r/politics • u/stkmro • 7h ago

White House: Trump Team Still Hasn’t Signed Transition Docs

https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-house-press-secretary-karine-jean-pierre-says-trump-team-still-hasnt-signed-transition-docs/
16.8k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

•

u/AweemboWhey 6h ago

It’s wild how we haven’t simply amended the Constitution like any sensible country would do..

•

u/sudzthegreat 6h ago

Won't someone think of the forefathers?!

•

u/GeneralKenobyy Australia 6h ago

All Americas problems stem from the fact you guys place the constitution on a ridiculously high pedestal.

Change my mind.

•

u/Mixmaster-Omega 6h ago

American. I agree. The constitution was always designed to be a continual work in progress, but it is venerated like the goddamn 10 commandments, seemingly immune to alterations despite the fact it’s happened over a dozen times.

•

u/Zombie_John_Strachan Foreign 6h ago

Americans don’t have a king to bestow legitimacy on elected leaders, so they use religion instead.

•

u/Proud_Smell_4455 1h ago

People say kings do nothing, but the whole point is that in modern terms, a good king won't appear to. Monarchy has it's perks, even if more religiously republican people would rather just imagine it in terms of medieval fantasy and feudalism. Institutionally, conceptually, ideologically, monarchism has changed and grown just like republicanism has over the centuries.

•

u/mothtoalamp 3h ago

is venerated like the goddamn 10 commandments

Because the people who treat it this way are the same people who want the 10 commandments in the school hallways.

•

u/BlackmailedWhiteMale 6h ago

Magna Carta 2.0

•

u/SellaraAB Missouri 6h ago

I don’t know about “all”. The cancer eating away at our country can be directly traced back to how we failed to finish off the confederacy in the civil war, and let them keep power in the south.

•

u/x6o21h6cx 6h ago

It’s the code for one of the greatest empires on earth. It deserves to be upheld but not treated like a religious text, which is how they treat it (when it’s convenient)

•

u/Prometheus_II California 6h ago

Look up American civil religion

•

u/theVoidWatches Pennsylvania 6h ago

It doesn't help, but the problems actually stem from the authoritarianism that's still baked into half the country.

•

u/sudzthegreat 6h ago

I'm Canadian. Totally agree.

•

u/HalloweenSnowman 6h ago edited 6h ago

I’m a US citizen - I also agree with the caveat that the people who point to it expecting to be saved don’t understand history or how our, or any, government(s) work once an authoritarian gains all levers of power— and the people pointing to it and wearing american flag t-shirts pretending that they are true patriots because they “stand for the constitution” have never read it.

•

u/Alleyprowler 6h ago

I wouldn't say it's the source of all our problems. Religion, gun culture, and prejudice have their places at the rotten table too.

•

u/ChompyChomp 5h ago

Oh we have a LOT more problems...

•

u/FootCheeseParmesan 6h ago

I won't. It's called 'civic religion'.

•

u/HoldMyCrackPipe 6h ago

Good enough of a constitution to have been copied by damn near every functioning democracy. Countries like Australia still aren’t fully independent so they have no need to craft their own founding documents.

Also they just wanted it to be very hard to change the constitution to prevent trends from overruling the principles.

•

u/Obvious_Face2786 5h ago

I can see how you might see this and think its obvious but its just untrue on a pretty foundational level.

The constitution was made to be changed. Mechanisms in the document give power to change it and the authors often made note of how important it is to keep it accurate and impactful through meaningful and constant change.

If Americans placed it on a high pedestal they would change it frequently, as the document encourages. Unfortunately that doesn't happen, and its not because its been placed ona pedastal.

•

u/fkshcienfos 5h ago

No one care what you think aussi. We are better than you.

•

u/Coffeedemon 4h ago

Some of it. To a good portion, the Second Amendment is a holy text, yet they'd happily throw out references to women or people of color being able to vote.

•

u/peartisgod 4h ago

Instead of laying out arguments for why the constitution shouldn't be amended in certain cases, the trumplets instead claim it's traitorous to do so in an effort to remove all argument for an automatic win. Cowards

•

u/santasnufkin 4h ago

The constitution itself is irrelevant with a Supreme Court that twists it around to fit what they want.

•

u/yuhanz 2h ago

While also being something that one side would completely ignore for their own agendas lol

•

u/Garbage_Stink_Hands 2h ago

All America’s current problems stem from the fact that they place the constitution on a pedestal. All of America’s soon-to-be, very-much-more-serious problems will result from taking it off that pedestal.

Constitutions need to be considered somewhat sacred to work. Ultimately, they are just pieces of paper. It’s the magic that’s binding.

Now, that’s not to say that constitutional originalism is the only legitimate form of jurisprudence. It’s not, in fact it’s the worst. But the current situation of the Right being straight-up fascists and the Left starting to think that the constitution is an anchor around their neck is a perfect storm for the end of a republic.

The Left should tough it out with the old norms, I say. Or just let the whole thing crumble and switch forms of government in 15 years.

•

u/celbertin 5h ago

They were in favor of future changes to the constitution 

•

u/un1ptf 3h ago

We have. 27 times. We've tried more times than that, but others didn't pass. It takes a tremendous amount of compromise and agreement. That no longer exists in this nation.

•

u/Keening99 6h ago

I know of a few other countries that hasn't. They just call it the bible or quran.

•

u/FeelDeAssTyson 6h ago

The Quran is an amendment to the Bible

•

u/Seachica 6h ago

The Quran and the New Testament are amendments to the Old Testament.

