id
int64 1
141k
| title
stringlengths 15
150
| body
stringlengths 43
35.6k
| tags
stringlengths 1
118
| label
int64 0
1
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
62,173 | Why isn't the constitutionality of Trump's 2nd impeachment decided by the supreme court? | <p><a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/535925-senate-rejects-paul-effort-to-declare-trump-impeachment-trial" rel="noreferrer">Just five GOP senators vote Trump impeachment trial is constitutional</a></p>
<p>As I understand the US supreme court, they rule on the constitutionality of issues. Therefore it seems like the question of whether Trump's 2nd impeachment is constitutional is something they should be deciding. Why is the US Senate voting on it instead?</p>
 | united states donald trump senate supreme court impeachment | 1 |
62,177 | Role of the 'Judge' during Impeachment | <p>What exactly does the Judge presiding over impeachment hearings do? As of now it is clear that John Roberts will not be sitting in for the second impeachment, and Rand Paul and many Republicans have raised points that it is a conflict of interest to have democrat Senator Leahy presiding over the trial.</p>
<p>On its face, I would tend to agree with that...since as a Senator, Leahy would be required to vote himself so he would quite literally be the "judge and jury".</p>
<p>Is there something I am missing about this conflict of intrest? And what power will the Judge have over the trial regardless of who it is?</p>
 | united states senate impeachment conflict of interests | 1 |
62,179 | Did Congress ever refuse to grant an exception to US Code 113(a)? | <p>According to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/113" rel="nofollow noreferrer">10 U.S. Code § 113 - Secretary of Defense</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>(a) There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Recently Congress passed <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BILLS-117hr335ih/pdf/BILLS-117hr335ih.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">H.R.335</a> to allow General Lloyd Austin become the Secretary of Defense and according <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Defense" rel="nofollow noreferrer">to Wikipedia</a> this is not the first time an exception has been granted:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Since the creation of the position in 1947, such a waiver has only
been approved three times, for Army general George Marshall in 1950,
Marine Corps General Jim Mattis in 2017, and retired Army general
Lloyd J. Austin III in 2021.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But did Congress ever refuse to grant such an exception to a Presidential nominee?</p>
 | united states congress nomination | 0 |
62,181 | What motivates left-wing and right-wing attitudes toward means-tested versus universal social programs? | <p>A means-tested social program is one that uses some economic factor, often income, to screen applicants. One would think it would be a highly <em>unattractive</em> view for conservatives, considering that it excludes wealthy people from economic assistance, and a traditional conservative view has been that the wealthy are "job creators," who invest their earnings back into the economy, and whose wealth benefits everyone (supply-side economics). In addition, at least modern conservatives tend to criticize left-wing policies as showing favoritism to less advantaged groups. By contrast, one would think that left-wing politicians would be more in favor—like a progressive taxation system, the intent seems to be to direct money primarily to those that have least resources.</p>
<p>Of course, the opposite is true. The most left-leaning politicians tend to strongly oppose means-tested programs, even those with rather high income cutoffs (e.g. three or four times the national poverty level). The most right-leaning politicians seem to oppose social welfare programs in general, but more moderate right-wing politicians are often in favor of means-tested programs with cutoffs well above the national poverty level, but well below the income levels of the most wealthy members of the population.</p>
<p>It is true that a means-tested program with a low cutoff can be used to exclude many low-income people from such programs (potentially more attractive to conservatives and anathema to more liberal politicians), but one would think that left-leaning politicians would be in favor of means-tested programs with a high cutoff, whereas right-wing politicians would oppose all of them. Instead, the first group tend to favor universal programs, whereas right-leaning politicians who support some social welfare programs oppose the model <em>seemingly</em> more aligned with their economic philosophy.</p>
<p>Why is this?</p>
 | social welfare poverty | 0 |
62,185 | Why has Narendra Modi's approval rating remained high despite massive protests by Indian farmers? | <p>I read a <a href="https://apnews.com/article/india-farmer-protest-654ef151a8af6de8c264c29363d0607b" rel="noreferrer">news article</a> today about large protests in multiple cities by Indian farmers.
The protesters are responding to a recent law that they view as providing handouts to large agricultural corporations at the expense of small-scale farmers.
That article was about protesters storming the historic Red Fort, once a palace of the Mughal emperors, on a national holiday (Republic Day).
But the law was passed in September and protests have been going on at least since November.
That article says outright that these protests present a huge problem for Modi.
I wanted to find out the degree to which this might be reflected in opinion polls, so I found the Morning Consult's <a href="https://morningconsult.com/form/global-leader-approval/" rel="noreferrer">global leader approval tracker</a>.
To my surprise, the percentage of the population with a favorable view of Modi hasn't dropped below 70%.</p>
<p>I realize that COVID is a massive compounding factor but something about this doesn't add up.
<strong>How can there be massive popular protests against the policies of Modi's government and yet very little change in his favorability?</strong>
To clarify, I'm not asking about whether the agriculture reforms are good policy or not or whether the protesters are justified, it just seems like there's a weird discrepancy between what the news and opinion polls are showing.</p>
<p>The AP article seems to suggest there is some support among the general public for the farmers' position -- "[the protesters] were showered with flower petals by residents".
Seeing as these are residents of New Delhi they're presumably urbanites and thus not farm laborers themselves.
On top of that, something like <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-of-the-labor-force-employed-in-agriculture?time=2017" rel="noreferrer">40% of India's population is employed in farm labor</a>.
So I'd naively guess that his approval rating would plummet to <em>at most</em> 60%.
What gives?</p>
<p>A few hypotheses:</p>
<ol>
<li>Bad reporting.
The protests are not as widespread or as popular as that article makes them out to be and in fact most Indian farmers have no problem with this new law.</li>
<li>Insufficient labor statistics research by me.
While a large part of the population of India is employed in agriculture, it's possible that relatively few of them are independent small-scale farmers; maybe most are employed by exactly the large agribusiness corporations that this law supposedly favors.</li>
<li>Bad opinion polling.
The Morning Consult is wrong and, if you were to get a more representative sample, Modi's favorability would be much lower.</li>
<li>A large part of the Indian populace are genuinely displeased with Modi about the agriculture bill but perceive the government as having handled the pandemic fairly well and this is more important.
See for example <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0240011" rel="noreferrer">this research article</a>.</li>
<li>The new law is deeply unpopular and protesters blame parliament as a whole, but Modi is so popular that nothing can tarnish his image.</li>
</ol>
<p>I find it hard to believe that the Indian government's response to COVID can completely offset any negative feeling from a really unpopular policy; Modi's popularity hit a high water mark in May but declined through June to August, right as the number of cases there <a href="https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2020-01-03..latest&country=%7EIND&region=World&casesMetric=true&interval=smoothed&hideControls=true&smoothing=7&pickerMetric=total_cases&pickerSort=desc" rel="noreferrer">started to climb</a>.
I also think the Morning Consult is a pretty well-regarded pollster -- 538 gives them the <a href="https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/" rel="noreferrer">same score</a> as the Pew Research Center and Rutgers University in their pollster ratings.</p>
 | india polling | 1 |
62,186 | Seal in the "Office of the Former President" | <p>In my country of origin national symbols (like the flag, coat of arms etc...) are protected by law, that is, nobody can use them without permission — for instance, one cannot print a tshirt or a mug with an stylized version of the flag. Nobody respects that law, but the law exists nonetheless.</p>
<p>That being said, I just saw that the <em>"Office of the Former President Donald J. Trump"</em> has what seems to be an official seal:</p>
<p><a href="https://i.stack.imgur.com/DKc5Dm.png" rel="noreferrer"><img src="https://i.stack.imgur.com/DKc5Dm.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Is that seal official? If it is, are official symbols like that protected by US law? Can Trump use it like he did?</p>
 | united states president | 1 |
62,190 | Has there ever been an independence movement with the goal to split off an underperforming part of a nation? | <p>There have been many independence movements in history. The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Independence_movements" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia category of independence movements</a> alone lists 145 articles about mostly distinct independence / seperationist / liberation movements.</p>
<p>It seems that all of these movements have one thing in common: They involve some group of people who want to split off from another group, for religious, economic, etc. reasons, with the other group denying the split.</p>
<p><em>Has there ever been a case where the reverse scenario happened? Was there a group of people who wanted some other group of people to split off, and the other group refused? Perhaps a country with a couple wealthy states who want to get rid of some poor, underperforming state?</em></p>
 | independence | 1 |
62,193 | Help me to understand what a filibuster is and why it hasn't been abolished | <p>These past few days the word <em>filibuster</em> has shown up everywhere and I'm trying to understand how it relates to McConnell and how it affects the Democratic Senate majority.</p>
<p>From my understanding, a filibuster is used to delay a vote in the Senate. According to NY Times: "By exploiting the chamber’s rules for full debate on an issue, the minority can indefinitely obstruct something that has majority support." In other words, if someone keeps on "debating" then the Senate won't be able to hold a vote where a simple majority (51 of 100) passes the bill. Apparently it's been used extensively by <a href="https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/democracy/reports/2019/12/05/478199/impact-filibuster-federal-policymaking/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Republicans to defeat a ton of bills</a>.</p>
<p>Then yesterday I read in NY Times that <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/25/us/senate-filibuster.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">McConnell Relents in First Filibuster Skirmish, but the War Rages On</a>. Essentially it says that McConnell dropped his demand for the Democratic Senate majority to promise not to eliminate the filibuster. What would've happened otherwise?</p>
<p>Then I found this NY Times article that explains the filibuster and its use with an SC: <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/us/politics/filibuster-supreme-court-neil-gorsuch.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Senate Filibuster, Explained</a>. It didn't help much, especially when it talks about "cloture", the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, and the <em>nuclear option</em>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>How does it work?
The Senate generally operates by unanimous consent. If any senators refuse to consent to holding an up-or-down vote on Judge Gorsuch’s nomination, the Senate has to decide whether to overrule them. It would do so by holding a “cloture” vote on whether to end debate and proceed to a final vote. It takes 60 votes to invoke cloture, so 41 senators can indefinitely block a confirmation by refusing to vote for cloture.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Obviously a filibuster isn't as simple as saying that it's a way to delay a Senate vote. And if it can be eliminated, then why didn't McConnell eliminate it when he was Senate majority leader?</p>
<p>Not only that, I've seen it used as a verb (<code>filibusted</code>) and there are different variations (In 2013 the Democratic Senate "used the nuclear option to eliminate <em>some other types of filibusters</em>")</p>
 | united states senate senate rules filibuster | 0 |
62,194 | Impeachment articles do not expire, but must a Senate trial restart from the beginning if the trial extends beyond the current Senate? | <h1>Background</h1>
<p>According to <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/970/is-the-senate-required-to-pursue-a-trial-if-presented-with-articles-of-impeachme">Is the Senate required to pursue a trial if presented with articles of impeachment?</a>, impeachment articles themselves do not expire as written inside <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-HPRACTICE-112/html/GPO-HPRACTICE-112-28.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Chapter 27, Part A, Section 5</a> of House Practice which reads:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Sec. 5 . Effect of Adjournment</p>
<p>An impeachment may proceed only when Congress is in session. 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2006, 2462.
However, an impeachment proceeding does not expire with adjournment. An impeachment proceeding begun in the House in one Congress may be resumed in the next Congress. 3 Hinds Sec. 2321; 111-1, Jan. 13, 2009, p __. An official impeached by the House in one Congress may be tried by the Senate in the next Congress.
