you dont owe them obedience and loyalty, they owe you as public servants, they owe the American people fairness and justice in the process, they owe what they pledged for the last 20-30 years in pushing for voter participation as their high ideal. So they should be held up to those standards, not given a free pass.

That is still the way the Libertarian Party does it.

All of this MAGA talk that Harris was not democratically chosen, don't realize that even if there were a vote, the party leadership choses the people that go up for vote, not the voters. Harris was on even primary ballot as VP. Biden is 81. Any idiot can do the mental math that he might pass and Harris would be POTUS. The voters already approve of her.

Not only is it dont historically unprecedented but also many other democratic countries have the same process of party bosses selecting the party leader.

Primaries are why we have such extreme candidates. They have to appeal to the extremes to win the primary, then at the general, everybody's holding their noses and voting for the lesser of two evils.

Right but it’s extremely hypocritical of the Democratic Party. All they talk about is “democracy”

Not unprecedented for the democrap candidate to be a racist and to hate America either. Kamala is extraordinarily dumb for a candidate.

Oh and thanks for your great explanations. Gosh the stuff they got away with back then.

democratic primary voters (including myself) voted for the BIden/Harris ticket. Biden dropped out and Harris replaced him. Harris was voted in via primary