Except most state/local governments do have property taxes on houses, land, and cars. Not unrealistic to apply the same towards other assets. Specially since taxing homes and cars is counterintuitive because you're taxing necessities, while taxing monetary/investment assets like stocks would make more sense to encourage more spending instead of just hoarding the money.
It was a poor reference to a quote from the TV show Community. The half Palestinian character Abed says that his father's falafel restaurant had been struggling for a while because "9/11 was pretty much the 9/11 of the falafel business"
Sure, but the difference was he could've been charged for murder if, let's say, the person he ordered to be killed was a political opponent and not a clear threat to the nation. And Congress or judges would've had some power to make that call before, whereas they don't really seem to have that power anymore.
Also, strictly speaking in terms of what the founders wanted - they did not want the president to have those kinds of powers. Most of these things were really brought in during FDR's tenure during WWII where he took a lot of power for the executive branch. And it's a trend that's been continuing since.
Not really. The founders wanted a 3 pronged, balanced government with each branch checking the others' power. Now the legislative essentially can't do anything against the executive, and neither can the judicial unless SCOTUS changes its mind.
They specifically didn't want another king
If you have 1 of 1 bag of apples, you have 1 bag (1x1=1).
If you have 2 of 1 bag of apples, you have 2 bags (2x1=2).
If you have 3 of 1 bag of apples, you have 3 bags (3x1=3).
And so on...
@somethingp
@lemmy.world