Manual Sec. 620; 3 Hinds Sec. Sec. 2319, 2320.</p>
<p>Although impeachment proceedings may continue from one Congress to the next, the authority of the managers appointed by the House expires at the end of a Congress; and managers must be reappointed
when a new Congress convenes. Manual Sec. 620. Managers on the part
of the House are reappointed by resolution. Manual Sec. 604;
Deschler Ch 14 Sec. 4.2. Thus, the articles of impeachment against
Judge Alcee Hastings were presented in the Senate during the second
session of the 100th Congress (100-2, Aug. 3, 1988, p 20223) but
were still pending trial by the Senate in the 101st Congress, when
the House reappointed managers (101-1, Jan. 3, 1989, p 84). The
articles of impeachment against President Clinton were presented to
the Senate after the Senate had adjourned sine die for the 105th
Congress, and the Senate conducted the trial in the 106th Congress.
Manual Sec. 620.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The text above mentions Impeachment proceedings <em>from the house's perspective</em>. It does seem to imply that adjournment does not restart what the <em>house</em> is doing, but simply causes a reappointment in managers. It also mentions that the next Senate may indeed start a trial from articles submitted from the previous house session. However, nothing here mentions the situation of a trial that starts well within the term of one Senate session then goes on into another Senate session. And the possibility of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_impeachment_trial_of_Donald_Trump" rel="nofollow noreferrer">President Trump's Second Impeachment trial</a> starting within one Senate session, but being continued into a different Senate session never happened, since it never started in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/116th_United_States_Congress" rel="nofollow noreferrer">116th Senate</a>, so this situation has never occurred. This leads to my question:</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>While Impeachment articles do not expire, if a Senate trial starts, but goes into the next Congress, does the Senate have to restart the trial from the beginning?</p>
 | united states senate impeachment | 1 |
62,196 | Would Trump lose his former President benefits if he's convicted in the impeachment trial? | <p><a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/61612/if-a-president-is-impeached-and-removed-from-power-do-they-lose-all-benefits-us">If a president is impeached and removed from power, do they lose all benefits usually afforded to presidents when they leave office?</a> quotes the Former Presidents Act as defining a former President as</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a person ... whose service in such office shall have terminated other than by removal pursuant to section 4 of article II of the Constitution of the United States of America; and</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are a number of benefits that former Presidents lose if they're removed from office by impeachment (e.g. a pension and office staff, but <em>not</em> Secret Service protection). Trump was removed from office due to losing the election, not as a result of impeachment. So does that mean he'll continue to receive those the benefits afforded by the Act?</p>
<p>If he does, I suppose Congress could (if it wants to) amend the Act (to change the definition) or pass a new law to specifically deny Trump these benefits. This is likely to be moot, as getting 17 GOP Senators to break ranks and vote to convict Trump will be difficult.</p>
 | united states donald trump impeachment | 0 |
62,198 | Why do Democrats and Republicans ignore public opinion polls on major issues? | <p>When polled, the majority of Americans consistently believe in (1) a <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2020-polls-national-health-care-plan-favored-by-most-americans-cbs-news-poll-finds/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">national health care plan</a>; (2) increased taxes, not fewer taxes, <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/428747-new-poll-americans-overwhelmingly-support-taxing-the-wealth-of" rel="nofollow noreferrer">on the wealthy</a>; (3) and more, not less, <a href="https://news.gallup.com/poll/232007/americans-want-government-more-environment.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">environmental regulation</a>, particularly on climate change.</p>
<p><strong>How can these politicians get away with opposing the views of the majority on major issues?</strong> In other words, why is there not meaningful choice in the political arena in the US?</p>
 | united states democracy polling republican party democratic party | 0 |
62,205 | Why is it impeachment of a private citizen to try the former president after leaving office? | <p>I have seen <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/536006-senate-gop-boxes-itself-in-on-impeachment" rel="nofollow noreferrer">many</a> arguing that the senate trial cannot continue because Trump is now a private citizen. One cannot impeach a private citizen.</p>
<p>But the impeachment by the House occurred during Trump's presidency, not after. It is only the trial that is occurring after. What is the argument for why this qualifies as impeaching a private citizen? Is it a wording in the rules of the senate that is being leveraged?</p>
 | united states impeachment trump impeachment | 0 |
62,213 | Why doesn't the President Pro Tempore preside over presidential impeachment trials? | <p>The Constitution specifies that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over impeachment trials of the President. <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/01/the-role-of-the-chief-justice-in-an-impeachment-trial/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">SCOTUSblog</a> says that the reason for this exception is</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In any impeachment case other than that of the president, the vice president can preside ... However, the Framers recognized that it would be unseemly at best for the person who would assume the presidency in the event of conviction by the Senate to preside over the president’s trial. To prevent that obvious conflict of interest, they specified the chief justice as a stand-in presiding officer in presidential impeachment trials.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Chief Justice is not presiding over the upcoming trial of Donald Trump, because he's no longer the President, so that clause of the Constitution doesn't apply (another weird result of the unprecedented impeachment of an ex-President). Instead, Patrick Leahy, the President Pro Tempore, will preside.</p>
<p>I read in a <a href="https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/national/after-overseeing-impeachment-trial-sen-leahy-hospitalized" rel="nofollow noreferrer">news article</a> that this is normal:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The president pro tempore has historically presided over Senate impeachment trials of non-presidents,” Leahy said.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So if the VP doesn't normally preside over Senate impeachment trials, and the President Pro Tempore has no such conflict of interest, why was this provision necessary in the Constitution?</p>
<p>SCOTUSblog says the VP <em>can</em> preside, but in fact they don't. In absence of this provision, could the VP demand to preside instead of the President Pro Tempore? Or did the framers simply assume that the VP would normally preside due to their role as the President of the Senate, but tradition has changed this practice?</p>
 | united states constitution senate impeachment | 1 |
62,219 | What is the difference between how the DSA understands Democratic Socialism and how George Orwell understood it? | <h1>Background</h1>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Democratic Socialism</a> is a form of Socialism that according to several definitions of the term, seem to imply a decentralized state where workers have some form of agency over both their government as well as their workplace. Here is the definition as given by Wikipedia:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Democratic socialism is a political philosophy supporting political
democracy within a socially owned economy, with a particular emphasis
on economic democracy, workplace democracy and workers'
self-management within a market socialist economy or some form of a
decentralised planned socialist economy.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It seems that, at least for this definition, it is no doubt on the "left" side of the political spectrum but the definition seems to allow for a lesser centralized authority - depending on what "socially owned" means in practice. Indeed, some prominent Democratic Socialists, like <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Orwell" rel="nofollow noreferrer">George Orwell</a>, take an extreme view of the "Socially owned" part to the point where he completely and vehemently denounces <em>any</em> form of Totalitarianism as <a href="https://www.pbs.org/thinktank/transcript990.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">John Rodden states</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>And Orwell says that the Spanish Civil War was his watershed
political experience. “The Spanish War and other events in 1936-37,
turned the scale. Thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of
serious work that I have written since nineteen 1936 has been written
directly or indirectly against totalitarianism and for Democratic
Socialism as I understand it.” And the word “for” is italicized.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>From Orwell's point of view, Democratic Socialism has no room for totalitarianism at all, and this includes the Authoritarian communist regimes of his time as he wrote in his wartime diary:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>"One could not have a better example of the moral and emotional shallowness of our time, than the fact that we are now all more or less pro Stalin. This disgusting murderer is temporarily on our side, and so the purges, etc., are suddenly forgotten."
— George Orwell, in his war-time diary, 3 July 1941</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Few people consider Orwell to be unaware of what his understanding of politics are given his immersive experience in politics and prolific, well thought out writings such as Animal Farm and 1984. So it does not seem a foolish choice to take his word on what Democratic Socialism means.</p>
<p>Given this, I have read some pages on the <a href="https://www.dsausa.org/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Democratic Socialists of America</a>, they seem to <a href="https://www.dsausa.org/about-us/what-is-democratic-socialism/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">adhere closely</a> to the Wikipedia definition of Democratic Socialism, but they also openly allow a <a href="https://communistcaucus.com/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Communist Caucus</a>, and have done so <a href="https://dsacommunistcaucus.medium.com/dsa-communist-caucus-our-statement-bccd8fb2bcbd" rel="nofollow noreferrer">since 2017</a>. The presence of this caucus in a Democratic Socialist group is openly counter to George Orwell's idea of Democratic Socialism and is a discrepancy that has puzzled me. Given this stark difference in understanding Democratic Socialism, there <em>has</em> to be a crucial premise the DSA has that George Orwell does not, or vice versa. It is this missing premise that caused me to ask:</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>Why does the DSA have an understanding of Democratic Socialism that is not antipathic toward communism, while George Orwell, a prominent Democratic Socialist, saw not just a distinction between Democratic Socialism and Communism, but vehemently detested the latter?</p>
 | united states democratic socialism | 0 |
62,220 | Can the Supreme Court declare an impeachment unconstitutional? | <p>Somebody asked:Why is the Senate, and not the Supreme Court, deciding whether the current impeachment is constitutional?
