From: ‘Charlie Kirk Miracle’ - the Authoritarianism discussion

[Kishkumen]

Right now, I think the authoritarianism of the Trump Regime is best demonstrated by what he’s done to the DOJ.

Yep. Definitely. Trump's direct interference in the DOJ by directing Bondi to pursue the indictment of particular political enemies is transparently authoritarian.

[Kishkumen]

You’re still pretending that federal authority = authoritarianism. You can’t even support your own statement past that conflation. No one here seems to be buying it.

Yeah, it isn't' clear to me that Whiskey knows what authoritarianism is.

[Res Ipsa]

Clever supporters of Trump know that most people are incapable of grasping complex situations, so they will pick individual issues like sending abortion back to the states to argue that Trump is not an authoritarian. Bullocks. Trump's consistent move to grab power wherever he can is not negated by those instances in which his reach only goes so far. He has no philosophy or values regarding issues like DEI, abortion, or anything else of the sort. He believes in the attention he receives, and the wealth and power he accrues. If he can't make abortion illegal for his Christian marks right away, and he is embarrassed by that, he will use the handiest excuse he can find, such as "sending it back to the states."

Our brains aren’t evolved to rationally assess complex issues. They default to simplistic, black and white solutions. Part of the appeal of authoritarian mass movements is the the leader speaks in simple black and white terms: build the wall, lock her up, etc. In a real sense, these mass movements hijack our naturally fragile ability to reason.

[Kishkumen]

Our brains aren’t evolved to rationally assess complex issues. They default to simplistic, black and white solutions. Part of the appeal of authoritarian mass movements is the the leader speaks in simple black and white terms: build the wall, lock her up, etc. In a real sense, these mass movements hijack our naturally fragile ability to reason.

Well said, RI. Thank you for laying this out so clearly.

[Whiskey]

Right now, I think the authoritarianism of the Trump Regime is best demonstrated by what he’s done to the DOJ.

Possibly. Though, it is arguable that what was done to the DOJ was done prior to Trump 47. Again, nobody is suggesting that the feds should not have a DOJ neither that they should control and direct the DOJ. Only, there is an issue of what is acceptable and what outcome is wanted. I mean, it was fine when Trump was getting a mugshot but not fine when he is taking them. The authority rests with the feds.

[Whiskey]

You’re still pretending that federal authority = authoritarianism. You can’t even support your own statement past that conflation. No one here seems to be buying it.

Yeah, it isn't' clear to me that Whiskey knows what authoritarianism is.

And you make this conclusion based on your assgorithm?

It is very clear that I do. It is also very clear that I can acknowledge the parts and elements, without needing to frame it in an ideology.

[Kishkumen]

Possibly. Though, it is arguable that what was done to the DOJ was done prior to Trump 47. Again, nobody is suggesting that the feds should not have a DOJ neither that they should control and direct the DOJ. Only, there is an issue of what is acceptable and what outcome is wanted. I mean, it was fine when Trump was getting a mugshot but not fine when he is taking them. The authority rests with the feds.

The question is not whether Trump is in a mugshot. The question is "what put him there"? Did Biden direct his AG to go after Trump? Was the prosecution of Trump about Biden's personal grudge against Trump? I notice how you avoid the mechanisms involved in getting the indictment and prosecution rolling and merely focus on the fact that "both sides" could be the target of investigations and prosecutions. You are bypassing the pertinent point entirely.

[Kishkumen]

And you make this conclusion based on your assgorithm?

It is very clear that I do. It is also very clear that I can acknowledge the parts and elements, without needing to frame it in an ideology.

It is very clear that you believe you do. You have not demonstrated here that you in fact do.

[Res Ipsa]

No, states are bound by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

They are, but Republican-controlled states were quite eager to challenge the Biden Administration several years back. This Guardian article link below discusses some of that.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... reme-court

Sure, but the boundaries of federal v state power have been the subject of frequent litigation for over 200 years. The case discussed in the Guardian was about whether states had any power to regulate a border with a foreign country — a question about the Supremacy Clause. That boundary will never be fully resolved as new problems will continually present themselves as society changes.

The applicability of the First Amendment to the states is a “settled issue”(TM) of Constitutional law. Modern clashes over religion in government are about what the amendment means, not about whether it applies to states.

[Chap]

Please help a poor confused foreigner. If the State of Oklahoma decides to make laws or regulations to compel all school students "to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism", that is surely a law establishing a religions, viz. a particular version of Christianity, the one with literal belief in Genesis.

Now the First Amendment to the US constitution begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...". So presumably Congress could not make a law that would compel all school students "to take Bible Study classes and be taught creationism"", because that would be unconstitutional.

But is the constitution binding on state governments? On the face of it, it might seem not, since the constitution only refers to the US Congress. Can a state insist that a particular religion is taught, and also "prohibit the free exercise" of their religion to Muslims or any other religion they don\t happen to like?

Hi Chap. Before passage of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court had generally held that the rights described in the bill of rights did not apply to the states. Afterward, the Court developed the incorporation doctrine, which holds that the limitations on the federal government found in the bill of rights also apply to state governments. So, the establishment clause in the First Amendment applies to state governments today.

When the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution, several states had established churches. In a relatively short period of time, those states chose to prohibit established churches through their own laws and constitutions.

Thanks to Res Ipsa for settling this point for me. That seems more reasonable - though of course I do understand that "being reasonable" is by no means something one can automatically expect of the law..

On my later point about me (as a non-citizen) being forced to adopt or abjure some religious belief by a state government, that was purely theoretical, since my contacts with US colleagues have convinced me that it is not a great time to pay them a visit, and that situation is not likely to change for the next few years. Or, if things go really badly, during the long reign of the coming President for Life.