Slashdot Mirror
Lawrence Lessig Wants To Run For President So He Can Resign
An anonymous reader writes: Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig has announced his intention to explore a bid for the U.S. presidency. By Labor Day, he will decide whether he has the support necessary to enter the Democratic primary. His goals are rather unusual — he says, "I want to run to be a different kind of president. 'Different' not in the traditional political puffery sense of that term. 'Different,' quite literally. I want to run to build a mandate for the fundamental change that our democracy desperately needs. Once that is passed, I would resign, and the elected Vice President would become President."
His top picks for a running mate include Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Lessig calls it a "Presidency as referendum," a hack for the U.S. Constitution to give more power back to the citizens. "In no plausible sense do we have a representative democracy in America today." In an interview with the Washington Post, Lessig added, "Until we find a way to fix the rigged system, none of the other things that people talk about doing are going to be possible."
His top picks for a running mate include Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Lessig calls it a "Presidency as referendum," a hack for the U.S. Constitution to give more power back to the citizens. "In no plausible sense do we have a representative democracy in America today." In an interview with the Washington Post, Lessig added, "Until we find a way to fix the rigged system, none of the other things that people talk about doing are going to be possible."
April 15 was chosen for tax day precisely because it was nearly 6 months away from election day.
One doesn't exclude the other.
A republic simply means that there is no monarch reigning over the country. Adding "constitutional" before it simply means that the basic law is defined in a document, instead of being arbitrarily defined by the feelings of a human being on that day.
You can have absolute monarchies, constitutional monarchies, constitutional republics and I guess even absolute republics (North Korea comes to my mind, as the leader is above the constitution, but is technically not a monarch either, at least on paper).
A democracy simply means that the people have (at least some of the) power. Adding "representative" before it simply means that the people elect representatives, which then votes laws, instead of letting the people vote laws directly.
Pretty much all democracies at the state level are representative, even tough some offer some elements of direct democracy (Switzerland).
There are constitutional monarchies which are also representative democracies, like the UK.
Europeans have social democracies, not democratic socialism. From Wikipedia:
Yes, the difference matters a great deal. I know of no European country that is governed as a democratic socialist country. Many countries nominally have "democratic socialist parties", but they largely do not actually pursue democratic socialism anymore.
Who is the communist? I assume you mean Sanders? He is a self-proclaimed socialist, not communist, and even then his ideas are not truely socialist.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
I guess it is good we dont have Reagan and his 47 per year, right? Obama has issued the least since Cleveland.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
By electing me, you are approving of this action and Congress will know precisely what the majority requires of them.
I was going to say that the correct term is "plurality", but that's not even accurate. It's closer than "majority", however. The actual majority to which you refer is the electors, not the voters, and if you are truly such a nutter you'll find them voting for someone else.
If you DO manage to get enough electors to win, then you should realize that every congressman will have his constituents to think about, and they're collectively going to overrule your vetoes. They'll have veterans who want VA benefits, government employees who want paychecks, Universities and independent research organizations that want grant monies to pay their people, etc etc etc. You won't have partisanship to fall back on because you've abandoned all party affiliations in this quest, and both parties will have no hesitation to abandon you.
One of the bills that must pass would require another election to be held to determine who becomes President and Vice-President immediately after the bill is passed.
And as soon as the Speaker of the House is sworn in, he can call for that bill to be rescinded (or pass a new one just like the old one). The Speaker is not appointed by the President, he is elected by his state first and then elected by the other house members, and you have as much chance of getting him to go along with your plan as you do of getting elected in the first place.
If you believe you can call for such a bill to hold an election before you resign, then you should realize there is no provision in the Constitution for holding an election to replace a current, qualified President.
I don't want the candidacy of my running mate to become an issue.
Of course it will be an issue, because they will be a heartbeat away from the Presidency. You don't get to change the succession rules before you become President, and as soon as you do become "it" the current succession rules apply. Only if you demand the existing Succession Act be repealed or changed as part of your reign can you keep him out of the line of succession and thus not an issue -- but that can only happen after you are elected and he's been an issue.
So, "blood coming out of her eyes" must have something to do with a period, because she is a woman?
My point is that CNN has been coming out with these hit pieces on him since he declared his intention to run. Just do a search on CNNs home page for the word Trump, there are 8 mentions of him on their page, 4 mentions of Clinton, 0 about Cruz. Search for whatever name you like.
Look at the pieces, them freaking out because he allegedly said something about blood coming out of her eyes. Or the article about him asking a woman not to breast pump in front of him. Do you honestly think that this isn't an attack on the man because CNN simply hates him? There was also the story about the immigrants and crime rates when he first declared, but did you see much about the fact that he was quoting a Hispanic news site owned by Univision?
If you go to Fox News, you have 6 mentions of Trump, the very first one from the person he supposedly said these things to, saying we should move on. I can't get the video to play, but I would expect that she is in some way saying that it was a misunderstanding, but I don't know.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
they're collectively going to overrule your vetoes
At least then, they will prove that they are unwilling to respect the direct decision of the people.
he can call for that bill to be rescinded (or pass a new one just like the old one)
If the new President calls to reverse a decision made directly by the people, it's instant political suicide.
you should realize there is no provision in the Constitution for holding an election to replace a current, qualified President.
Indeed there is. Article II, Section 1, Clause 6:
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
I assume Bernie Sanders knows enough about socialism to understand what that means.
What you are saying is that what he is really doing is performing the same kind of "bait and switch" that "national socialists" performed in 1920's Germany; if you look at their 1920 party program, perhaps you're right. That makes him even less acceptable as a candidate.
People willing to pool their resources for the common good is what a free market accomplishes.
What Bernie Sanders and socialism advocate is some people "willing" to pool other people's resources for what is ostensibly the common good. No matter whether you think (like Sanders) that such coercion is justified and useful, don't try to pretend that it is voluntary; such coercion takes authoritarian government.
(Whether government is ever "authoritative" is debatable.)