As an Australian lawyer, I was thinking the same way. If a valid impeachment is on foot, only the Senate can resolve it. But the question here is whether the Constitution allows the impeachment AT ALL, once the person is out of office. If that question is one for the Chamber, every impeachment can be thrown out by the majority party?</p>
 | united states congress supreme court impeachment | 0 |
62,229 | Does US Federal Law explicitly prohibit election misinformation? | <p>According to the latest rumor about pro-Trump influencer <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/social-media-influencer-charged-election-interference-stemming-voter-disinformation-campaign" rel="nofollow noreferrer">arrested</a> on charges of conspiring with others in advance of the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election to use various social media platforms to disseminate misinformation designed to deprive individuals of their constitutional right to vote,</p>
<p>there is a question:</p>
<p>Does the US Federal Law explicitly prohibit election misinformation?</p>
 | united states presidential election law freedom of speech social media | 0 |
62,236 | Does anything prevent US state legislatures from directly selecting electors overriding the popular vote in their state? | <p>Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the Constitution states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors".</p>
<p>This seems to be a non-legislative power.</p>
<p>By non-legislative power, I mean powers that still belong to the legislature, but involve duties that do not produce laws. Examples are treaties, approving appointments, impeachments, expelling member, and in the case of the clause in question, selecting electors. Legislative powers change laws, non-legislative powers conduct business. Executing a non-legislative power involves a decision made by the legislative body. That decision does not become law, but affects the operation of government.</p>
<p>Does this mean a state legislature, could at any time, choose to appoint electors regardless of public election results and state laws?</p>
<p>Further, why doesn't this clause invalidate state laws that provide for the selection of electors by popular election? Do state legislatures "sign-off" on presidential election results in order to comply with this clause, if indeed it grants a non-legislative power?</p>
<p>Perhaps this question is a better fit for law, but it seems politics has to be involved in the reason why our system works as it presently does.</p>
<hr />
<p>As I understand, legislatures can establish their own internal rules, which would govern any exercise of their non-legislative powers, but it's not clear to me that a legislature must be bound by law in their exercise of those powers.</p>
<p>Internal rules can be debated and changed within the legislature. Laws, however, require the approval of the executive. If a law attempts to supersede a non-legislative power, it doesn't seem that the legislature can choose to change it without requiring the signature of the executive, thus making that power subject to another branch.</p>
<p>I'm looking for answers to that question, one way or the other, ideally backed by precedent, constitutional citation, academic analysis, or historical examples.</p>
<p>I would imagine fear of massive political repercussions prevent legislatures from ignoring the popular vote, so these questions are mostly academic. However, that's a separate issue.</p>
 | united states presidential election constitution electoral college state legislatures | 0 |
62,238 | Can the US President veto a repeal? | <p>Under Article 1 Section 7 of the US Constitution, the President has the authority to veto any piece of legislation passed by Congress (and Congress can override the veto with a 2/3 majority in both Chambers). However, I am not to sure if this gives the President the power to veto repeals, but Clause 3 says that any resolution, motion, order, etc. that requires both the Senate and House to concur together needs the approval of the President, therefore any repeal of a law will also need the President's approval.</p>
<p>Is this the case?</p>
 | united states president law veto | 1 |
62,244 | How much of votes in the European Parliament fall on party (group) lines as opposed to country (groups) lines? | <p><a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/60482/18373">Some votes</a> in the European Parliament fall on geographical/country lines. I'm pretty sure (many) others probably fall on a more traditional ideological (e.g. left-right) divide between <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_groups_of_the_European_Parliament#9th_European_Parliament" rel="noreferrer">EP party groups</a> (EPP being more to the right of PES etc.)</p>
<p>So, are there some statistics that try to tease how much voting goes on "party lines" vs some kind of "country lines" in the EP?</p>
 | voting statistics european parliament | 0 |
62,245 | When was the idea of universal adult suffrage first conceived, and by whom? | <p>I understand that universal adult suffrage has its basis in universal manhood suffrage (1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen). It was then extended to include <em>all</em> adult women, first in New Zealand in 1893 (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage#Dates_by_country" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>).</p>
<p>Where did the concept of universal suffrage of all adults, independent from any other factors, originate? Which are the keys documents and who are the key thinkers?</p>
<p>NB. Women’s suffrage existed before the French Revolution (e.g. during Sweden's Age of Liberty 1719–1772), but like manhood suffrage it was not universal.</p>
 | voting democracy history human rights civil rights | 0 |
62,246 | Name of a voting system where you can transfer your vote to anyone at any time | <p>I remember reading about a theoretical electoral system where votes are passed on in a continuously changing graph. I would like to know the name or origin of this system.</p>
<p>This is my approximate recollection of how the described system would work:</p>
<ul>
<li>Every eligible citizen starts with 1 vote.</li>
<li>They can vote at any time and change their vote at any time, not just during elections.</li>
<li>They can vote for anyone they'd like – e.g a friend or a family member, a traditional politician, a philosopher or ideologist they trust, or maybe just some famous person.</li>
<li>This other person now has 2 (or more) votes, and they in turn could pass them on to someone else.</li>
<li>The individuals who have the most votes at any given time are in power.</li>
</ul>
<p>What is the name of the system, who came up with it, and where can I read more about it?</p>
<p>I have searched and read about alternative voting systems, but have not found a description of one that matches this.</p>
 | voting voting systems electronic voting electoral system | 1 |
62,250 | Does the US presidential term begin depending on time zones? | <p>As per the 20th Amendment, the terms of US presidents begin and end at "noon of the 20th day of January", but no location is specified.</p>
<ul>
<li><p>One possible interpretation is that the transition occurs per time zone, one by one, similar to us watching New Years fireworks across the world spread over a whole day. That would create a weird situation of different parts of the US being under different rule for a few hours.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Another possible interpretation is that the time zone of the White House is what counts. As (to my knowledge) it is not prescribed that the transition ceremony has to take place in DC (or that there is a big ceremony at all), it might happen that a President gets sworn in, say, in Hawai'i at 7am local time</p>
</li>
<li><p>A third possible interpretation is that the time zone of wherever the President is right now counts. But in that case, the old President might be in a different time zone and claim that their term has not ended yet when the new President is already in office in another zone (or with locations swapped, there'd be an interregnum)</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>All interpretations have some major or minor problems, in my opinion the second one being least problematic. But since the amendment does not specify it directly, I wonder if some kind of explicit clarification exists in any other form?</p>
 | united states president amendment | 0 |
62,254 | What exactly does the collocation "pull the vote" mean? | <p>Does it mean to give up and not organize the voting? Is there an opposite such as push (for) the vote? (I am an English learner/translator.)</p>
<p>This is a context: "A ring-round of Cabinet on Friday and over the weekend saw ministers more or less unanimous: the vote should be pulled. The press became increasingly confident that May could not go ahead: in the Sunday Times on 9 December, Tim Shipman predicted that it would be pulled." (May at 10 - Anthony Seldon)</p>
<p>It is used in <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-48360456" rel="noreferrer">this article</a> too.</p>
 | united kingdom brexit parliament cabinet | 0 |
62,255 | Why did Eisenhower iconize Robert E. Lee? | <p>I recently discovered this clip of General Eisenhower: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOrtOlU8f9Y" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Eisenhower Explains About General Lee (1957)</a></p>
<p>In it he claims "The 4 top Americans of history: Franklin, Washington, Lincoln and Lee"</p>
<p>I don't think anyone would claim General Eisenhower's respect for Lee was because of racism or confederate romanticism; given his strong stance against segregation, and his own ancestors fought for the Union. So what is there about Lee that Ike admired so much to place him in the same category as Lincoln?</p>
 | united states civil war cold war | 0 |
62,263 | EU Vaccine export controls - what actually happened? | <p>I've seen quite a few news reports recently over the EU's introduction of new export rules to control vaccines leaving the bloc. The <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55860540" rel="noreferrer">BBC</a> is a British outlet and perhaps, given Brexit, may put a more negative stance. An extract from the article says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The European Union is introducing export controls on coronavirus vaccines made in the bloc, amid a row about delivery shortfalls.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>The so-called transparency mechanism gives EU countries powers to deny authorisation for vaccine exports if the company making them hasn't honoured existing contracts with the EU.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>"The protection and safety of our citizens is a priority and the challenges we now face left us with no choice but to act," the European Commission said.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Is the EU insisting companies provide the EU with vaccines before any other country?</strong>(That is not part of the EU). Regardless on when orders were made? That is how it sounds, but I'm aware the news can be rather emotive sometimes.</p>
<p>What exactly are the new controls that the EU put in place?</p>
 | european union covid 19 virus vaccine | 1 |
62,264 | How many pro independence Scottish voters are pro EU membership | <p>It seems (to me, from a distance) that the SNP argument for a Scottish independence push is predicated on the idea that an independent Scotland <strong>will</strong> join the EU. Is there any good quality data available which breaks down what proportions of pro independence Scottish voters are also pro EU membership bid? We have clear numbers for the Brexit vote and the IndyRef vote but we can't just munge these numbers together and expect to get anything truly representative.
I imagine there is a subset of Scottish pro independence voters who would actually be against EU membership, but is this presented as an option on any ballots? This cohort seems to be overlooked in the media discussion.</p>
 | united kingdom brexit independence scotland scottish national party | 1 |
62,276 | What is the Legal Process if Electoral Certificates are Damaged? | <p>Plenty of interesting questions have arisen related to the unprecedented riot at the Capitol in Washington D.C. on January 6, 2021. In a recent report printed in the New Yorker, Keith Stern, a sergeant-at-arms staffer on the floor of the House of Representatives, relayed how everyone in the Chamber safely escaped as protestors stormed into the building, and he included this fascinating tidbit:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Someone said, “Where are the boxes? Do we still have them?” One of the parliamentarians came over to me and said, “The ballot boxes are safe.” If they’d been stolen or destroyed, to be honest, I don’t know what happens.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Stern is referring to the boxes which contain the electoral certificates of each state. In a ceremonial process at the end of a presidential election (cf. Amendment XII), the president of the Senate--in this case, Vice President Pence--must unseal, initiate an official count, and then declare a winner.</p>
<p>So, does anyone here know the answer to this: What is the procedure if the collected electoral ballots are stolen or destroyed <em>before</em> they are officially counted in a joint session of Congress? Is there any kind of provision for states to send new ballots? Can the House proceed without them?</p>
 | united states presidential election congress electoral college twelfth amendment | 1 |
62,279 | What are the arguments against absorbing DC into another state? | <p>In this video <a href="https://youtu.be/bfUeekXbYzk" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a> by Vox, it describes the case for DC statehood.</p>
<p>DC’s delegate Holmes Norton has proposed making the District of Columbia a brand new state, and shrinking the neutral federal district to just encapsulate just the federal buildings themselves. See 2:55 of the same source above for better description.</p>
<p>Why does a brand new state have to be created for the residents of DC to have representation under this plan? What are the arguments against absorbing DC into a neighbouring state such as Maryland or Virginia? That way a federal district can remain and residents of the city have representation.</p>
 | united states statehood washington dc | 0 |
62,282 | How did the view of Continental Europe on Brexit change between the 2016 Referendum and today? | <p>There are plenty of polls asking the British population what they think about Brexit, but there are hardly any polls regarding Continental Europe's view on it; especially no recent ones.</p>
<p>Judging from my own personal bubble, we were shocked after the results of the 2016 Brexit Referendum and the turmoil thereafter; but increasingly saw the United Kingdom as a political liability and were relieved when they finally left the Union on 31st of December 2020. In this sense, we still consider UK's decision as ill-advised, but at the same time approve the completion of its withdrawal.</p>
<p>This of course is just an anecdotal view, but should demonstrate the nuance in opinion, and why I don't ask the question "Are Continental Europeans pro or contra Brexit?", because they may be both (Namely not wanting the UK to leave, but wanting <em>this</em> UK to leave). I also wonder whether animosity towards Britons and their government has increased, as they could be seen as ungrateful brats constantly overplaying their hands; or instead are admired for standing up to their interests, inspiring and strengthening euro-skeptic sentiments in Continental Europe.</p>
<hr />
<p><strong>How did the view of Continental Europe on Brexit change between the 2016 Referendum and today? (Please source with polls) This can also include opinions of populations outside the EU, as in Norway, Switzerland, or Serbia; but should not focus on a single country.</strong></p>
 | european union brexit polling europe public opinion | 0 |