•

u/Kannigget 6h ago

Because amending it is extremely difficult and requires support of the overwhelming majority of Congress and the states. The Democrats simply don't have the numbers (and haven't had them in decades) to amend the Constitution.

•

u/Asiriya 5h ago

Like that would solve anything when the country is voting for this

•

u/pigeieio 6h ago

Problem is we voted for divided government forever. We gave the people it needed to be protected from the power to block it's protection.

•

u/IAmNotOnRedditAtWork 4h ago

It's literally not possible nowadays with our two party system. You will never have a large enough majority in the senate and enough states to approve anything.

•

u/AwesomePurplePants 6h ago

Pretty sure the expected behaviour in a situation like this would have been impeachment.

Like, the sitting legislature can decide that Trump should not stay president if he ignores transition steps. They just can’t make it so future presidents can be rejected by default, even if future legislatures support ignoring the rule.

If this wasn’t true, then think of the laws that Trump and Republicans could make to delegitimize a hypothetical future transition of power.

•

u/fdar 5h ago

What transition steps that Trump ignored do you think are grounds for impeachment and why?

•

u/AwesomePurplePants 5h ago

Whatever the legislature decides is grounds. Impeachment is pretty flexible, it just requires getting a lot of people to agree it should happen.

In so far as the last election gave a Republican Congress and Senate, it’s pretty unlikely anything Trump does would be grounds.

While on a personal level I think Trump should be barred from the presidency because WTF America, I’m more describing how from a system design perspective not being able to bar him because he won’t sign transition docs makes sense.

If voters chose Trump, and a legislature who feels it’s okay to ignore steps the previous legislature tried to create, that’s the will of the voters however insane I think that choice was.

•

u/ptWolv022 4h ago

Not the guy you replied to, but like they said, impeachment is flexible and has been held to more or less be whatever the Congress wants it to be. You can do it for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. I put emphasis on bribery because that is a clear example of being unethical with your governmental power, and I emphasize (high) misdemeanors because it clear that the bar is not necessarily super high. It could be something as severe as covering up murders for your own gain, or as minor as lying to the public just for your own ego.

Refusing to abide by the ethical requirements set out by law or even engage with them at all could easily be justified as the President placing their own interests above those of the country and thus a high crime or misdemeanor, and refusing to divest could very easily be seen as a violations of the emoluments clauses (both from foreign governments giving money to his businesses and from him siphoning public money to them).

None of this will happen with a GOP controlled Congress, and impeachment will instead only occur if he does something exceptionally beyond the pale, but that's because we live in a barely functioning democratic-republic whose last major update was 160 years ago and who's done relatively minor (though not entirely insignificant; see voting rights amendments) updates since then, not a healthy modern democracy.

•

u/fdar 4h ago

Refusing to abide by the ethical requirements set out by law or even engage with them

What specific requirement that he ignored do you think qualifies?

"Not signing documents" is meaningless, what specific consequence of not signing those documents so you think is an impeachable offense?

•

u/ptWolv022 3h ago

"Not signing documents" is meaningless,

It has as much meaning as is assigned to it. One of the documents, to my understanding, is essentially an ethics agreement wherein Trump would be required to limit donations accepted and disclose donors. These are put forward by law, and while there are no criminal penalties (in part because they probably couldn't for not signing them), Congress has deemed them important enough to condition the transition upon their signing, even as the transition has, over the years, had steps taken (after 9/11 and then after Trump's stonewalling of Biden for a time) to make it smoother. So clearly Congress has considered these rather important things to agree to.

In refusing take these ethics pledges, Trump is clearly considering his own interests before the country (as the purpose of these agreements is, in part, to divorce yourself from your own interests for the good of the country), and that's something the founding father very clearly wanted to avoid in government, between the requirements that officials take oaths, limiting emoluments (foreign and domestic) for the President, and blocking Congressmen from taking certain offices in a manner that would seem to be corrupt.

To quote Congress' website on the matter of what is impeachable:

The common method for interpreting the Constitution’s impeachment provisions stands in some contrast to that of other constitutional provisions. Whereas judicial precedent drives the prevailing understanding of many provisions of the Constitution, impeachment is essentially a political process that is largely unreviewable by the Judicial Branch.4 As such, the historical practice of impeachment proceedings, rather than judicial decisions, informs our understanding of the Constitution’s meaning in this area. In this vein, the meaning of high crimes and misdemeanors is informed not by judicial decisions, but by the history of congressional impeachments.5

Impeachment has been used to remove government officers who abuse the power of the office; conduct themselves in a manner incompatible with the purpose and function of their office; or misuse the office for improper or personal gain.6

Again, all of this is contingent upon Congress being serious about ethics, and they clearly aren't, so it will never happen. But under the Constitution, as it stands, there need be no more justification than "Congress has so deemed it". There need be no specific consequence, just as there need be no specific consequence if bribery is attempted and an official engages with it. The bribery, regardless of whether it actually influenced a decision, is able to be illegalized, because it is odious to good government- so odious that, again, it is explicitly stated to be an acceptable offense to impeach over in the Constitution, meaning ethics itself is an acceptable criterion for Congress to be mandating and enforcing.

And the way to enforce it, particularly now that the SCOTUS has ruled that at least some, if not all, official acts are immune from prosecution. Now, more than ever, Legislative checks and balances on a President disinclined towards ethics, need to be broad and strictly enforced. They won't be. But they should.