So me as a normal person needs to pay taxes on my 200k in retirement savings? Prop 40 can extend to normal people

That looks like an advantage, given the track record for Al Gore and Walter Mondale. ETA: Ah geez, how did I forget Kamala Harris?

He lost Tennessee, his home state, though.

Former Vice President Kamala Harris. Gavin Newsom has never been VP with a President who’s not running again.

I mean, given his competition, it still blew my mind that the election was close enough to be stolen. That cycle was key to the development of my Theory of Widespread Stupidity.

Oh god, I love that series of hearings. My favorite is when Bob Denver showed up, told Al Gore he was full of shit to his face, then bounced because he had a meeting with NASA

I’ve concluded it’s because I don’t have popular opinions. Honestly it makes me feel like voting won’t ever elect someone who actually represents me.

And I shouldn’t run for office because I won’t represent the constituents.

Government sucks and I hate it.

I personally voted in the 2024 presidential election in Alaska And ranked 4 presidents for the instant runnoff election. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_United_States_presidential_election_in_Alaska

Ahh yes, a third party with absolutely no support in the house. They'd get so much done, even in the 5% chance they actually get elected because the system is rigged for two parties.

Don't get me wrong. Would love a mamdani or even El sayed (sorry if it's misspelled, going off of memory) to be placed all over every part of our government. More AOC's and Sanders'. But we need to make the best short term option, not just help guarantee the win of the fascists by withholding votes or put them on a third party with no chance of winning. We're not ending this shit hole situation in a single election, so better to make progressive change than let the atrocities continue with full support from the entire government.

The UK constitution is written...

Eh... yes and no. But we'll get to that.

To answer your question, there's a principle in legal philosophy called the rule of recognition, which, basically, describes how a court determines what the law is.

The US constitution is considered the highest law of the land, and describes the process by which legislation has to be passed (usually by simple majority vote) by Congress and the Senate and assented to by the President before it becomes statutory law. It also describes the process by which the constitution itself can be amended, which is a much more stringent process. Basically, an amendment must be proposed and than accepted by either a national convention (which has never even been tried) or by being passed by a 2/3 majority vote in both the Congress and the Senate. It then has to be ratified by at least 3/4 of the states. Further, it also contains some amendments that limit what statutory law can do.

So the rule of recognition in the US is, basically, is the law constitutional? Which is to say, is the legislation enacted according to the rules in the constitution, and not invalidated by any of limits set out in the constitution? And if the answer to that question is "no" then the court will disapply that law. If legislation was passed saying slavery is legal again then, in theory at least, the court would say "no, there is a constitutional amendment that says slavery can't be legal, this is not good law". The only way to override that would be to pass a new amendment to remove that amendment. And unless the new amendment is passed according to the rules laid out, the courts would not recognise it. So in this way, the US legislature has very much been bound.

The fundamental principle of UK's constitution, on the other hand, is that the King-in-Parliament has absolute sovereignty. Now, while this is certainly acknowledged in legislation and lots of court decisions, it isn't written down in the sense that there is a clear definition of what that means.

The rule of recognition is generally taken to be that an Act passed by Parliament and given royal assent is the law, no matter what it says, and is the highest form of law in the land. To see an example of how seriously that is taken, see the mess that is the Human Rights Act 1998 and its "declaration of incompatibility" apparatus, which exists because courts cannot disapply an Act of Parliament. (To be clear I'm in favour of the European Convention/Court of Human Rights, I just think the HRA is massive bodge (precisely because our constitution is the way it is).) To see an example of how flexible it can be when it comes to interpreting Acts of Parliament, see the Metric Martyrs case decision.

It is an open questions as to what extent, if any, Parliament can bind itself because it's unclear what a court would do if an Act of Parliament was given royal assent despite the fact a previous Act of Parliament technically says it shouldn't have done. And to avoid a constitutional crisis, Parliament, by convention, doesn't try.