62,287 | Do states still have to redraw districts even if reapportionment doesn’t affect them? | <p>The US census has been completed last year and is currently being processed. As a result, states will gain/lose/hold electoral votes and hence members of their congressional delegation. Do states still have to redraw their districts if this number stays the same?</p>
 | united states house of representatives gerrymandering redistricting | 1 |
62,293 | Thai Government Policy On Foreign Ownership of Land | <p>Foreigners cannot buy land in Thailand. Even if you have been married to a Thai and lived in Thailand for decades you cannot even buy 1 rai ( 1600 SQM ) of land with a house on it.</p>
<p>You either have to buy it in your Thai partners name or buy a condo/apartment.</p>
<p>I personally find this is racial discrimination however I would like to learn more about why the government has set this policy. It's not like we can take it back home to AUS when we leave, it will always remain in Thailand.</p>
<p>When I ask this question to Thais who have married foreigners and live together in Thailand, this is the response :</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is what it is. I don't understand those who are really against the
rules that apply here but still insist on sticking it out and
complaining. If I was unhappy about the situation, I would have to
find somewhere else to settle.</p>
<p>No worries. Maybe Thailand is not the place for you. I’m sure you’ll
find what you’re looking for somewhere. Cheers</p>
</blockquote>
 | land thailand | 0 |
62,297 | What happened at the Blackpool Labour Party Conference in 1980? | <p>I came across Thatcher's infamous <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2007/apr/30/conservatives.uk1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">The Lady's Not For Turning speech</a> at the Tory Party Conference in 1980. She starts and ends her speech with references to the Labour Party Conference that had previously taken place in Blackpool:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This week at Brighton we have heard a good deal about last week at Blackpool. I will have a little more to say about that strange assembly later, but for the moment I want to say just this. Because of what happened at that conference, there has been, behind all our deliberations this week, a heightened awareness that now, more than ever, our Conservative government must succeed. We just must, because now there is even more at stake than some had realised...</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>I have always known that that task was vital. Since last week it has become even more vital than ever. We close our conference in the aftermath of that sinister utopia unveiled at Blackpool. Let Labour's Orwellian nightmare of the left be the spur for us to dedicate, with a new urgency, our every ounce of energy and moral strength to rebuild the fortunes of this free nation.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I've been unable to find any more detail on this, and the Wikipedia page doesn't note <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_Conference#Of_the_Labour_Party" rel="nofollow noreferrer">anything of interest</a>. What exactly was this terrible spectre that Thatcher was referring to?</p>
 | united kingdom history labour party | 0 |
62,301 | Why was the Union Budget presented in the Lok Sabha (lower house) instead of the Rajya Sabha (upper house)? | <p>Why was the Union Budget presented in the Lok Sabha (lower house) instead of the Rajya Sabha (upper house)?</p>
<p>Recently <strong>The Union Budget of India</strong> for 2021–2022 was presented by the Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman on 1 February 2021.</p>
<p><a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210202032303/https://www.thehindu.com/business/budget/highlights-of-union-budget-2021-22/article33713457.ece" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Source</a></p>
 | parliament india budget bicameral | 0 |
62,302 | Is the act of censoring political questions anti-academic and anti-democratic? | <p>As George Bernard Shaw pointed out,</p>
<p>"All censorships exist to prevent anyone from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently, the first condition of progress is the removal of censorship."</p>
<p>Or as Julian Assange said, "What does censorship reveal? It reveals fear".</p>
<p>Or Pablo Antonio Caudra,</p>
<p>"Let us be clear: censorship is cowardice. ... It masks corruption. It is a school of torture: it teaches, and accustoms one to the use of force against an idea, to submit thought to an alien "other." But worst still, censorship destroys criticism, which is the essential ingredient of culture".</p>
<p>Or Voltaire, "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too".</p>
<p>Need I go on?</p>
 | censorship | 0 |
62,304 | Limitations on the Senate changing the SCOTUS size | <p>I've read up on the process it takes to expand the Supreme Court, and I was wondering if there are any guard rails to stop this process from going insane.</p>
<p>If the Democratic Senate expands the court to lets say 13 seats, can the Republicans come back and re-expand it 20? 30? Forget the Political implications or if there is the political will to do this...is there anything stopping them? How about shrinking the court? Is there a way to just reduce the size of the court without actually impeaching any judges?</p>
<p>This seems like a particularly dangerous point of ambiguity in the Constitutional Framework which could very easily destroy the entire judiciary; unless there is something I am missing.</p>
 | united states constitution supreme court | 0 |
62,307 | Empirical cases of kleptocracies | <p>From the definition of kleptocracy:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>a society whose leaders make themselves rich and powerful by stealing
from the rest of the people</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And the definition of government:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the group of people with the authority to govern and tax a country or
state</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It seems challenging to associate any given state with being a kleptocracy given that, governments, by definition tax the public to fund public initiatives: infrastructure, military, education, ect.</p>
<h2>Question</h2>
<p>When does a state enter "kleptocracy" territory? Does history have any clear examples?</p>
 | history international | 0 |
62,312 | What is the impact of a minimum wage increase on the Biden 1.9 T dollar Covid Relief Proposal | <p>The Biden administration has proposed a Covid relief package that would cost 1.9 trillion dollars. Some politicians are very resistant to the inclusion of a increase in minimum wage to 15.00 dollars per hour.</p>
<p>I understand that there are philosophical/ideological disagreements over the a minimum wage increase, this question is NOT asking about those disagreements. Rather I would like to learn how politicians believe that an increase in the minimum wage would impact the 1.9 trillion cost of the relief proposal.</p>
 | united states budget joe biden | 0 |
62,314 | Why hasn't the Senate yet passed an organizing resolution for the 117th Congress? | <p>I was perusing <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/536874-graham-shoots-down-request-for-feb-8-merrick-garland-hearing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Graham shoots down request for Merrick Garland confirmation hearing Feb. 8</a>, when I read</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Though Democrats have the Senate majority, Graham is still the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman because the chamber hasn't yet passed an organizing resolution for the 117th Congress.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I realize that there is a lot to do at the start of a new administration, but shouldn't this be somewhere near the top of the list?</p>
<p>Question: why has this not yet been done?</p>
 | united states senate senate rules | 1 |
62,318 | Why is Pakistan eager to strengthen bilateral ties with Bangladesh? | <ul>
<li><a href="https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/delhi-distracted-pakistan-at-play/cid/1786057" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Delhi distracted, Pakistan at play</a></li>
</ul>
<p>This Indian newspaper says that Pakistan is taking advantage of India's distractedness and trying to strengthen ties with Bangladesh.</p>
<p>However, this doesn't make much sense after reading the following article:</p>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://www.thedailystar.net/backpage/news/unresolved-issues-pakistan-dhaka-seeks-settle-those-2024093" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Unresolved Issues with Pakistan: Dhaka seeks to settle those</a></li>
</ul>
<p>After reading the aforementioned article, I have a feeling that Pakistan is showing neediness to re-establish bilateral ties with Bangladesh. The eagerness seems to be unilateral. The Bangladeshi government is demanding an unconditional apology for the atrocities in 1971 and resolving outstanding issues like the re-patriation of stranded Pakistanis, etc.</p>
<p>If Pakistan's aim is to increase trade, then taking back those so called stranded Pakistanis and apologizing will not be a cost-effective quid pro quo.</p>
<p>Therefore, Pakistan's initiative makes no sense to me.</p>
<p>So, my question is, Why is Pakistan eager to strengthen bilateral ties with Bangladesh?</p>
 | india pakistan bangladesh | 1 |
62,322 | Politics of incentivizing talented people from other fields to become teachers | <p>I was thinking about how creative incentives (such as signing bonuses for example) can encourage talented people who are able to teach to go into teaching. The idea is that many of those people don't go into teaching because the pay is so low and a signing bonus or some other kind of financial incentive can go a long way in convincing them to pursue teaching.</p>
<p>It seems that one of the problems is that the incentives are never high enough (lack of proper training seems to be one also) Some people think that the bonus should be anywhere from 20-50% of what a teacher currently makes. The problem with this is that it would be very difficult to be able to convince politicians and other decision makers to invest that kind of money. It would also possibly create some animosity between veteran teachers and the "new teachers" who would be getting this money.</p>
<p>Is there a way to make it politically feasible to invest such huge sums of money and in regards to the animosity or jealousy that might resort from such a policy, is there a way to minimize this or devise a policy in such a way that successful teachers also make more money and hence encourages them to do even better?</p>
<p>Perhaps the first question should read What is the best way to frame such a proposal in order for it convince individuals who might be inclined to say that it is simply a waste of money and it is not worth it?</p>
 | policy education | 0 |
62,328 | Why is the Biden administration interested in mending military ties with Pakistan? | <ul>
<li><a href="https://www.dawn.com/news/1602541" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Biden administration to revive military-to-military ties with Pakistan</a></li>
</ul>
<p>The Biden administration says that they need military ties with Pakistan and they have their explanations.</p>
<p>But, as we know the Trump administration was already negotiating with Afghan Talibnas without maintaining close military ties with Pakistan. the Trump administration blocked military aid, the supply of 16
Bell AH-1Z Viper attack helicopters, etc.</p>
<p>What statements have been made by the Biden administration to indicate why it is interested in mending military ties with Pakistan when the Trump admin was doing fine without it?</p>
 | united states pakistan | 1 |
62,337 | Do the Italians usually choose external PMs? | <p>Italian PM Giuseppe Conte resigned on Jan. 26 (but is still in office until a successor is chosen). I was surprised to see on his Wikipedia <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Conte" rel="nofollow noreferrer">page</a> (emphasis mine):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Following the 2018 general election, he was proposed as the independent leader of a coalition government between the Five Star Movement (M5S) and the League, <strong>despite not having previously held any political position.</strong></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I thought PMs were normally MPs themselves even if technically they don't have to be. Does Italy use non-MP PMs? Why did they this time?</p>
 | parliament prime minister italy | 1 |
62,340 | Why did Rihanna put out a tweet in support of the farmer's protests in India? | <p>Why did <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rihanna" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Riri ( Rihanna)</a> put out a tweet in support of farmers in India ?</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangana_Ranaut" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Kangana</a> - Bollywood queen - said in response that Rihanna was funded by Khalistan, so she tweeted.</p>
<p>Is this true?</p>
 | political system | 1 |
62,343 | Is there a "unified command" over all the defense forces in Washington D.C.? | <p>A Unified Combatant Command is a task organized command structure used to coordinate forces around one objective. Examples include CENTCOM (<a href="https://www.centcom.mil/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.centcom.mil/</a>), which coordinates the armed forces in the Middle East. My question is, is there anything like that to coordinate the forces responsible for D.C., including the Secret Service (<a href="https://www.secretservice.gov/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.secretservice.gov/</a>), Capitol Police (<a href="https://www.uscp.gov/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.uscp.gov/</a>), Army/Air National Guard (<a href="https://dc.ng.mil/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://dc.ng.mil/</a>), etc.? (I'm really not sure how to shoehorn research into this, the whole reason I'm posting this is because I can't find much.)</p>
 | united states military police washington dc | 0 |
62,345 | Do other countries provide police the same degree of immunity that USA police officers have? | <p>In the USA, police have a high degree of immunity for their actions in the line of duty. It is nearly impossible to sue an individual officer due to qualified immunity, and one can't sue a precinct for an officer's misdeeds, unless you can prove an illegal policy or similar caused the officer's behaviors, due to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monell_v._Department_of_Social_Services_of_the_City_of_New_York" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><em>Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York</em></a>. Police unions have further expanded the officers' rights and even made it difficult to fire an officer that is engaging in questionable behaviors or gross misconduct. There are a number of lesser factors I won't go into as well, but the net result is that in the USA a police officer has relatively little accountability while working, they can effectively, some may even argue literally, get away with murder.</p>
<p>I'm wondering how the degree of protection for police officers in the USA compares to other countries. Do other countries provide the same degree of protection to police against potential misdeeds that the USA does? If not, how does it vary from the USA's handling of police officers?</p>
<p>Edit:</p>
<p>To address the valid criticism that there are a lot of countries with widely varying policies, I'm mostly interested in countries relatively similar to the USA that would thus have similar desires and difficulty with policing in general. By that I mean developed nations with democratic governments that are not generally considered excessively authoritarian.</p>
