this post was submitted on 27 Dec 2025
127 points (100.0% liked)

politics

26849 readers
1992 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Frustrated lawmakers are looking to 2026 in the hopes that they can reclaim some of the power many fear they’ve ceded to the White House under Trump.

Over the course of 2025, the Trump administration unilaterally shuttered or drastically weakened federal agencies, implemented widespread tariffs, canceled congressionally approved spending and conducted military operations in the Caribbean.

Democrats repeatedly cried foul, and even some Republicans aired concerns about the White House brushing aside Congress. Scores of lawmakers opted for retirement before the calendar even turned to January.

Now many are wondering whether anything will be different next year, especially with the added political pressure of the approaching midterm elections.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 28 points 15 hours ago (3 children)

I now think that anything Congress does to cede its authority to anything should be inherently unconstitutional.

Congresspeople on the day they first walk into office have less power than most people probably expect. They don't sit on committees. It's difficult to introduce legislation. Many of the important bills they vote on are giant monsters of bills and they have no option except to vote along party lines.

So individual congresspeople are put into a this conundrum. If they want to benefit their constituents, they have to play along with their party leadership. If the executive branch has too much power over the party, as Trump does, due to his controlling all the money, then essentially, the executive branch controls Congress.

We need to get rid of all of this ceding of power not just to the executive branch but also to anything else, like political parties, or even to rules of order, like how the filibuster works today. There are all sorts of ways that Congress today has less power than specified in the constitution.

[–] krashmo@lemmy.world 22 points 15 hours ago

The legislative branch ceding power to the executive branch is already unconstitutional. The biggest problem with Trump is not that the terrible things he does are legal, it's that no one is willing to enforce the law and stop him. Without a way to enforce them the words written on dusty pieces of paper are completely irrelevant.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

Constitutionality is a meaningless concept in US political system. It can't be established or enforced in any way.

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Of course it can be enforced, and was planned to be enforced from its inception. All three branches were designed to have a hand in enforcing it. The legislative branch in creating laws to enforce it, the judicial branch to adjudicate it, and to a lesser extent, the executive branch. It was all enforced from the beginning.

If you're saying that a conspiracy of government officials can choose to ignore the constitution, and that's the reason why it can't be enforced, then that's true for every government's constitution.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 0 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

No, I'm saying that new constitutional theory was created that lets political and judicial leaders interpret the rules any way they like. The document itself is meaningless now and as such can't be enforced. Any accusation of something being unconstitutional is countered by different interpretation of the same laws and there's no independent, impartial body to say which one is correct.

So in practice the legislative branch creates any laws they want, the partisan judicial branch finds some creative interpretation of the constitution that legitimizes them and the executive is forced to follow them. The Supreme Court has on many occasion invented completely new laws claiming that they are somehow defined by the constitution and even reversed it's ruling later interpreting it in the opposite way. The majority is free to decide what the constitution says and the document itself is useless now.

[–] logicbomb@lemmy.world 2 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Surely those sorts of things could happen in any country. There's no constitution that is inherently more than just words on paper.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 10 hours ago

But it is not happening in many other countries. In most modern democracies the judiciary is independent and interprets the constitution faithfully because trying to weaken it doesn't serve it interests. Unlike US constitution, most modern constitutions are also written in contemporary language that has specific, legal meaning and can't be reinterpreted freely. In most countries there are no alternative theories about what the people that wrote the document really meant or how the system is designed work. Most of those issues are specific to US. And I'm only saying "most" because I don't know the situation in all other modern democracies but I'm not aware of any other system which is as broken as the one in US and is still considered a democracy.