<p>I realize that still leaves a large number of countries, but I don't want to narrow this question too far by naming only one country. I would be happy to hear answers about any country that meets the above criteria. The ideal answer would be one that linked to a study that actually compared policing policies across numerous countries, but since that's likely unrealistic to expect I'd settle for comparisons between specific countries.</p>
 | united states law police comparative politics | 0 |
62,348 | What specific political traits classify a political leader as a fascist? | <h1>Background</h1>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism" rel="noreferrer">Fascism</a> does not have an easy clear cut definition. However, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler" rel="noreferrer">several</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benito_Mussolini" rel="noreferrer">figures</a> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ante_Paveli%C4%87" rel="noreferrer">throughout</a> history are identified as unambiguously fascist, with Mussolini belonging to the original <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasces_of_Revolutionary_Action" rel="noreferrer">fascist</a> group. By the same token leaders such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin" rel="noreferrer">Vladimir Putin</a> are not considered fascist despite the following (in combination):</p>
<ol>
<li>Forcing businesses to explicitly support the administration reminiscent of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism#Fascist_corporatism" rel="noreferrer">corporatism</a>:</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>Between 2000 and 2004, Putin set about the reconstruction of the
impoverished condition of the country, apparently winning a
power-struggle with the Russian oligarchs, reaching a 'grand bargain'
with them. This bargain allowed the oligarchs to maintain most of
their powers, in exchange for their explicit support for—and alignment
with—Putin's government.</p>
</blockquote>
<ol start="2">
<li>Jailing political opponents such as <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexei_Navalny" rel="noreferrer">Alexei Navalny</a>, who have a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_of_Alexander_Litvinenko" rel="noreferrer">real fear</a> of assassination.</li>
<li>Persecuting <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_gay_propaganda_law" rel="noreferrer">gay people</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation" rel="noreferrer">Annexing foreign land</a>.</li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Russia#Judicial_system" rel="noreferrer">A blatantly manipulated Judicial System</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia" rel="noreferrer">Abysmal freedom of press</a></li>
<li><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Vladimir_Putin#Public_image" rel="noreferrer">Espousing a public image of machismo</a></li>
</ol>
<p>...and many other aspects could lead someone to conclude that Putin is a Fascist...yet he is not known as such. It is this grey area and the example of Putin that lead me to ask</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>What specific policies or aspects of a leader when, taken as an aggregate, classify the leader as a Fascist?</p>
 | terminology fascism | 1 |
62,350 | What was the US reaction to the 2004 ruling by the World Court that the Israeli border wall was illegal? | <p>Did the US accept the ruling or reject it? I'm curious given the fact that the US judge in his dissenting opinion (though I believe it's not called a dissent in this case) wrote that the border wall and settlements were illegal. Given that their own judge gave this opinion, what was the governmental reaction?</p>
 | united states international law united nations israel international court | 0 |
62,352 | Why does the city of San Francisco have to sue its school board to get schools reopened? | <p>According to the <a href="https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/San-Francisco-sues-its-own-school-district-board-15920075.php" rel="noreferrer">SF Chronicle</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The fight over reopening San Francisco’s public schools will take a dramatic, heated turn on Wednesday as the city becomes the first in the state — and possibly the entire country — to sue its own school district to force classroom doors open.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Why can't the Mayor or the City Council just force schools to reopen? And if they lack the authority, who has the legal power to override the decision of the school district? The California legislature? The Governor? No one?</p>
 | united states education california | 1 |
62,358 | Do Indian farmers have the equivalent of a political lobby? | <p>There are many accusations going around about the recent laws regarding agriculture in India. In particular that these laws are <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/1/18/bbtwo-of-indias-richest-men-face-ire-over-its-new-farm-laws" rel="nofollow noreferrer">heavily influenced by corporate interests</a>. But it seems to me that, considering the <a href="http://www.fao.org/india/fao-in-india/india-at-a-glance/en/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">relative importance of agriculture in India</a>¹, that a farming lobby would be more than sufficiently powerful enough to hold its own in this regards. But I can't find any evidence that such a specifically organized coalition exists.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br></p>
<blockquote>
<p>¹<sup><sub> Agriculture, with its allied sectors, is the largest source of livelihoods in India. 70 percent of its rural households still depend primarily on agriculture for their livelihood, with 82 percent of farmers being small and marginal. In 2017-18, total food grain production was estimated at 275 million tonnes (MT). India is the largest producer (25% of global production), consumer (27% of world consumption) and importer (14%) of pulses in the world. India's annual milk production was 165 MT (2017-18), making India the largest producer of milk, jute and pulses, and with world's second-largest cattle population 190 million in 2012.[153] It is the second-largest producer of rice, wheat, sugarcane, cotton and groundnuts, as well as the second-largest fruit and vegetable producer, accounting for 10.9% and 8.6% of the world fruit and vegetable production, respectively. </sub></sup></p>
</blockquote>
 | india lobbying agriculture | 0 |
62,360 | International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)? | <p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Crimes_Tribunal_(Bangladesh)" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia says that</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) (ICT of Bangladesh) is a <strong>domestic</strong> war crimes tribunal in Bangladesh set up in 2009 to investigate and prosecute suspects for the genocide committed in 1971 by the Pakistan Army and their local collaborators, Razakars, Al-Badr, and Al-Shams during the Bangladesh Liberation War.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Firstly, there were some offers from international organizations which the Bangladeshi government refused.</p>
<p>Secondly, it was not formed to try international (e.g. Pakistani) war criminals as Pakistan was not part of the tribunal.</p>
<p>Why was the ICT (International Crimes Tribunal) in Bangladesh named as "International"?</p>
 | war crime bangladesh | 0 |
62,361 | Can an older bill be picked up and voted on by a new congress? | <p>Before the new congress took over in January 2021; the House of Representatives passed a standalone bill to increase the $600 stimulus payments to $2000, by sending an additional $1400 to every eligible adult. The bill was never considered for vote because McConnell would not take it up in the Senate. Now that the there is a new majority leader; could the Senate choose to simply vote on that bill that was already passed by the House? Given that it was something president Trump actually asked for; it seems likely that it would have bipartisan support, possibly enough to defeat a filibuster.</p>
<p>Is this an option for the current Senate; or is it not allowed because it was a previous congress in which the bill passed in the House?</p>
 | united states congress legislative process stimulus | 0 |
62,362 | Appeal process for being designated a "Terrorist Group" (Canada) | <p>Yesterday, the office of Canada's Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness designated 13 groups as "Terrorist Groups". <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/canada-terrorist-designation-explainer-1.5900126" rel="nofollow noreferrer">According to CBC</a>, the result is that it is not necessarily a crime to be a member of a listed group. But banks and financial institutions can now freeze the group's assets, and police can charge anyone who financially or materially supports the group. Members seeking entry into Canada may be denied if they are found to be associated with a listed entity and the group's online content can be removed more easily.</p>
<p>I won't even state the groups' names here because my question is about a more general principle; what defense would an organization or an individual have against the state upon being designated as an affiliate to a terrorist organization? Regardless of what you may think of this specific instance, I think it is quite bizarre to have the state be able punish you with all that was stated above through essentially what is executive action (no legislation, or opportunity of defending oneself in a court). Any references to Common Law precedent as well as parallels in the USA would be appreciated.</p>
 | law terrorism canada executive rule of law | 1 |
62,363 | Is it possible to fraudulently elect one federal office without throwing all elections on the same ballot into question? | <h1>Background</h1>
<p>There is <a href="https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/elections/2020/11/20/dozens-of-claims-about-election-fraud-debunked-politifact/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">no shortage of 2020 Election Fraud conspiracy theories</a> in the United States, and there was no shortage of attempts to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election" rel="nofollow noreferrer">overturn the final result of the Presidential Election</a>. None of the processes that the United States uses to adjudicate matters like these led to any substantial changes (if any) of the final results.</p>
<p>One premise that came to mind may have acted as a double-edged sword had any of the lawsuits been successful. This premise is the reality that several elections for office are held on the same ballot card. Because multiple elections are held on one ballot, I would assume that if it was discovered that <em>one</em> election was fraudulent, then all elections on that ballot would be contaminated as well. However, this mechanical reality of voting never seemed to be addressed in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-election_lawsuits_related_to_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election" rel="nofollow noreferrer">many allegations of fraud</a> that were made...which would seem to be a vital premise to at least address, lest other elections be held under scrutiny that the accuser did not intend to hold under scrutiny.</p>
<p>However, because it was not explicitly addressed, it seems that the situation described in the second paragraph wasn't the case. It is this crucial scenario, and the lack of addressing it that led me to ask the following question:</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>If multiple elections are held on the same ballot, how could alleged voter fraud in one of the offices <em>not</em> lead to consequences for the other offices on the ballot?</p>
 | united states election fraud | 0 |
62,368 | What does it mean for the Pentagon to order a stand-down? | <p>In order to combat extremism in the Pentagon's ranks, the new Secretary of Defense is <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-biden-pentagon-extremism-idUSKBN2A335W" rel="noreferrer">ordering a stand-down</a> in the next 60 days.</p>
<p>Three questions:</p>
<ol>
<li>What is a stand-down? (Beyond the 'pause of military activity' mentioned in the article)</li>
<li>How could it help address extremism?</li>
<li>Would the US be more vulnerable to internal or external threats during this time?</li>
</ol>
 | united states military | 1 |
62,370 | Is it a fundamental tenet of liberalism to allow the expression of illiberal ideals? | <p>In recent years, the US has seen a rise in <em>a priori</em> rejection or "cancelling" of illiberal ideas on the left. In essence, these ideas are being rejected from mainstream liberal society without good faith argument because they espouse or present ideas that are fundamentally harmful to the securing of personal rights of certain subsets of society. (For instance, <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/Business/chick-fil-blocked-opening-chicago-store/story?id=16853890" rel="noreferrer">Chick-fil-A's president coming under fire for speaking against gay marriage</a>, <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-bennet-resigns-cotton-op-ed-306317" rel="noreferrer">A NYT editor resigning after publishing an op-ed promoting the use of force to quell largely peaceful protest</a>, and somewhat abstractly, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/24/us/confederate-statues-photos.html" rel="noreferrer">removing statues of people that espoused inequality of human rights</a>).</p>
<p>My question is, <strong>does pure liberalism extend personal freedoms of speech to the expression of ideals that are opposed to or harmful to liberalism? Or rather, is it in keeping with the spirit of liberalism to (somewhat counter-intuitively and illiberally) banish such ideas that actively harm the ideals of liberalism?</strong></p>
<p>This is my first question on SE Politics so please kindly advise if I could reframe this question to be more clear.</p>
 | united states political theory freedom of speech liberalism | 1 |
62,392 | Removing Lawmakers from Committee Assignments | <p>Marjory Taylor-Green was removed from her committee assignments because of things she said. I understand that what she said crossed a line. I also hear that what she said helped incite violence. However, aren't there others who have done the same thing? There were congressmen who were pro the black lives matter protests - which certainly caused more damage than those in the capitol.</p>
<p>Have other lawmakers been punished in this way for things they have said? Is the house or senate currently considering doing the same for any other representatives?</p>
 | united states congress | 1 |
62,396 | What are the main schools of thought on the "gray areas" of free speech? | <p>In relation to the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Paradox of Tolerance</a> (which roughly states that a society must be intolerant to intolerance of the core ideals of that society if it wishes to persist), a government that extends rights such as free speech codifies these rights in legal documents so that speech harmful to these ideals (sedition, calls to violence, etc.) are un-protected.</p>
<p>A society, by contrast, has no such explicit codification of which views are intolerant or harmful towards the human rights it promotes. Various subsets of society may have different views on what constitutes tolerance or intolerance, or what speech effectively restricts individual rights* (but often these views create a slightly narrower band of acceptable speech than the law does). <strong>In the absence of well-defined limits to allowable speech, what are the main schools of thought on whether it is harmful to the ideals of free speech, inclusion, and protection of basic rights to spread or silence (often by platforming or de-platforming) ideas that fall in the gray area of intolerance?</strong></p>
<p>*By "effectively restrict", I mean some speech makes others feel threatened or less sure of their safety in participating in discussion, exercise of rights (speech, voting, etc.) In this sense, speech that is not explicitly promoting the removal of rights may be construed as harmful to the ideals of individual rights anyway. This class of speech or ideas is broadly defended in the now infamous <a href="https://harpers.org/a-letter-on-justice-and-open-debate/" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Harper's Letter</a>.</p>
 | freedom of speech | 1 |
62,401 | What did Georgia do during the Azerbaijan-Armenian War? | <p>There are three "Caucasian Nations", and two of them were fighting. But there is almost no news about the other one - Georgia. What did it do during the war? Did it support any of the two, whether publicly or secretly? Which of the two get more support from normal Georgian people?</p>
 | war azerbaijan armenia republic of georgia | 1 |
62,402 | Does the BJP government have any internal connections with big corporations? | <p>Indian farmers are protesting on the streets for the last few months to tell the government to revoke the three new farming laws which they say will leave them at the mercy of giant corporations. however, the Modi-led bjp government seems to be uncompromising.</p>
<p>I don't understand why is the Modi government so stubborn.</p>
<p>Does the BJP government have any internal connections with big corporations like Reliance, Adani, Larsen-Toubro, etc?</p>
 | india | 0 |
62,405 | What's to stop the House majority party from voting to expel every member of the House minority party from committees? | <p>Marjorie Taylor Greene was expelled by the House of Representatives this week from committee assignments after her comments on conspiracy theories. <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-55940542" rel="noreferrer">The vote passed by 230-199 with 11 Republicans joining the Democrats </a>.</p>
<p>What kind of checks and balances are in place to stop Democrats doing this to every member of the Republican party in congress? And vice versa when the Republicans have the majority? As if there are no rules/ conditions on what mandates an expulsion, the majority party could theoretically do this each session to gain complete control over committees.</p>
<p><strong>Edit</strong> I’m seeing lots of interesting answers about why this wouldn’t happen because of political reasons. But I was wondering if there were specific rules and laws about this which stops such an event happening.</p>
 | united states congress house of representatives | 1 |
62,410 | Could a state governor use their pardon power to perform controlled experiments on sentencing policy? | <p>My understanding is that state governors have roughly unilateral power to pardon state crimes. (First of all, is this true?)</p>
<p>If so, suppose that a governor were to announce something like the following: "For anyone convicted of a drug offense, I will give them a pardon halfway through their sentence, but only if their birthdate is on an odd-numbered day of the month." Effectively, this would divide the state's population into two groups of people that are roughly equivalent, with the exception that one group expects to face longer sentences for drug offenses than the other group. This would allow the governor to test e.g. the deterrent effect of longer sentences, or the effect of longer sentences on future recidivism.</p>
<p>Would there be any barrier to a governor using their pardon power in this way? Has anything like this been done, or seriously proposed?</p>
 | united states us state laws pardon | 1 |
62,411 | Can a country be only de jure sovereign ? (Such as Andorra) | <p>The Principality of Andorra is de jure “a parliamentary co-principality with the president of France and the Catholic bishop of Urgell (Catalonia, Spain) as co-princes.” (From <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra#Politics" rel="noreferrer">Wikipedia</a>)</p>
<p>A visiting tourist however would likely have at least some credible reasons to doubt the sovereignty in fact. For example, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_services_in_Andorra" rel="noreferrer">postal services are entirely supplied by Spain and France</a>.</p>
<p>Also, it may be that “As co-princes of Andorra, the president of France and the bishop of Urgell maintain supreme authority in approval of all international treaties with France and Spain, as well as all those that deal with internal security, defense, Andorran territory, diplomatic representation, and judicial or penal cooperation. ”
(Although I have not found official confirmation)</p>
<p>Which certainly suggests the sovereignty of Andorra is at best shared, and reliant on, French and Spanish sovereignty.</p>
<p>Since the actual situation seems better described by some other arrangement such as de facto protectorate, client state, etc., then the implication would be Andorra is only de jure sovereign.</p>
<p>If that is the case then the general principle seems to be that countries can possibly exist in a situation that is only de jure sovereign.</p>
 | international relations international law sovereignty | 0 |
62,416 | Have Republican voters indicated that the party's behaviour after the 2020 election will change their voting intentions? | <p>I've seen quite of lot of reporting about the number of republicans who agree with Trump that the election was rigged or stolen.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Politico</a> <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKBN27Y1AJ" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Reuters</a> <a href="https://www.vox.com/2021/1/11/22225531/joe-biden-trump-capitol-inauguration" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vox (Jan)</a></p>
<p>In this <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/62405/whats-to-stop-the-house-majority-party-from-voting-to-expel-every-member-of-the">question</a> the most popular answer asserts that poor behaviour by party leaders would be punished at subsequent elections. The quote below references behaviour around committee assignments, it is not directly about the Stop the Steal situation.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But then the retribution would be swift and severe. The majority party would become the minority party at the next election. Only those in bluest of blue districts when the Democrats are in the majority (or those in the reddest of red districts when the Republicans are in the majority) would see such a move as a good thing.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is there any polling on if Trump's behaviour has had an effect like this?</p>
<p>Is there any data on voters intending to change their future party preference based on the actions of Trump or the Republican leadership during the 'Stop the Steal' period?</p>
 | united states polling republican party | 0 |
62,418 | What is the status of regulation of Social Media Companies in the US? | <p>Twitter and Facebook (and other social media sites) recently became the focus of a lot of attention for the role they did or did not play in allowing the spread of information (or disinformation) regarding alleged rigging of the election in the USA and the Capitol riots. It seems that a conversation about the censure rights of big companies was getting started. I have two questions about this.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It seemed both Republicans and Democrats were in agreement that the social media companies had too much power (especially when Trump was removed from Twitter). Is this true? How do their views differ?</p>
</li>
<li><p>Is anything being done about this, or has it simply faded from everyone's attention?</p>
</li>
</ol>
 | united states freedom of speech regulation social media | 0 |
62,420 | What is an alternative theory to the Paradox of Tolerance? | <p>The <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance#Homophily_and_intolerance" rel="noreferrer">Paradox of Tolerance</a> expresses the idea that a society that is unlimited in its tolerance of intolerant philosophies is unlikely to survive, and therefore that an otherwise tolerant society should be able to meet intolerant views with intolerance.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But we should claim the right to suppress [intolerant philosophies] if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal. - <em>The Open Society and Its Enemies, Edition 7, Volume 1</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>As noted in other questions (<a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/62370/is-it-a-fundamental-tenet-of-liberalism-to-allow-the-expression-of-illiberal-ide">here</a> and <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/23045/what-is-the-reasoning-behind-the-statement-i-dont-tolerate-the-intolerant/23050#23050">here</a> for instance), the Paradox of Intolerance is debated and not universally accepted. What would be a counter-theory that would not advocate the suppression of intolerant views by an otherwise tolerant society?</p>
 | political theory | 0 |
62,425 | Did Jackie Weaver have the legal authority to remove the chairman of the parish council during a meeting? | <p>During a meeting of the Handforth parish council on December the 10th seen <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpYfSnSHHug&t=635s" rel="noreferrer">here</a>, the chairman of the council was removed from a Zoom meeting by the Zoom meeting host. The recording of this meeting has gone viral in the UK.</p>
<p>This event happened prior to the meeting officially starting, where conversation took place regarding the capacity and title of the meeting co-ordinator, Jackie Weaver. Jackie Weaver said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I am here offering support to Handforth parish council in the conduct of this meeting this evening</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It was not clear that her capacity was as clerk or proper officer of the meeting.</p>
<hr />
<p>Several minutes on, disruption insued and Jackie Weaver removed the the chairman of council from the meeting. Yet seconds before this happened, the chair stated:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is only the chair who can remove people from a meeting.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Mrs. Weaver argues she acted so because the Chairman was disrupting the meeting and questioning her authority, others at the meeting objected to this. Furthermore, Mrs. Weaver proposed electing a new chairman after ejecting the official chairman. However, this was opposed by others stating the position automatically fell the Vice chairman.</p>
<p>My question is, did Jackie Weaver have the legal authority to remove the chairman of the meeting? If she didn't, does it even matter as the meeting <em>officially</em> hadn't even started yet?</p>
 | united kingdom local government procedure | 0 |
62,426 | Has politics always been so polarized? | <p>Looking at American politics, it seems like there is a tremendous animosity between people with different political leanings. Was it always this polarized? If not, when did this trend begin and why?</p>
<p>*Edit: As per a comment by @jamesk, I am editing this question. These hard feelings are true all across the world. Was the world always so polarized? When or how did this begin?</p>
 | parties history polarization | 1 |
62,436 | Can a censured congressperson be assigned to different committees if they have been removed from current committee assignments? | <h1>Background</h1>
<p>On February 4th, 2021, Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-resolution/72/text" rel="noreferrer">removed from her committee assignments</a> by a vote of <a href="https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202125" rel="noreferrer">230 - 199</a> as stated in H.Res.72 of the 117th congress:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Whereas clause 1 of rule XXIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives provides, “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House shall behave at all times in a manner that shall reflect creditably on the House.”; and</p>
<p>Whereas Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene should be removed from
her committee assignments in light of conduct she has exhibited: Now,
therefore, be it</p>
<p>Resolved, That the following named Member be, and is hereby, removed
from the following standing committees of the House of
Representatives:</p>
<p>Committee On The Budget:</p>
<p>Mrs. Greene of Georgia.</p>
<p>Committee On Education And Labor:</p>
<p>Mrs. Greene of Georgia.</p>
<p>Attest:</p>
</blockquote>
<p>However, by the wording of the resolution it only removed her <em>from her current specific assignments</em>. This led me to ask the following question:</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>If a congress person is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_representatives_expelled,_censured,_or_reprimanded" rel="noreferrer">censured</a> and removed from their <em>current</em> committee assignments, can they later be assigned to different committees in the same congress?</p>
 | united states house of representatives | 1 |
62,445 | How has QAnon narrative being affected by Jan 6, the social media bans, and Trump's leaving office? | <p>I haven't heard much about QAnon since Trump's leaving office. It seems between the backlash and banning that came after Jan 6 and Trump's leaving office without any of the major QAnon predictions having come to pass, the QAnon narrative would be suffering.</p>
<p>I'm wondering about two related things. First how does QAnon narrative explain Trump's removal from office and failure to 'out' any of the deep state? Second, how have recent events affected overall support of QAnon? Is it seeing less activity and support without a Trump presidency and petering out, or is it still roughly as strong and active as it always has been?</p>
 | united states donald trump conspiracy theories qanon | 0 |
62,446 | Has the Michigan risk-limiting election audit process completed for the 2020 election? | <h1>Background</h1>
<p>On January 11th, a risk-limiting election audit for the 2020 election was conducted in the State of Michigan to confirm the integrity of the 2020 election in Michigan. The beginning of the audit involved <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FT0NICFfwg8&feature=emb_rel_end" rel="noreferrer">20 10-sided dice</a> to create a 20 digit seed to enter into an algorithm which would select which 18,000 ballots to look at as described in the linked video. The Office of the Michigan Secretary of State said on her page that the results of the audit would be published on the MDOS social media <a href="https://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-93094-549191--,00.html" rel="noreferrer">two weeks after random number generation</a> as state below:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Following the random number generation, clerks will have two weeks to draw the corresponding ballots and review them. Once the process has been completed in each county MDOS will announce the results of the comparison between the randomly selected hand-reviewed ballots and the statewide machine-tabulated totals.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>After looking on the MDOS <a href="https://twitter.com/MichSoS" rel="noreferrer">Twitter Page</a> and <a href="https://www.facebook.com/MichiganSoS" rel="noreferrer">Facebook page</a>, I found <a href="https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/2020_General_Election_Audit_List_710121_7.pdf" rel="noreferrer">one document</a> as a link to a <a href="https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MISOS/bulletins/2bd902a?fbclid=IwAR2-lmwPHoxfE0-duRx3OyMhYN0tK0ZeE9n8lP6arrtoWx5HBN9JpYjM7-8" rel="noreferrer">news release</a> that stated that some audits were in progress, but not completed. It is this partial completion that prompted me to ask:</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>Has the Michigan risk-limiting audit completed for the 2020 election?</p>
 | united states election | 1 |
62,451 | What happens to the physical votes after an election is complete and certified in the US? | <p>After an election has ended and the winner determined and results certified, what happens to the actual physical ballots? Are they destroyed or stored elsewhere?</p>
 | united states voting ballot | 1 |
62,458 | How does Ireland maintain constitutional stability when it is relatively easy to amend the Constitution? | <p>It is relatively easier to amend the Constitution in Ireland than in other countries.</p>
<p>To change the Irish Constitution, the amendment must:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Be approved by both the lower and upper house of Parliament with a <strong>simple majority</strong>.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Be approved by the people in a national referendum <strong>without any additional legal threshold</strong> (i.e. turnout, number of "yes" votes versus "no" votes, etc)</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>This has led to steady stream of amendments being proposed over years - many of which were adopted. In fact, there have been so many constitutional amendments that there is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amendments_to_the_Constitution_of_Ireland" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Wikipedia page</a> just to keep track of them.</p>
<p>Question:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>How does Ireland maintain constitutional stability with such a low threshold to amend the Constitution? Aren't people worried of this mechanism being abused?</p>
</li>
<li><p>In the case of low turnout, will people accept the result? For instance, what if an amendment passes with just 5% turnout?</p>
</li>
</ul>
 | constitution referendum republic of ireland amendment | 0 |
62,463 | Why are American billionaires (or billionaires outside of Russia for that matter) not referred to as oligarchs? | <h1>Background</h1>
<p>The term <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarch" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Russian Oligarch</a> is a common phrase used in American media as well as <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-16276956" rel="nofollow noreferrer">British Media</a>. In addition, it is a phrase used in <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20191101081101/http://econ.sciences-po.fr/sites/default/files/file/guriev/GurievRachinsky.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Russia as well</a> according to Sergei Guriev and Andrei Rachinsky in the <a href="https://www.aeaweb.org/journals/jep" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Journal of Economic Perspectives</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In its current meaning in Russia, the term “oligarch”
denotes a businessman (and the lists of oligarchs include only men) who controls
sufficient resources to influence national politics.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>By Russia's definition, an oligarch just denotes a (male) businessman who controls enough resources to influence national politics....which is <em>de facto</em> the same thing that America's wealthy do <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_in_the_United_States#Insider%27s_game" rel="nofollow noreferrer">behind the scenes</a>. Indeed most of the <a href="https://www.forbes.com/real-time-billionaires/#2246ac963d78" rel="nofollow noreferrer">top 10 billionaires</a> are from the United States, and they fill most of the to 50 slots as well. You have to go down to Vladimir Potanin (49 at the time of this question) to find a single billionaire from Russia. The larger collective magnitude of Billionaires in America and outside of Russia led me to ask...</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>Why are American Billionaires, and other billionaires outside Russia, not referred to as Oligarchs when they have a disproportionate control of their country's politics via their market share as well?</p>
 | united states russian federation | 1 |
62,466 | Vintage cartoon showing terrified couple watching the Nixon-Frost interview on TV | <p>I remember seeing a cartoon, possibly in Time magazine, of a couple terrified and embracing each other in front of their TV when Nixon reappeared in the limelight to give series of interviews to Frost. The implication was that the public thought they were done with Nixon, but to everyone's horror, he re-emerged.</p>
<p>Does anyone remember this cartoon and whether it's still accessible?</p>
<p>I was reminded of it due to the second impeachment of Trump, and how he is reappearing in the news (albeit the time elapsed is not comparable).</p>
 | united states reference request richard nixon | 0 |
62,467 | What contributing factors would make the Florida “gain time” bill be signed into law in 2021? | <p>A.) Are there contributing factors that would effect whether the Florida “gain time” bill will be passed by the House in 2021? Is so, what are they at this current time? I heard that some House members have already spoken favourably about this bill. The bill would reduce the current mandatory time sentenced that a prisoner must serve from 85% to 65 percent.</p>
<p>B.) The bill has a predetermined “effective date” of July 1, 2021. Is this any indication that the bill is likely to be passed?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1032/BillText/Filed/PDF#page=5" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1032/BillText/Filed/PDF#page=5</a></p>
<p>Page 10 discusses 65% rather than 85% as retroactive gain time.</p>
 | united states us state laws florida | 0 |
62,468 | Has any political party changed sides in either U.S. congressional chamber, in the literal sense? | <p>Over the course of history, the alignment of the U.S. Democratic and Republican parties with the "political right" and "political left" has changed. For example, the Republican Party from the Civil War to the Progressive Era could be labelled on the political left; yet today that party is on the political right.</p>
<p>Seating in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate#Seating" rel="noreferrer">United States Senate</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives#Daily_procedures" rel="noreferrer">House</a> chambers is also divided between the left side and the right side. Currently, Democrats sit in the seats to the presiding officer's right, and Republicans sit to the left. (In contrast, the <em>ruling party</em> of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Commons_of_the_United_Kingdom#Procedure" rel="noreferrer">U.K. House of Commons</a> always sits to the right, and the <em>opposition party</em> always sits on the left; a change in the ruling party switches which party is on the right side of the chamber.)</p>
<p>Has the realignment of a party's political philosophy ever resulted in a reversal of their seating in either chamber of Congress? In other words, <strong>has any political party ever <em>literally</em> "switched sides" in Congress?</strong></p>
 | united states congress | 0 |
62,474 | Any mechanism in the US to decide what is conspiracy theory, and what is not? | <p>It is obviously important to divide truth from conspiracy theories. Truth is good, and conspiracy theories are bad and disturbing. But how would common citizen know what is good, and what is bad?</p>
<p>For example, citizen hear a theory that governor A is corrupted (or eating children!), or theory about governor B being hidden racist. Who would help him to have a right, truthful view?</p>
<p><strong>Is there any mechanism to divide fake news from TRUTH in forming media narrative?</strong></p>
 | united states freedom of speech social media fake news | 1 |
62,478 | Can the oath to the monarch be "honestly" removed in the British Parliament | <p>In Britain, members of Parliament must swear an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)" rel="noreferrer">Oath of Allegiance</a> to the Queen (or the current Monarch).</p>
<p>Is there a mechanism by which this requirement could be removed? Presumably such a proposition would have to be raised in the Parliament, but to do so would surely break the oath that the member already took while entering.</p>
 | united kingdom house of commons monarchy | 0 |
62,480 | Why another impeachment vote at the Senate? | <p>I always thought it was a three-step procedure:</p>
<ul>
<li>First, the Congress investigates.</li>
<li>Second, the House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations.</li>
<li>Third, the Senate tries the accused.</li>
</ul>
<p>But yesterday the Senate voted on whether Trump was subject to the Senate’s impeachment jurisdiction.</p>
<p>If the House voted to impeach, what was the Senate vote for? What was the purpose of the House vote had the Senate voted that the second impeachment trial was <em>unconstitutional</em>?</p>
<p>Considering that the first impeachment trial was weaker, why didn't the Senate vote <em>to not</em> have the trial?</p>
<p>As I see it, the House vote is inconsequential, since there can be another vote that will override the House vote. It didn't happen here, but it could've happened.</p>
<p>Even <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/45989/lets-say-the-impeachment-procedure-reaches-the-senate-what-next">this question</a> says that a trial needs to take place:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><strong>Is the Senate obligated to hold a trial?</strong></p>
<p>The Constitution clearly envisions that if the House impeaches a federal official, the next step is for the Senate to hold a trial.</p>
</blockquote>
 | united states donald trump congress senate trump impeachment | 1 |
62,485 | Why prosecute someone who has been promised a pardon? | <p>I am specifically thinking of the McCloskey Couple who had their week of fame/infamy in the summer of this year. When circuit attorney Kim Gardner issued charges against them, Missouri Gov. said he would "certainly pardon them" on multiple occasions, and even had a press conference with the McCloskey's attorney.</p>
<p>Given that -- what is the point of Kim Gardner's prosecution? Is it just grandstanding? And why would the McCloskey's waste their own time and money in court; if they have the guarantee of a pardon, why not just let the prosecutor do her thing and get the pardon if her prosecution succeeds.</p>
<p>Although Gardner's prosecution failed abysmally, and so did her subsequent appeal; I still think its an interesting principle, why would a prosecutor do anything if they know it will be overwritten by the head of the executive anyways.</p>
 | united states pardon special prosecutor | 0 |
62,487 | What are the modern arguments for state-based Senate seat allocation? | <p>Is there a logical rationale for grouping people by state for federal government representation today (e.g. the US Senate)? I understand that precedent and reluctance to fundamentally alter the US constitution are perhaps reason enough for most, but barring these arguments, if the bicameral legislature were to be redefined today, what arguments would be used on the side of state-based seat allocation for the Senate? For argument purposes consider a proportional representation scheme such as open party-list proportional representation as an alternative.</p>
 | united states senate | 0 |
62,488 | How is Congress' enforcement of Amendment 14 Section 3 of the Constitution not a Bill of Attainder? | <h1>Background</h1>
<p>According to <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/61900/19306">this answer</a> of <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/61899/who-enforces-the-insurrection-rules-in-the-14th-amendment-section-3">Who enforces the insurrection rules in the 14th Amendment, section 3?</a>, congress enforces Section 3 of the amendment just as it enforces all other sections of the Amendment.</p>
<p>However, Congress deeming any officeholder as outlined in that section as "having engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof" sounds like a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bill of Attainder</a>, which is defined by Wikipedia below:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A bill of attainder (also known as an act of attainder or writ of attainder or bill of penalties) is an act of a legislature declaring a person, or a group of persons, guilty of some crime, and punishing them, often without a trial.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In effect, it would be the legislature stating that someone committed a crime (Insurrection, rebelling, or giving aid or comfort to enemies thereof), and then punishing them by revoking their right to hold office. While it may adhere to the U.S. constitution, it would seem to go against the idea of the legislature deeming someone guilty and rendering punishment without a Judicial trial. This cutting against the grain of the "spirit of the law" led me to ask:</p>
<h1>Question</h1>
<p>How is congress' enforcement of Section 3 of the 14th amendment <em>not</em> a Bill of Attainder?</p>
 | united states legislature fourteenth amendment | 0 |
62,489 | Are there indications that the French government considered a carbon fee-and-dividend to assuage the yellow vests? | <p>A key reason for the yellow vest protests was that poorer households would have been proportionally more impacted by the proposed fuel tax increases. Carbon taxes are generally <em>regressive</em>, i.e. impose proportionally higher costs on poorer households.</p>
<p>If the policy objective was indeed to tax carbon fuels to discourage their use the French government could have proposed a carbon fee-and-dividend, i.e. a carbon fee that would be distributed equally to all citizens. This policy results in <em>progressive</em> outcomes, i.e. the costs of the policy would have primarily been imposed on richer households. It would have had the same effect on carbon fuel consumption, but at the same time it would have made the yellow vest protesters better off financially.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333507553_Yellow_Vests_Carbon_Tax_Aversion_and_Biased_Beliefs" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This 2020 paper</a> suggests that the implications of a cap-and-dividend policy were largely unknown to the French public, i.e. it was perceived as regressive just like the fuel tax increase. But I doubt that the French government was unaware of the implications of a carbon fee-and-dividend, which are widely studied and proven.</p>
<p>Are there any indications that the French government considered, but ultimately discarded, this policy option?</p>
 | taxes france protests climate change environmental policy | 0 |
62,493 | What would happen if Senators boycotted the Impeachment Vote | <p>I know it would take a 2/3rds majority vote in the Senate to convict Donald Trump in his second impeachment trial. But what if a substantial number of Senators boycotted the trial, and declined to vote at all? Would it just take 2/3rds of the actual voting Sentators to convict? Or is it the absolute number of yes votes that makes the difference?</p>
<p>Would it change things at all if the Senator was present, and voted "present" instead of casting a vote one way or another for conviction?</p>
 | united states voting senate impeachment senate rules | 1 |
62,494 | Do elected attorneys general and prosecutors in the U.S. sue companies more frequently when re-elections are upcoming? | <p>I get the sense that this is true from anecdotal examples, as attorneys general (especially those with higher political ambitions) try to win future votes by being “tough on corporations”.</p>
<p>But I don’t have any data to formally examine this. If there is any study that sheds light on this, please share.</p>
 | united states judiciary | 0 |
62,499 | What fraction of U.S. voters actually do due diligence in voting for positions such as comptrollers? | <p>For instance, the New York City Comptroller is elected. I’m honestly surprised that even such positions involve public elections.</p>
<p>Is there data on what fraction of voters actually participate to vote for such positions? Even more importantly, what fraction of voters actually look at the records of contenders to make <em>informed</em> votes?</p>
 | united states voter turnout | 0 |
62,504 | Were there any sanctions for the Khashoggi assassination? | <p>In 2018, opposition journalist Jamal Khashoggi was brutally <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_Jamal_Khashoggi" rel="noreferrer">assassinated</a> by Saudi Arabian agents.</p>
<p><strong>Were there any sanctions for that act?</strong></p>
 | united states middle east saudi arabia western world freedom of movement | 1 |
62,511 | Argument for why the electoral clause was not violated by balloting changes related to Covid-19 | <p>The electoral clause (article II, section I, clause 2) of the U.S. constitution states:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>If I understood correctly, part of the argument of the lawsuit filed by Texas and other states regarding the 2020 presidential elections, was that the "such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" part was violated when certain governors decided (as far as I know, without consulting their legislatures) to send out ballots due to the pandemic, changing the way the electors were usually chosen by the states.</p>
<p>I've looked online but have been unable to find legal arguments for why that argument is incorrect. In other words:</p>
<ol>
<li>What are arguments for why the electoral clause was actually not broken?</li>
</ol>
<p>As a second question, this does seem a question about an interpretation of the constitution, and I always thought the Supreme Court was ultimately in charge of those questions. So:</p>
<ol start="2">
<li>What was the rationale offered by the Supreme Court to not hear the lawsuit?</li>
</ol>
 | united states presidential election law supreme court electoral college | 0 |
62,516 | Have any Senators boycotted an impeachment vote? | <p><a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/a/62495/21921">This answer</a> to <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/q/62493/21921">What would happen if Senators boycotted the Impeachment Vote</a> points out that the Constitution does not compel Senators to vote in an impeachment trial:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of <em>two thirds of the members present</em>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><strong>Is there any historical precedent of a U.S. Senator not voting in an impeachment trial (for any kind of office)?</strong></p>
 | united states senate impeachment history | 1 |
62,520 | Constitutionality of senate trial of "President" without Chief Justice presiding | <p>Transcript <a href="https://www.rev.com/transcript-editor/shared/m4K2TzwpkjbZiJGU7t5c88L4F96evcI_VKbvjr4FClkcFEZure--S096g95OmoZ4vvrvJPPnTuvexLa6c6YTYoL3OuM?loadFrom=PastedDeeplink&ts=308.53" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Let’s start with the text of the Constitution, which in article one, section two gives the House the sole power of impeachment when the President commits high crimes and misdemeanors. We exercised that power on January 13th. The President, it is undisputed, committed his offense while he was president. And it is undisputed that we impeached him while he was president. There can be no doubt that this is a valid and legitimate impeachment, and there can be no doubt that the Senate has the power to try this impeachment.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So, the interpretation of the constitution on this point is that the act had to occur when the person was President. The impeachment occurred while they were President. So, the term "President" means anybody who is or has been "President".</p>
<p>But, the Constitution also says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Now, the word "President" has a very specific meaning- only the current sitting President. According to comments <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/25/politics/john-roberts-trump-impeachment/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said in an interview on MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Monday that "it was up to John Roberts whether he wanted to preside with a president who's no longer sitting. ... And he doesn't want to do it."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Aren't these two interpretations contradictory?</p>
 | united states senate impeachment trump impeachment | 1 |
62,521 | What is a common failure rate in postal voting? | <p>According to <a href="https://nos.nl/artikel/2368311-proef-met-poststemmen-in-den-haag-mislukt-meer-dan-de-helft-ongeldig.html" rel="noreferrer">reporting by Omroep West</a>, a postal voting trial in The Hague failed with over half of the ballots ruled invalid. The trial is an experiment for the upcoming general election in the Netherlands in which over 70s are allowed to cast their ballot by mail. Of the mock ballots cast in the trial, over half were invalid. Reasons named in the article are: lacking a signature or being submitted in the wrong envelope. Extrapolating to the expected number of mail-in ballots in the real election, the trial leader warns up to 650.000 people may cast an invalid postal vote.</p>
<p>This seems very odd to me, especially considering other elections abroad where postal voting has been used successfully. As such, I'm wondering what the failure rates are with postal voting in other countries. Are postal votes generally ruled invalid at a higher rate compared to in-person voting in the same election?</p>
 | election voting vote by mail | 1 |
62,526 | What would it take to win a presidential campaign with no staff? | <p>Imagine a person does not need to campaign to win, they are just adored by 60% of the country (USA) and does not need to do any press. How much work would it take to do all the paper work needed to become president by yourself with no staff?</p>
 | united states election president presidential election | 1 |
62,527 | Do senators have to attend an impeachment trial in order to be allowed to vote on the verdict? | <p>If a senator has not attended the trial or was not paying attention while at the trial, can that senator still show up on the day of the vote on the verdict and cast a vote?</p>
 | united states impeachment senate rules | 0 |
62,534 | What legal procedures apply to the impeachment? | <p>It was just reported by <a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/11/politics/gop-senators-trump-impeachment-lawyers/index.html" rel="noreferrer">CNN</a> that 3 GOP senators (Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Mike Lee) met with Trump's defense team today. When asked if meeting with senators (which are jurors) during the trial was appropriate, David Schoen (Trump lawyer) replied:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>There's nothing about this thing that has any semblance of due process whatsoever.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Is that correct? <em>Nothing</em>?</p>
 | united states impeachment trump impeachment senate rules | 1 |
62,541 | How does the international community differentiate between a "rights activist" and a separatist? | <p>This has been my personal observation for a long time that in some countries, when the government says that they are cracking down on separatism, the so-called "free world" come forward and designate those separatist individuals or groups(who are running a separatist movement in the disguise of human rights activism by obtaining foreign funds) with adjectives like " rights activist", "civil society", etc. and say that the " human rights situation is bad" in that particular country and "the government is suppressing freedom of speech."</p>
<p>How does the "free world" differentiate between "separatism" and "rights movement"? How do they differentiate between a separatist leader/activist and a rights activist?</p>
<p>Here are my examples:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I can recall the anarchy(e.g. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fr_wb8PzK5U" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hong Kong Protest: Rioters Beat Up Innocent Civilian</a>, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFLvKdonoFU" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Female HONG KONG protester beat up innocent grandpa</a>) in Hong Kong was appreciated and cheered by the free world, on the other hand, white house occupation/invasion was condemned.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Recently France introduced an <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/12/9/france-reveals-details-of-controversial-separatism-bill" rel="nofollow noreferrer">anti-separatism bill</a> in the parliament.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p>Here are my concerns:</p>
<ol>
<li><p><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-49765178" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Gulalai Ismail: Activist in hiding flees Pakistan for the US</a> - This lady <a href="https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/500505-two-ngos-head-charged-with-terror-financing" rel="nofollow noreferrer">received funds from a hostile government</a> to Pakistan to manufacture "Pashtun rights"-issue through a movement called PTM. One of its prominent leaders, Manzoor Pashteen, received training from the Afghan government.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Pakistani separatists <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahumdagh_Bugti" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Brahumdagh Bugti</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrbyair_Marri" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Hyrbyair Marri</a> are enjoying asylum in Switzerland and the UK respectively.</p>
</li>
<li><p><a href="https://amp.dw.com/en/why-is-the-pakistani-government-cracking-down-on-ngos/a-56537755" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Why is the Pakistani government cracking down on NGOs?</a> - A German media house says that Pakistan is cracking down on NGOs and "civil society" when there are concrete proofs that the CIA used Pakistani NGOs to implement their own agenda in Pakistan.</p>
</li>
</ol>
<p><strong>Hulk</strong> brought up Catalonia's separatism issue. I would like to remind him that Scotland and Catalonia are parts of the free world. So, the free world is saying nothing decisive in those cases. So, those cases are yielding mixed feelings.</p>
 | human rights freedom of speech | 0 |
62,549 | Why do so many Sheriffs run unopposed in the US? | <p>I read that nearly <a href="https://wholeads.us/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/reflectivedemocracy-americassheriffs-06.04.2020.pdf" rel="noreferrer">60% of the incumbent Sheriffs run unopposed</a>. Why is that?</p>
 | united states election police | 1 |
62,551 | Why are inmates allowed access to the internet and communications with the outside world? | <p>Currently, there is someone known as the "Tiger King" serving in federal prison for twice attempting to hire a hitman to kill someone.</p>
<p>He has access to twitter and other social media.</p>
<p>Given access to these means of communication, would that not allow him to carry on his search for a hitman to kill the person that he plotted for before being convicted?</p>
 | prison | 1 |
62,556 | Do Americans want to abolish the two-party system? If no, why not? If yes, why do they take actions that only strengthen it? | <p>Most countries have figured out that a two-party system is pretty inefficient. One could write a book or two about why this is so, but suffice it to say that a two-party system is too coarse to properly represent an entire political spectrum.</p>
<p>My question is twofold.</p>
<p>Firstly, I understand that some Americans realise this, and do want more parties. But many also do not want more parties. Here is one poll showing that there's maybe an equal number of people on both sides:</p>
<p><a href="https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/04/politics/two-party-system-poll/index.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/04/politics/two-party-system-poll/index.html</a>.</p>
<p>So I will ask a question for each group.</p>
<ol>
<li>To the people who do not want more parties, my question is simply ... why not? What arguments do these people offer?</li>
<li>To the people who do want more parties, my question is, why do even these people tend to take actions that help solidify the two-party system? Here, I am specifically referring to the notion of being "a conservative" or "a liberal". I've never spoken politics to an American without them using these terms to label themselves. Nobody does this in my country. Surely putting your entire political belief system into one of two boxes and labeling it like that, only helps strengthen the notion that there <strong>are</strong> only two systems and therefore two parties are the only ones needed to represent them? Obviously there's a "chicken or egg" thing going on here. Maybe these terms exist precisely because they are natural to use given that you live under a two-party system. But perhaps the two-party system exists because Americans really do think in such binary terms to begin with.</li>
</ol>
 | united states democracy parties political system | 0 |
62,558 | Does the presidential line of succession skip those who aren't Americans by birth? | <p>The United States has a predefined presidential plan of succession should both the President and Vice President be removed from office (encapsulating all reasons here). For example, it goes as follows:</p>
<ol>
<li>Speaker of the House</li>
<li>President pro tempore of the senate</li>
<li>Secretary of State</li>
<li>Secratary of the Treasury</li>
</ol>
<p>In order for one to be president, a particular condition is that they have American Citizenship by birth. My question is, should one of these cabinet members be foreign born, does the line of succession skip them?</p>
<p>This question here <a href="https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/14452/can-someone-in-the-presidential-line-of-succession-be-skipped">here</a> says that successors can be skipped, but this is in the case that the successor does <em>not want</em> to assume the Presidency. It doesn't cover the situation where a confirmed cabinet member <em>wants</em> the job but is foreign born.</p>
 | united states president succession | 0 |
62,559 | What does defeat on the Address mean? | <p>What's the "Address"?</p>
<p><a href="https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/queen-speech" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Queen’s Speech | The Institute for Government</a></p>
<blockquote>
<p>It is rare for the government to be <strong>defeated on the address</strong> in the Commons – as governments usually have a majority in the House. But it has happened – most recently in 1924, when Stanley Baldwin’s minority government was defeated. Baldwin then resigned as prime minister, and the opposition went on to form a new government.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><a href="https://www.ka.edu.pl/download/gfx/ksw/pl/defaultaktualnosci/1162/23/1/electionam.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.ka.edu.pl/download/gfx/ksw/pl/defaultaktualnosci/1162/23/1/electionam.pdf</a>, 5.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Stated simply, these conventions are, first, that the incumbent Prime Minister has the first opportunity
to continue in office and form an administration; secondly, that if he is unable to do so (and resigns, or
is <strong>defeated on the Address</strong> or in a no confidence motion at the meeting of the new Parliament) then
the Leader of the Opposition is appointed Prime Minister; and thirdly, it is for the political parties to
negotiate any inter-party agreement for government among themselves without royal involvement.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Colin Faragher's <em>Public Law Concentrate</em> 2019, 15.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>In the event of a hung Parliament the incumbent
Prime Minister has the first opportunity to
continue in office and form an administration.
If he or she is unable to do so (and resigns, or is
<strong>defeated on the Address</strong> or in a no confidence
motion at the meeting of the new Parliament)
then the Leader of the Opposition is appointed
Prime Minister. It is for the political parties
to negotiate any inter-party agreement for
government among themselves without royal
involvement.</p>
</blockquote>
 | united kingdom parliament terminology house of commons | 0 |